# Canon will release a trio of RF mount wide angle L prime lenses in the first half of 2023



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 14, 2022)

The eternally rumoured Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM (or f/1.4) has been rumoured for what seems forever. We’ve seen this before with certain lenses, most notably the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II. They existed and took forever to actually get announced and hit the market. We have been told

See full article...


----------



## Kiton (Dec 14, 2022)

A 28 f2 would be great. 1.4 will make a lot of people happy but Canon really should do line like the Nikon G 1.8 and fill it with 20/24/28/35/50/85.
It would not be that hard to have a team sit down and do those designs back to back. Since canon refuses to allow Sigma to make RF lenses, I am sure they would sell a bucket load of these primes.

The fact we still do not have 50 1.4 is nothing short of shockingly bad management.


----------



## hobbodanno (Dec 14, 2022)

I’d love to see a 14 or 16 with at least f/1.8.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 14, 2022)

Kiton said:


> The fact we still do not have 50 1.4 is nothing short of shockingly bad management.


Or lack of demand.


----------



## another_mikey (Dec 14, 2022)

As a nightscape enthusiast, really want something in the 14 to 20 range with a wide open aperture in the f/1.2 to f/2.0 range, with really low coma distortion in the corners. Hard to believe a company that has supported multiple astro modified camera bodies has not followed through on a lens like that for the RF mount.


----------



## amorse (Dec 14, 2022)

I wonder if they'll come with a new rumoured body as well?


----------



## TonyG (Dec 14, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Or lack of demand.


That's what my wallet said when my only option was to either buy the tiny $270 1.8 STM or the $3000 1.2 L. (I am in Canada, so I used Canadian Pricing)
If only there was a demand for a middle class 50 like a 50mm 1.4 IS Macro to match the 24 IS Macro, 35 IS Macro and 85 IS Macro. 
That would be a sweet combo for anyone starting out or a hobbyist wanting decently fast glass without having to break the bank to get the L's. 
I could see even Semi-Pros rocking these combos.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 14, 2022)

another_mikey said:


> As a nightscape enthusiast, really want something in the 14 to 20 range with a wide open aperture in the f/1.2 to f/2.0 range, with really low coma distortion in the corners. Hard to believe a company that has supported multiple astro modified camera bodies has not followed through on a lens like that for the RF mount.


Really a shame. They could have paired its release with the EOS Ra :/ 
As rumors have it, the Ra might get a follow up camera based on R6 or R5. Maybe will get lucky then. Although I personally believe that this rumored camera is years away :/


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 14, 2022)

another_mikey said:


> As a nightscape enthusiast, really want something in the 14 to 20 range with a wide open aperture in the f/1.2 to f/2.0 range, with really low coma distortion in the corners. Hard to believe a company that has supported multiple astro modified camera bodies has not followed through on a lens like that for the RF mount.


Ive oft suggested that Canon will release a 12mm F? (hopefully F2 or better) because all the other UWA options have become wider. There is no need anymore for a EF 14mm F2.8 in RF mount, so hopefully it becomes a 12mm and the F decreases (or is it increases because there is more light coming in???)


----------



## chasingrealness (Dec 14, 2022)

I’d love to see a 20mm in the lineup.


----------



## nunataks (Dec 14, 2022)

I feel like a 20, 24, and 35 would make more sense with camera manufacturers catering more to the vlogging wide angle crowd now. But also, come on and give us the damn 50mm f/1.4...there's over $2000 in the price gap between the current 50mm we have.


----------



## roby17269 (Dec 14, 2022)

Please please please Canon let the 35mm be the first one!  and I'd love for it to be a 1.2... purely for bragging rights 

I can wait for the 24 longer since I still have the amazing TS-E 24mm II which I like a lot and has become much more useable with the manual focus assist mechanisms in the R5.

As for the 3rd one, I am in the camp of the wider the better. A 12mm would be sweet  ... a TS 14mm would be even sweeter 

Incidentally, any news on when the 135 1.8 will start shipping?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 14, 2022)

chasingrealness said:


> I’d love to see a 20mm in the lineup.


F1.4?


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 14, 2022)

nunataks said:


> give us the damn 50mm f/1.4...there's over $2000 in the price gap between the current 50mm we have.


It's not only the price gap: There is a huge difference in IQ, AF and of course built quality. I got the 50mm F1.8 super cheap recently. But it is just a lense to play around or take when one only wants very light gear. 

I'd wish/ hope for a 50mm F1.4 with the size and controls like the 35mm F1.8 with a similar price tag. It doesn't need to be an L lense.


