Because this is what I see when I talk with them. They want cool fast lenses.
Your anecdotal "them" (obviously, you know all the kids on the Internet), why aren't they buying the RF 35/1.8?
Again go watch videos comparing a kit lens mirroless to an iphone. In most cases the iphone is better which is why they aren't selling well to this segment. They have a better camera in their pocket for free
Is it any different from how it was with film SLRs and film P&S 25-30 years ago? As far as I remember, it wasn't.
Still, people were buying Canon SLRs with kit lenses then, people are buying Canon ILCs with kit lenses now. Maybe you don't know why, but Canon does.
Absolutely. Most of the people I know in this space like it because they want to work a job where they can do what the want when they want.
Most kids that want to be doctors won't become doctors. Most kids that want to be "content creators" won't be able do youtubing for living.
Still, medicine as a hobby doesn't constitute a viable market, I'm afraid. "Content creation" as a hobby does.
They don't have to go into an office. They spend their days shooting content and streaming themselves online playing video games.
"Streaming themselves online playing video games" requires a cheap fast FF lens?
How come?
Again that isn't a native lens. Their gear is part of the cool factor.
30 years ago "isn't a native lens" was a part of the cool factor. Why do you think it isn't now? Because Sony said so?
Isn't being able to use CPL or VND adapter "cool"?
Isn't being able to use tilt lenses (not available so far natively for any mirrorless mount, but available "the most natively" on Canon) "cool"?
But they do have a competitor Sony and smartphones.
Sony is not in the business of producing printers.
Sony, though, in the business of producing game consoles, where it behaves in the same way: artificially cheap consoles are funded by selling games to play on them.
We agree here. But instead of creating demand
Do you know the story of the Old Bull, Young Bull?
Kodak was "creating demand" for digital SLRs. Then Canon came to this market.
Sony was "creating demand" for APSc MILCs. Then Canon came to this market...
Canon might not be the best at "looking ahead" (no one is, to be frank. It's just that some happen to be lucky, while most happen to be not). But Canon is very good at looking around.
Canon is seeing demand in cheap light telephoto lenses, though, and is fulfilling it better than anyone else does. Your "content creators" don't see the use for content where their own heads are not in the frame? Sucks to be them; someone else will.
You were talking about how you wanted to get a 15-35/2.8 IS lens twice as cheap as it was actually selling by reducing the costs of the materials keeping the optical specs intact, I said that it's impossible. Then you started to point on an absolutely different lens. Why?
No I'm asking them to produce lenses that people who use smartphones attractive to convert them to camera users instead of conceeding the market to smartphones.
No, that's what they are actually doing (for the lenses that are able to bring profit). You are asking something different.
Again, I've stated over and over it didn't need the same optical specs.
Lolwhat? Quoting verbatim:
Take the RF15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM for $2400. Why not make a lens with the same specs that is made of cheaper materials, a motor that isn't as smooth and quiet has a longer minimum focusing distance, less durability, not weather sealed and sell it for $1200 which would be $100 more than the Sigma version?
The Canon at $2400 is much better than the Sigma at $1100. But only for someone doing professional work that is going to be viewed optimally. If you are shooting content that is going to be seen on a 6" screen you don't need the best optical specs. You do need fast aperatures however to recreate the look people are going for.
Nah. Your Sigma lens costs about the same as RF 16/2.8, RF 24/1.8,
and RF 35/1.8 combined, has slower aperture and worse macro capabilities... and don't tell me you are going to zoom while recording videos with shallow DoF. Also, your Sigma cannot be used with standard filters (RF 24/1.8 and 35/1.8 share the common 52mm filter thread, 16/2.8 uses 43mm filters).
Besides, if you really want a 14-24/2.8 Sigma, you can get the older one in EF mount, including the adapter, for the same price as the new one withot an adapter. But if you are really short on the money, obviously buying primes one by one as needed is a better choice, too.
Maybe Canon
does know the market better than you do? What do you think?
Again, if this is true then Canon is essentially riping you off. Because Sigma can make the same lense more less than half the cost.
It cannot. The lens that Sigma actually makes has shorter zoom range (doesn't include very useful 35mm), a bulbous front element,
and lacks IS.
