Boy, they just really want to get rid of everything "EF". It never occurred to them to support and continue both lines? Just say the hell with all you people who like your EF products.
It is when you're being dramatic and hyperbolic.ONE lens which was high-end enough it probably didn't sell very many units, and that's "everything"?
Canon sells a lot of EF lenses for non-Canon cameras.The stupidity for Canon, a non-welfare company, would be to invest into developing in parallel two lens lines, this would be suicidal regarding the current camera market.
I've been eying the the EF135L for some years now, but I newer could find a good enough excuse to spend the toy budget on that. I think I have a few more years to decideIt is quite funny that on European websites (Calumet for instance), one can still find many immediately available "discontinued" lenses.
So, whoever regrets their disappearance, shouldn't complain but buy!
And, besides, there is still a huge choice of mint used lenses to get from reputable dealers or private owners. There won't be a lack of EF lenses for the next decades...[..]
There is absolutely no excuse for not buying the EF 135 f2, it's no toy, but an absolute necessity !I've been eying the the EF135L for some years now, but I newer could find a good enough excuse to spend the toy budget on that. I think I have a few more years to decide
This is right, but do these sales justify further EF lens production? Keeping two separate production lines is ruinous, unfortunately...Canon sells a lot of EF lenses for non-Canon cameras.
RED is the only other camera company to adopt RF.
Canon also sells lenses for other mounts like PL and B4.
My post could easily be misinterpreted, my fault...I assume those lenses are sold at a profit.
The sales not replaced by RF lenses would only be lost revenue.
Canon is in business not only to sell cameras but also to sell lenses.
Is it? We can't know that. We can only speculate....Keeping two separate production lines is ruinous, unfortunately...
Sigma manages to stay in business making lenses for multiple lines.Is it? We can't know that. We can only speculate.
It may be that Canon produces a pre-determined number of lenses based on projected demand and then switches a line over to another lens. With certain less popular lenses, a single production line might be used for quite a few different lenses, switching it up as demand changes.
I suspect, but don't know, that the bigger challenge may be parts rather than production lines. What parts are unique to individual lenses and what parts are not? With composite lens bodies, switching up different lenses may be fairly easy, as they might simply change the molds being used to match the particular lenses. I don't think we can speculate with any accuracy about the necessary minimum number of any particular lens that is required to turn a profit.
How about two f/2 1800 mm for 2 billion dollars?If I remember well, Leica in 2006 made one telephoto lens (Apotelyt f 5,6/1600mm) for sheikh Mohammed Al Thani.
It's been said they charged 2 million dollars.
And they certainly did make a profit...
But what makes sense for a smaller company, mobilizing an entire staff on such a project, wouldn't work that easily for Canon.
Unless: prestige were at stake (NASA, ESA etc...)
Or for a Justin Bieber concert?
With a 900mm front lens diameter...How about two f/2 1800 mm for 2 billion dollars?