----------



## Bonich (Dec 14, 2022)

hobbodanno said:


> I’d love to see a 14 or 16 with at least f/1.8.


Bingo!
This is the only fast wide angle I really need. I wouldn't be happy to be forced towards Sony for this very specific use case.


----------



## Bonich (Dec 14, 2022)

roby17269 said:


> Please please please Canon let the 35mm be the first one!  and I'd love for it to be a 1.2... purely for bragging rights
> 
> I can wait for the 24 longer since I still have the amazing TS-E 24mm II which I like a lot and has become much more useable with the manual focus assist mechanisms in the R5.
> 
> ...


35mm? I will hold my EF (which isn't too bad btw)
24mm: serious jobs: TS-E 24mm, leisure shots: the RF 24 1.8 IS is neither slow nor bad.

My needs are the 135 and something like 14mm 1.8.


----------



## kaihp (Dec 14, 2022)

I'm probably gonna put my ignorance of (and non-use of) WA lenses out there, but wouldn't three lenses of 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm seem too closely spaced together?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 14, 2022)

Im waiting for the RF 85mm f1.4L IS USM but would definitely be interested in a 28mm f1.4L lens.


----------



## Juangrande (Dec 14, 2022)

The fact that you’ve written or (1.4) in discussing the long awaited RF 35 1.2 L is making me uncomfortable. That thing better not be a 1.4! I’ll be pissed as I’ve been waiting forever for a 1.2 35. I also was gonna buy the 135 1.4 that ended up being a 1.8 which I already have in the Sigma. But the 35 1.2 is my dream lens. I would be interested in a fast 28 1.2 though. My first lens when I was in high school was a 28 and I’ve always liked that perspective as well. But a 35 is perfect for editorial/environmental portrait work.


----------



## Skux (Dec 14, 2022)

kaihp said:


> I'm probably gonna put my ignorance of (and non-use of) WA lenses out there, but wouldn't three lenses of 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm seem too closely spaced together?


As you get wider, the difference in field of view gets larger. Going from 20mm to 24mm is far more dramatic than say 50mm to 55mm. So you can really tell and feel the difference between wider angles, each has its own character.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 14, 2022)

As long as the prices aren‘t breath taking…


----------



## photographer (Dec 14, 2022)

404 - File Not Found


----------



## photographer (Dec 14, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Or lack of demand.


I think the demand would be. Many people would welcome a cheaper lens with a slightly worse aperture.


----------



## navastronia (Dec 14, 2022)

photographer said:


> 404 - File Not Found


Yep, I can't read it, either.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 14, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> As long as the prices aren‘t breath taking…


I'm afraid they could cause a severe asthma crisis...


----------



## David Raboin (Dec 14, 2022)

I've been shooting a lot with both the RF 24 1.8 and RF 35 1.8. I'm trying to decide which focal length I like better so that when these L lenses are in stock I'll know which one to buy. I also shoot a lot with a Ricoh GRiii which is 28mm. Kinda hoping canon makes a nice RF 28 some day.


----------



## navastronia (Dec 14, 2022)

I'm still hoping for a 14-28/2 to sit alongside the 28-70/2.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Dec 14, 2022)

kaihp said:


> I'm probably gonna put my ignorance of (and non-use of) WA lenses out there, but wouldn't three lenses of 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm seem too closely spaced together?


I don't know if they would be positioned too closely together, but personally I would love to see a 16 or 18 millimeter f1.4 lens instead of 28mm one


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 14, 2022)

Kiton said:


> The fact we still do not have 50 1.4 is nothing short of shockingly bad management.


Canon knows how many EF50/1.4 they sold but it was a pretty poor lens in general for both IQ and quality control. Getting a "good" copy was tricky.
It would make sense for one given the massive cost differential between the current RF50mm options.


----------



## navastronia (Dec 14, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Canon knows how many EF50/1.4 they sold but it was a pretty poor lens in general for both IQ and quality control. Getting a "good" copy was tricky.
> It would make sense for one given the massive cost differential between the current RF50mm options.



If 3rd party AF lens support was permitted, I think we'd have 2 or 3 of these available already.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 14, 2022)

another_mikey said:


> As a nightscape enthusiast, really want something in the 14 to 20 range with a wide open aperture in the f/1.2 to f/2.0 range, with really low coma distortion in the corners. Hard to believe a company that has supported multiple astro modified camera bodies has not followed through on a lens like that for the RF mount.


