A good incentive for owners of the EF SKUs of these lenses to upgrade would be dropping the physical weight by ~33-50%Given the likely prices of these (calling it now, 300mm $8000, 200mm $9500, 500mm $11000), if you can afford the lens, then you can afford a sherpa to lug it for you thus weight is a non-issue.
Sorry Blue Zurich, I shouldn't really have responded as I did in my earlier post. I was being a bit snippy. The point I was trying to make is that I think the "sticker effect" can happen with just about any lens, certainly any lens which has a wide maximum aperture and is pretty sharp even wide open, and Sigma lenses are no worse than their peers when it comes to the "sticker effect".
www.canonrumors.com
) be interested to have a read.
Yep, I was involved in many of those discussions, as a former self (been on here since nearly the beginning)Sorry Blue Zurich, I shouldn't really have responded as I did in my earlier post. I was being a bit snippy. The point I was trying to make is that I think the "sticker effect" can happen with just about any lens, certainly any lens which has a wide maximum aperture and is pretty sharp even wide open, and Sigma lenses are no worse than their peers when it comes to the "sticker effect".
The issue has been discussed before on CR (I think well before I recall seeing your handle on CR), for example see
No New 50mm Lens Coming in 2017 [CR2]
My interest has been peaked with the news that Canon is looking into an f1.0 design :O With the latest Canon technology that could be amazing! I would be interested if we knew any more about the time frame though. No availability in 2017 sucks, but I would hope it was 2018 not later... I'd...
You may (or may not!
Yeah, I am thinking the timeline is likely the biggest hurdle here, other than price after the fact. I have moved pretty much exclusive into RF glass (I still have some static video cameras on EF) and I don't want to go backwards in mounts, so I imagine that the wait time is going to be intense.
Why do you think (or know) so?
As you aptly pointed out there are alternatives that are cheaper.
I presume that the development cost of all the big whites was immense and still being paid for. Most of it was 3-5(?) years ago and paying off well because it yields the dividends of applying to different mounts and different focal lengths. Which is a beneficial feature, not a criticism or flaw (though it doesn’t trigger the novelty dopamine hit sought by some). It’s like Tesla buyers complaining that the Model S design hasn’t been substantially changed in 10 years.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough: what I meant by "development cost was likely to be marginal" is that the incremental development cost (outside of the original cost of developing the Big White lenses and the RF 2xTC) was likely to be marginal. I'm not going to argue against the development cost of the Big Whites as still being paid for (even when used in both EF and RF mounts).
Not sure the f/2 was optically noticeably better than the f/1.8 which had the advantage of lead optical elements (it was better - but it was also f/2 and not f/1.8), however it was just a pain to handle with so much front weight whereas the f/2 - even if not significantly lighter - could be used for all-day shooting.
