fwiw, my copy (sold) of the Siggy was much better (not marginally) than my previous 2 copies (also sold) of the Canon OG. Now, my current 24-105 is the Mk 2 EF and it is better than all of them. I know the reviews all say it's a very minor upgrade but it's a case of copy variance and YMMV as well. I love mine. I would never be deluded to think it would replace a proper wide angle prime or a short tele like the 100L. Please.....
en·thu·si·ast
For affordable camera sales, an affordable 24-105 is going to mean more than any number of affordable primes. Primes don't move that part of the market, and may not move any part of the market.
I wonder how many novices bought the 6D. I don't have any data, but I would think most 6D's were bought by people moving up from APS-C who understand the benefits of FF and aren't novices. Or maybe even people who were waiting for an affordable full-frame camera to replace a film SLR. Or who had outgrown a compact camera. I've been doing photography for 40 years, never shoot in Program mode, can't begin to count how many books I've read, how many hours reading web sites, etc., definitely not a novice, but I'm still on APS-C, because I still can't justify the expense of moving to full-frame. I can afford it, but a 6D, R, RP are slower than an 80D, 6D has less focus-point coverage, 6D2 isn't much of an improvement over 80D in noise, etc. And then there's the weight and size issue.
I'm one of those guys - but frankly an affordable and (fingers crossed) good quality 24-105 still sounds like a great compromise to me!
Well, physics is physics, but marketing is marketing. So... not necessarily.
This is where the word affordable may require some parsing. Compared to f2.8 zooms, f4 zooms seem sort of affordable at $1000 apiece, give or take, and Canon has the EF 16-35 f4L in that range, so a similar RF lens seems possible. All the FF zooms I can think of for significantly under $1000 initial selling price are variable aperture, except for the non IS EF 70-200L and the non IS EF 17-40L and both have been around for a while. Other than the 17-40, I can't think of any FF UWA less expensive than the EF 16-35 f4 IS. I traded my 17-40 in for a 16-35 f4 and have never regretted it. I doubt there will be an RF comparable to the 17-40. There might be an RF UWA variable aperture with IS but I can't remember any precedent for one.
At first, I also was intrigued by this configuration, but then I thought of the way I often use manual focus: iso is set, aperture is set, speed is set, but I'm having trouble focusing for any number of reasons. At that moment, I'll switch to manual focus and take the shot without having to change anything else.
There's also a significant market of people who can easily afford the more expensive lenses, but buy the 'entry level' ones because they are small and light. I could buy all of the exotic new RF L lenses tomorrow and not notice the difference in my bank account, but my back would feel it when I'm hiking, and international travel with hand-luggage only would be completely impossible. I've picked up an RP and 24-240 as a compact travel kit to dip my toes in the water and am hoping at some point a 50/1.4 comes along that has good rendering and is no bigger than the old 50/1.4 USM. If some RF lenses come along that equal the EF 16-35/4 and 70-300L in optical performance but are noticeably more compact or lighter I'll probably pick those up, but I have no use for anything bigger than my existing lenses.
It can, but it is not any fun that way. The touch bar is much better suited for on/off features like the histogram, level, or magnification.
Looking good and strong Canon - along with those two rumored 2 FF RF cameras should take it to Sony and have a royale Battle. Hopefully Nikon can join the battle as well.