The EF14mm was not a good astrolandscape lens and expensive. I am not sure what the use case for it would have been.
Are many users shooting wide angle for Ha band? I can understand the deep space use case but for wide angle is more rare. When I see wide angle shots with Ha I find the final images to be a bit unrealistic - which they are compared to the human eye spectrum.


----------



## Quentin (Dec 14, 2022)

Still waiting for the long-time rumored RF 10-24 f/4L to replace my last original EF Canon glass

And as for Astro: Canon wasn't good at coma so far and not only from a price point competitors like Rokinon/Samyang or Sigma were more attractive in the field. Samyang has a 14mm RF on the market, but I want to replace a Samyang XP lens, don't want an autofocus one but rather the higher quality of the XP series on the RF mount. Let's see what Samyang will do with RF in future, it got silent...


----------



## melgross (Dec 14, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Or lack of demand.


That’s a good point. When I was a lot younger, the 50 came in every body. That’s was it, either buy a body, kr buy one with a 50. Everything we learned said that 50 was the natural perspective (not really true). These days people either but bodies, or buy them with some zoom. I see fewer 50mm lenses over time. A few years ago, making very expensive 50s was a thing. I’m not so sure most people cared. Look at smartphones. What’s the normal? 24 to 26mm equivalent. I think that regular camera users gave come to see that as more important than 50.


----------



## yorchsans (Dec 14, 2022)

Kiton said:


> A 28 f2 would be great. 1.4 will make a lot of people happy but Canon really should do line like the Nikon G 1.8 and fill it with 20/24/28/35/50/85.
> It would not be that hard to have a team sit down and do those designs back to back. Since canon refuses to allow Sigma to make RF lenses, I am sure they would sell a bucket load of these primes.
> 
> The fact we still do not have 50 1.4 is nothing short of shockingly bad management.



but it almost exist now, I have 16mm f2.8 , 24mm f1.8, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f2, all excellent lenses and with macro capabilities . I do weddings with this lenses and nothing to complain and im coming from Ef L and Art lenses adapted


----------



## nunataks (Dec 14, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> The fact that you’ve written or (1.4) in discussing the long awaited RF 35 1.2 L is making me uncomfortable. That thing better not be a 1.4! I’ll be pissed as I’ve been waiting forever for a 1.2 35. I also was gonna buy the 135 1.4 that ended up being a 1.8 which I already have in the Sigma. But the 35 1.2 is my dream lens. I would be interested in a fast 28 1.2 though. My first lens when I was in high school was a 28 and I’ve always liked that perspective as well. But a 35 is perfect for editorial/environmental portrait work.



Wouldn't make a TON of sense to do a f/1.4 since the f/1.8 is already around $500 unless they charge $3000 for the f/1.2 (which knowing Canon they would...).


----------



## syder (Dec 14, 2022)

TonyG said:


> That's what my wallet said when my only option was to either buy the tiny $270 1.8 STM or the $3000 1.2 L. (I am in Canada, so I used Canadian Pricing)
> If only there was a demand for a middle class 50 like a 50mm 1.4 IS Macro to match the 24 IS Macro, 35 IS Macro and 85 IS Macro.
> That would be a sweet combo for anyone starting out or a hobbyist wanting decently fast glass without having to break the bank to get the L's.
> I could see even Semi-Pros rocking these combos.



I think that eventually a RF 50 f1.4 probably makes sense, especially with the lack of 3rd party RF glass, but the existing f1.8 is pretty much ideal for someone starting out.

The current step up from that is using adapted glass like the Sigma EF 50 f1.4 or even the Canon EF 50 f1.2 which are both in between the costs of the two RF options and work well for those wanting better glass than the RF 1.8 but who can't justify the cost of the RF f1.2.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 14, 2022)

Kiton said:


> ...
> 
> The fact we still do not have 50 1.4 is nothing short of shockingly bad management.


Or, more likely, quite the opposite. Do you seriously not think that Canon has sales figures for how popular a 50mm 1.4 lens is? Do you seriously not think that Canon does considerable market research? The 50mm 1.4 is pretty obviously a low seller, low priority lens.


----------



## danfaz (Dec 15, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Or, more likely, quite the opposite. Do you seriously not think that Canon has sales figures for how popular a 50mm 1.4 lens is? Do you seriously not think that Canon does considerable market research? The 50mm 1.4 is pretty obviously a low seller, low priority lens.


----------



## bbasiaga (Dec 15, 2022)

kaihp said:


> I'm probably gonna put my ignorance of (and non-use of) WA lenses out there, but wouldn't three lenses of 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm seem too closely spaced together?


