01-15-2020, 07:26 AM
@ mst-
Sorry my comment seemed like negativity. I have been shooting mainly Canon, crop sensor and FF cameras. I don't own too many EF-S lenses because EF lenses work on both types of camera. So why have a large number of lenses that work only on some of my Canon cameras only?
The same goes for the EM mount and the RF mount. Some people will want the the native lenses, but the EF lenses will work fine with them too. Some of the EF lenses will always be great. And Sigma, Tamron, and others will be there to fill in the gaps.
I do question the Canon's logic of charging relatively little for more advanced mirrorless bodies, and effectively giving a huge portion of future of EF lens sales to third party lens makers. It seems to me Canon users will have the best of both worlds, so I am actually happy about this new direction. Really, the only negative is that I don't see why Canon doesn't try to price their RF lenses so they are attractive alternatives. This is a competitive market. If they are committed to RF then they better be prepared to compete in price. There are too many amazing EF lenses + RF adapters to be pretending that you can sell an RF 50 1.2L for $2,300 when you can by a brand new Sigma 50/1.4 "Art" for under $800 (plus a one time cost for an EF-RF adapter.
In fact the combined cost of the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF is over $150 less than Canon sells its RF 50/1.2 L.
So yes, I say ha! But not negatively. It's great for consumers. And I do fully believe all that was said about if consumers want this or that, then this or that will happen. And we can all look back in a year or two and see what consumers wanted. I know what I want!
Sorry my comment seemed like negativity. I have been shooting mainly Canon, crop sensor and FF cameras. I don't own too many EF-S lenses because EF lenses work on both types of camera. So why have a large number of lenses that work only on some of my Canon cameras only?
The same goes for the EM mount and the RF mount. Some people will want the the native lenses, but the EF lenses will work fine with them too. Some of the EF lenses will always be great. And Sigma, Tamron, and others will be there to fill in the gaps.
I do question the Canon's logic of charging relatively little for more advanced mirrorless bodies, and effectively giving a huge portion of future of EF lens sales to third party lens makers. It seems to me Canon users will have the best of both worlds, so I am actually happy about this new direction. Really, the only negative is that I don't see why Canon doesn't try to price their RF lenses so they are attractive alternatives. This is a competitive market. If they are committed to RF then they better be prepared to compete in price. There are too many amazing EF lenses + RF adapters to be pretending that you can sell an RF 50 1.2L for $2,300 when you can by a brand new Sigma 50/1.4 "Art" for under $800 (plus a one time cost for an EF-RF adapter.
In fact the combined cost of the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF is over $150 less than Canon sells its RF 50/1.2 L.
So yes, I say ha! But not negatively. It's great for consumers. And I do fully believe all that was said about if consumers want this or that, then this or that will happen. And we can all look back in a year or two and see what consumers wanted. I know what I want!