I think this kind of R&D is total waste of resources for Canon. they are still way behind Sony in general, and Fuji for street/travel photography. F1 lenses are exotic products that a tiny number of users could benefit from. There are much more important and useful things to do. Canon need to change and doing these F1 one would be Canon hanging to the old business model. Let Sigma do these specialty products. Instead invest in new innovative bodies, proper in-camera processing technology and solid general purpose lenses.
IMO, an f/1.0 lens (or faster) is not really about 'more light'. This is not 1975 with Kubrik needing to shoot in candlelight at f/0.7 on film. Those lenses were developed for NASA to shoot the dark side of the moon, but they didn't bring that old Zeiss lens on Artemis II...the fastest lens was a 35/2 and the rest were f/2.8 zooms. Rather, it's about the razor thin DoF you can achieve with such a lens.
Oh, ok. Why are you here? What makes you different from the other trolls who show up here?
If you prefer APS-C for that use case, that's your choice.
@blackcoffee17 nailed this one...halo lenses are just that.
You mean the business model that has enabled Canon to lead the camera market for 23 years and counting?
Canon has done so, quite successfully. For example, what other manufacturer uses every pixel on the sensor for autofocus and has cross-type AF sensitivity like the R1? What other manufacturer offers a 24-105mm f/2.8 general purpose lens? As for in-camera processing, DLO is available in-camera and corrects for even challenging issues like field curvature.
The RF 28-70/2 gives you the first two in one lens, and the RF 85/2 already exists.
I don’t think it is clear in the article, but this rumour for the Sigma is for an autofocusing lens.
Even so, the blog post lists four other faster-than-f/1 manual focus lenses. Of course, those are for the RF mount...but then the article throws a non-RF 135/1.4 lens into the discussion.
That is the theory behind those products. In practice I don't think that is working. Canon is falling behind and the successful brands are not successful by doing this kind of stuff. Sony is great because of a broader ecosystem, great cameras in different form factors many of which Canon do not produce, and Fuji have interesting JPEG processing and compact systems. Canon seems to always be doing the same old same old. I am invested in Canon RF but I see the gaps and Canon does not seem to move in the right directions.
Do you realize how foolish stating something like that makes you look? This is Canon 'falling behind'.
The graphic is global market share (units) for 2024 (the latest year for which data are available; those reports come out in late summer / early fall for the prior year). Japan represents <7% of the global market, and it's really not a representative fraction based on composition.