I think few people will buy all 3. Its possible that the release of all 3 at the same time, or at least announcement of them at the same time, is so people know what's coming so they can pick their favorite. Just speculation. People seem to have a favorite among these focal lengths and stick to that. 

If the 24 is not too pricy and good for astro, I might go for it. I think it'll be $2k though. Which means I won't. The non-L 24 would be fine, but it gets a lot of mediocre to poor reviews for astro. I'd really like the new Sigma 20mm, which gets good reviews for astro. Maybe soon on the canon system. 

-Brian


----------



## neurorx (Dec 15, 2022)

I wonder what the price of an RF 35 mm will be?


----------



## jdavidse (Dec 15, 2022)

I am a newly converted 28mm fan. I used to swear by the 35 as my go-to general purpose prime, but I am loving 28 much more. I am very excited about the rumor of a 28 1.4L.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 15, 2022)

A 28mm f/1.4-1.8 with a close focusing distance would be rather awesome. I am very find of 28mm on my film cameras, as well as my 18mm on Fuji. It would be pretty excellent to see what it can do.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 15, 2022)

Since astro doesn't need autofocus, I wonder if a RF TS-E 14mm would be a fun option if it has low coma. Can't imagine the price tag though and autofocus was rumoured.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Dec 15, 2022)

kaihp said:


> I'm probably gonna put my ignorance of (and non-use of) WA lenses out there, but wouldn't three lenses of 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm seem too closely spaced together?


One of the finest wide lenses I had was the Sigma 24-35 f/2. 3 primes in one.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 15, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Or lack of demand.


That's more likely, given how well 1.8 sold(is heavily recommended as 2nd lens after kit lens for starters) and 1.2 being bought by Pros have rarely seen 1.4 in recent years(I do own a Pentax SMC-M 50mm 1.4 though along with couple of vinatage K mount lenses)


----------



## Snapster (Dec 15, 2022)

I'm definitely not onboard with Canon's strategy of offering only entry level lenses and uber expensive and bulky L lenses.

I need my lenses weather sealed so that pretty much rules out the cheaper lenses. The prices rule out most L lenses. There's a massive gap between a $200 and $2500 50mm lens. I'm not going to get either and don't really understand why they won't let third party manufacturers fill that gap.

Also, lenses that weigh 500-600 grams feel perfectly balanced with R5/R6. We badly need 1.4 primes in that weight class with weather sealing.


----------



## Joel C (Dec 15, 2022)

24, 28 and 35mm? I would really be surprised to see them all so close together like that. I would much rather see one of these in the 8-12mm range. Seeing as the only real wide angle lens in the RF line up is that strange fish eye at 5.2mm (We all know what that lens is really for...)


----------



## photographer (Dec 15, 2022)

melgross said:


> That’s a good point. When I was a lot younger, the 50 came in every body. That’s was it, either buy a body, kr buy one with a 50. Everything we learned said that 50 was the natural perspective (not really true). These days people either but bodies, or buy them with some zoom. I see fewer 50mm lenses over time. A few years ago, making very expensive 50s was a thing. I’m not so sure most people cared. Look at smartphones. What’s the normal? 24 to 26mm equivalent. I think that regular camera users gave come to see that as more important than 50.


It depends on what you are shooting. I shoot mainly portraits and nudes and I have a Canon RF 50 1.2 (+ other EF lenses from Canon and Sigma) and I'm looking forward to the RF 35 1.2. With mobile phones, people use wide lenses also because most mobile phones do not offer other and also because they want to capture where they are in their selfies. The main goal is not to make a good portrait, but to show that I am in Hawaii.


----------



## JTP (Dec 15, 2022)

Never been more excited to see this announcement about the 35! Let's goooooo baby!


----------



## photographer (Dec 15, 2022)

neurorx said:


> I wonder what the price of an RF 35 mm will be?


You are not alone.  Canon RF 35 1.2 L - I would guess at a similar price to RF 50 1.2 L. And for Canon RF 35 1.4 L - let´s say price of Sigma Art 35 + 500 USD.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 15, 2022)

navastronia said:


> I'm still hoping for a 14-28/2 to sit alongside the 28-70/2.


And a 70-135mm F2 (or 70-140mm) to complete the trinity


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 15, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> Im waiting for the RF 85mm f1.4L IS USM but would definitely be interested in a 28mm f1.4L lens.


Unless you plan on getting a camera without IBIS like the R5 C there is no benefit to having IS on an 84 mm lens.








