It\'s odd that Canon who sells the lux 85 f/1.2 and inexpensive 85 f/2 (macro) would seemingly undercut themselves?
They'll probably charge enough for the licensing that the 85/1.4 from a third party would not be cheaper than their in-house 85/2. The 85/2 also would probably get some buyers for "being Canon," whether just for the name recognition, or because Canon's been making these things for a century and really knows what it's doing. (Lens Rentals takes apart all the lenses and seems really impressed with Canon's internal designs.) Or for the macro capability, or perhaps its higher image quality.
In Canon's shoes I might want to license only lenses that are less sharp than the in-house lenses, and Sigma wasn't willing to come up with worse designs?
I'm not really a Canon fan, it's more of a codependency. Since I got into the outfit in 1996 or so, I knew they were mainly doing what was best for them, not best for me, but also, what was best for them would probably benefit me a fair bit anyway (e.g., making really good equipment is a way to make money!). I sure wish Canon licensed every other maker to RF, but sigh, I know why it's not happening, and I'm not about to move to Sony or Nikon over it. It's also possible that a company that was so generous in that way might ultimately make less or no money and shut the product line down. So if Canon's being a greedy tightass that's an annoyance but one that could also conversely benefit me in the long run.