Camera + lens stabilisation | which Canon lenses work best?


With the EOS R5 and R6 cameras the first to offer in-body image stabilisation (IBIS), this can work in conjunction with Canon’s optical IS systems to offer up to 8 stops. But it’s not additive.




www.eos-magazine.com




All 85 mm lenses get the same 8 stops.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 15, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> And a 70-135mm F2 (or 70-140mm) to complete the trinity


I am all for that, but what would be the third one?
I hope you are not including the Sigma 24-35mm f/2.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2022)

Snapster said:


> I need my lenses weather sealed so that pretty much rules out the cheaper lenses.


If you need weather sealed lenses, that rules out all non-L lenses. Sorry, but L lenses are typically expensive. There have been only a few under $1K and only one of those sealed (17-40/4L, which I think barely qualifies as L from an IQ standpoint). 

If you’re talking primes, to get the L moniker and the weather sealing that comes with it, they’re going to be the fastest in-class with great IQ, and that means expensive. 



Snapster said:


> There's a massive gap between a $200 and $2500 50mm lens. I'm not going to get either and don't really understand why they won't let third party manufacturers fill that gap.


Canon’s goal isn’t to give you what you want. Their goal is profit, and if they can make more of that by pushing some people to buy expensive lenses and blocking 3rd parties from making AF lenses for the RF mount, then they will.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 15, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I am all for that, but what would be the third one?
> I hope you are not including the Sigma 24-35mm f/2.


Third lense is already out: the RF 28-70mm F2 
Add a UWA 14-28mm F2 and a 70-135mm (or 140mm) and voila: there's your F2 trinity


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you need weather sealed lenses, that rules out all non-L lenses. Sorry, but L lenses are typically expensive. There have been only a few under $1K and only one of those sealed (17-40/4L, which I think barely qualifies as L from an IQ standpoint). [...]


And even that one needs a front filter added to complete the seal. The IQ is decent, if you stay at APS-H or smaller  For full frame, the non-L RF16mm beats it in every metric, after optical corrections.


----------



## Snapster (Dec 15, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon’s goal isn’t to give you what you want. Their goal is profit, and if they can make more of that by pushing some people to buy expensive lenses and blocking 3rd parties from making AF lenses for the RF mount, then they will.


They wont profit at all when people like me eventually switch to Sony.

I've always been a Canon shooter and decided to give the R5 a go after the R. But my next camera won't be a Canon unless we start seeing mid-tier lenses from Tamron/ Sigma/Rokinon.

It's not just about price, either. All the fast L lenses are massive. For travel photography, that's a no.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 15, 2022)

Snapster said:


> I'm definitely not onboard with Canon's strategy of offering only entry level lenses and uber expensive and bulky L lenses.
> 
> I need my lenses weather sealed so that pretty much rules out the cheaper lenses. The prices rule out most L lenses. There's a massive gap between a $200 and $2500 50mm lens. I'm not going to get either and don't really understand why they won't let third party manufacturers fill that gap.
> 
> Also, lenses that weigh 500-600 grams feel perfectly balanced with R5/R6. We badly need 1.4 primes in that weight class with weather sealing.


Genuine question, because I can't remember - was the EF 50mm f/1.4 weather sealed? Are midrange third party primes, typically?


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 15, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Genuine question, because I can't remember - was the EF 50mm f/1.4 weather sealed? Are midrange third party primes, typically?


It wasn't weather sealed and its AF motor exploded if you looked at a Nikon camera too long. Only 3rd parties have released "weather sealed" midrange lenses.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 15, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Genuine question, because I can't remember - was the EF 50mm f/1.4 weather sealed? Are midrange third party primes, typically?


No, and no. Having said that I have has an EF 50 f1.4 rolling around in my bags for over 20 years and it has outlasted half a dozen L series lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2022)

Snapster said:


> They wont profit at all when people like me eventually switch to Sony.


If you’re ‘not on board’ with Canon’s lens options then switch to another brand that offers what you want.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that you represent the majority of buyers, none of us does. Canon doesn’t care about you individually.

Canon has a long history of making choices that satisfy a majority of buyers, which is why they’ve sold more ILCs than any other manufacturer every year for the past 20, and why they continue to sell more than twice as many cameras as their nearest competitor.

I’ve been on these forums a long time, and seen many people predict dire consequences for Canon if they did not add Feature X or make Product Y (not surprisingly, those are things the people making such predictions personally desire). Yet Canon continues to dominate the market. But maybe this time you’ll be the one who is correct, and buyers will suddenly leave Canon in droves over the lack of mid-range non-L lenses that have weather sealing.




…or not.




Snapster said:


> I've always been a Canon shooter and decided to give the R5 a go after the R. But my next camera won't be a Canon unless we start seeing mid-tier lenses from Tamron/ Sigma/Rokinon.


Given that Canon has seemingly blocked 3rd party manufacturers from selling AF lenses for the RF mount, I suppose your next camera will not be a Canon. As I said, Canon doesn't care. Apparently they've already gotten a fair bit of your money anyway.



Snapster said:


> It's not just about price, either. All the fast L lenses are massive. For travel photography, that's a no.


What are your use cases for fast lenses when traveling? Personally, slow lenses are fine for me while traveling, I have lenses like the 28-70/2L and EF 85/1.4L but those stay home, not because of weight/bulk but because slower zooms and TS-E lenses meed my travel needs. I do often take the EF 11-24/4L on trips, which is not fast but is definitely massive.


----------



## Tom W (Dec 15, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> The eternally rumoured Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM (or f/1.4) has been rumoured for what seems forever. We’ve seen this before with certain lenses, most notably the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II and EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II. They existed and took forever to actually get announced and hit the market. We have been told
> 
> See full article...


I could see great value in a 35 f/1.2 lens. I have the original EF 24/1.4L and rarely use it, opting for my ultra wide zoom instead. 
Now, if the third lens is something on the order of 20 mm, and is an F/2, that "might" make an exceptional astrophotography lens if it can control coma and such. Would also be a decent indoor architecture type lens if the distortion is very low.

It'll be interesting to see what comes of this rumor.


----------



## Snapster (Dec 15, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Genuine question, because I can't remember - was the EF 50mm f/1.4 weather sealed? Are midrange third party primes, typically?


The Samyang/Rokinon RF 85mm 1.4 that vanished from the market is weather sealed. It's also fast, well built and internally focusing. But the weather sealing is why I wouldn't get the Canon RF 85 f2 over it. And lugging around an RF 85mm 1.2L that weighs 1200g is not an option for street and travel photography even if I had thousands to spend on each focal length.

I also adapted a Tamron EF 17-35 f2.8-4 and it's weather sealed, compared to the Canon RF 15-30 f4.5-whatever which is not.

As for the new rumored lenses, I really hope the 35mm L won't be massive. The RF 35 1.8 is sharp enough and very versatile, but again, not weather sealed.


----------



## navastronia (Dec 15, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> And a 70-135mm F2 (or 70-140mm) to complete the trinity


I could even do without that one, to be honest! You can always crop in on the 28-70, but you can't crop out


----------



## sanj (Dec 15, 2022)

I await the 25mm.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 15, 2022)

Snapster said:


> It's not just about price, either. All the fast L lenses are massive. For travel photography, that's a no.


Fast lenses by definition are large (entrance pupil = focal length/minimum aperture).

It isn't clear if your need for "fast" is for bokeh or shutter speed. The latter is easily handled via higher ISO and (if needed) post production noise reduction tools. The R5 is certainly better than the R's sensor. Excellent bokeh is generally not considered to part of the travel photography genre but (at worst case) can be done in post.

By fast lenses, I assume you mean apertures wider than f2.8 and the wider the focal length the smaller it could be... if the lens design is relatively simple. L lenses tend to be have a more complex lens design for better IQ. One thing that Canon has done with most of the RF lenses is to reduce the length of the (collapsed) lens which has been very helpful and reduce the weight vs EF equivalents.

There is a need for a ~40mm RF pancake lens as adapting the EF version doubles the size/weight/cost.

For travel, my 1 lens setup is the RF24-105/4. 2 lens combo is EF16-35mm/4 + RF100-500mm. 3 lens would add the RF24-105mm/4. None of which are particularly small or fast. I don't do street photography though. If I am doing shooting underwater then gear size/weight quickly increases.
Carrying 12kg+ in my carry-on luggage (backpack) is not unusual for me.


----------



## Snapster (Dec 15, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Fast lenses by definition are large (entrance pupil = focal length/minimum aperture).
> 
> It isn't clear if your need for "fast" is for bokeh or shutter speed. The latter is easily handled via higher ISO and (if needed) post production noise reduction tools. The R5 is certainly better than the R's sensor. Excellent bokeh is generally not considered to part of the travel photography genre but (at worst case) can be done in post.
> 
> ...


The speed is for bokeh and night photography.

What I would like is Canon to make 1.4 primes with weather sealing, USM and a good balanced size for R5 with weight around 500-600g. So bringing a few on a trip wouldn't be ridiculously heavy.

The Sony GM 35mm 1.4 weighs 500g, but looking at Canon's latest lenses, theirs will be probably oversized and weigh significantly more because of the 1.2 thats pretty insignificant compared to 1.4 anyway. Certainly not worth the weight and price for someone who doesn't need the absolute best IG in a studio.

If they don't want to make such lenses, they should let others do so by leasing their patents. Canon gets money from that too, and there would be more options and healthy competition for us.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2022)

Snapster said:


> If they don't want to make such lenses, they should let others do so by leasing their patents. Canon gets money from that too, and there would be more options and healthy competition for us.


Canon isn’t stupid. They have ample data on the effects of 3rd party EF lens availability on their lens sales. I have no doubt they chose to block 3rd party AF lenses for RF because they determined they will make a larger profit than licensing their mount to others.

Moreover, since they’re only blocking AF lenses it’s likely that they designed the RF mount communication in a sufficiently proprietary way to obtain IP protection (which is how they’re blocking 3rd party AF lenses). In other words, they decided early on to lock others out of the RF mount to the extent possible.

You believe they _should_ open up the mount because that’s what you want. Canon clearly feels differently, and they get to decide. All you can decide is whether or not to buy Canon gear. The fact that they continue to gain market share suggests they made the right decision for their bottom line. You not liking it, that’s a ‘you problem’.


----------



## webphoto (Dec 16, 2022)

Snapster said:


> They wont profit at all when people like me eventually switch to Sony.
> 
> I've always been a Canon shooter and decided to give the R5 a go after the R. But my next camera won't be a Canon unless we start seeing mid-tier lenses from Tamron/ Sigma/Rokinon.
> 
> It's not just about price, either. All the fast L lenses are massive. For travel photography, that's a no.


That’s exactly what I think, too. It is very frustrating how Canon isn’t allowing third party companies to make lenses with autofocus. The customers are really the losers here. I am seriously considering switching to Sony because of this.


----------



## danfaz (Dec 16, 2022)

privatebydesign said:


> I have has an EF 50 f1.4 rolling around in my bags for over 20 years and it has outlasted half a dozen L series lenses.


I'm not being a jerk, but that's probably because you were just lucky or didn't use it much. That lens is notorious for falling apart with little use.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 16, 2022)

webphoto said:


> That’s exactly what I think, too. It is very frustrating how Canon isn’t allowing third party companies to make lenses with autofocus. The customers are really the losers here. I am seriously considering switching to Sony because of this.


I am still struggling with this concept. What 3rd party lens do you need that is not available in EF/EF-S/RF canon lenses and 3rd party EF/EF-S lenses? Price points vary from new/second hand for all the currently usable lenses on R mount.

Feel free to switch. Canon may notice but probably not.
Life is not always greener on the other side so if you do switch, give the forum feedback about your pros/cons after a while. The cost of switching would also be interesting.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 16, 2022)

Oh darn, I was totally sure it was going to be the *50mm 1.4. I'm sure this is priority for Canada to replace... 

Hmph. Guess I'll just get the big old super clunky super expensive L version***



**f that


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 16, 2022)

Snapster said:


> The speed is for bokeh and night photography.
> What I would like is Canon to make 1.4 primes with weather sealing, USM and a good balanced size for R5 with weight around 500-600g. So bringing a few on a trip wouldn't be ridiculously heavy.


So fast/small/light/sealed and cheap... right?
I don't own a lens faster than f2.8 lens but I don't have any issues with night photography. I use a tripod and long exposures or fill flash and/or high ISO. If I want the background blurred then I increase the distance between subject and background or take 2 shots in/out of focus and blend. What is your use case? 

The Sony 35/1.4 was only released last year ie 9 years after Sony started releasing their own E mount full frame lenses. 
There are a number of EF35mm lenses available including the Canon EF35/2, RF35/1.8, Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Yongnuo 35/2, Tamron 35/1.4 or even the Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art.
I am sure that Canon has been pushing for faster releases of new lenses but covid and supply chain issues have impacted everyone. Note that there is no E mount equivalent to the RF16mm/2.8 for instance.



Snapster said:


> If they don't want to make such lenses, they should let others do so by leasing their patents. Canon gets money from that too, and there would be more options and healthy competition for us.


Canon have a monopoly on their R mount for their RF lenses/protocols. They are getting a return on that investment now as it has been only 4 years since release. I have no idea about how much Canon would charge for access to the RF protocols but it would make sense to be significant amount. I fail to see how getting more competition for Canon will improve their shareholder's value.

Sony had no choice but to open their E mount to 3rd parties from the beginning and adapted EF lenses was their gateway into the full frame MILC market. They gambled (and to an extent won) for their bodies to have a reasonable market share in full frame.
Sony has to live with their decision and compete directly with the 3rd parties and their pricing (and probably margins) reflect that.
What we can't see is how much money Sony invested in their camera business unit and how profitable it is. They clearly have leading technology for their sensors which would give some internal advantage.

At the end of the day, everyone votes with their dollars and if enough people switch to Sony vs switching to Canon then perhaps Canon will change their direction.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Dec 16, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Or, more likely, quite the opposite. Do you seriously not think that Canon has sales figures for how popular a 50mm 1.4 lens is? Do you seriously not think that Canon does considerable market research? The 50mm 1.4 is pretty obviously a low seller, low priority lens.


I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Maybe 50mm 1.4 hasn't been selling well in the last years, because it is outdated. But when it came out it was an ok lens for the time and they were selling quite good even later when I got a job in a camera stor.. Of course I don't have the total data from Canon. But I did work in a photo store, and I was in charge for the canon assortment. I can tell you that at the time 50mm 1.4 was one of our top selling lenses and even though it was a lot older than 50mm 1.2 it was outselling that lens about 50:1. And I'm not joking about this. For every 50mm 1.2 lens that I had to order from Canon, I ordered from 40 to 60 1.4 lenses. 
It was just priced pretty well and the average customer was able to afford it along with the standard zooms, while having the piece of mind that they didn't go for the cheapest option ( by that I mean 50mm 1.8 - even though we did sell a ton of those as well).

And a few years later when Sigma changed their politics and started to produce lenses with higher quality, they were basically able to rebrand themselves with the launch of 50mm 1.4 Art, which was getting good reviews, had a good price point and was one of their more popular lenses when it came to sales.

You really think that a good 50mm 1.4 with a mid price point would sell a lot less than 50mm 1.2 with its current price (in Europe it is selling for over 2600eur)?

I'm not so sure.
I think Canon has a lot of reasons why they might prioritize production of one lens over the other (r&d cost, marketing value, production capacaties etc), and I think it is sometimes hard to guess exactly what they are.


----------



## Snapster (Dec 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon isn’t stupid. They have ample data on the effects of 3rd party EF lens availability on their lens sales. I have no doubt they chose to block 3rd party AF lenses for RF because they determined they will make a larger profit than licensing their mount to others.
> 
> Moreover, since they’re only blocking AF lenses it’s likely that they designed the RF mount communication in a sufficiently proprietary way to obtain IP protection (which is how they’re blocking 3rd party AF lenses). In other words, they decided early on to lock others out of the RF mount to the extent possible.
> 
> You believe they _should_ open up the mount because that’s what you want. Canon clearly feels differently, and they get to decide. All you can decide is whether or not to buy Canon gear. The fact that they continue to gain market share suggests they made the right decision for their bottom line. You not liking it, that’s a ‘you problem’.


Why so adamant to defend Canon's lens monopoly though? Shouldn't we all agree that third party manufacturers making RF lenses would most of all benefit us, the consumer? A closed mount with a limited lens selection doesn't benefit anyone. Healthy competition between different lens manufacturers on the other hand would benefit Canon shooters with better lens selection, competitive pricing and quality.

What benefits do you see in a closed mount for Canon shooters, then?


----------



## Kit. (Dec 16, 2022)

Snapster said:


> Why so adamant to defend Canon's lens monopoly though?


I don't see any "Canon's lens monopoly" here. You are as well free to buy Sony or Nikon lenses and to attach them to _non-Canon_ bodies.

Now, if you for some reason want to use _Canon_ bodies, you'd better consider what makes them especially attractive to you and how they could keep _this_ attractivity in the long term.



Snapster said:


> Shouldn't we all agree that third party manufacturers making RF lenses would most of all benefit us, the consumer?


No, we shouldn't.



Snapster said:


> A closed mount with a limited lens selection doesn't benefit anyone.


Technically, it benefits Canon's camera QA and 3rd party support teams. If Canon licenses the RF protocol to others, then they are under contractual obligation to provide the licensed functionality to the 3rd parties.

It also allows Canon to shift profit margins from bodies to lenses, which benefits kit buyers and EF lens owners.



Snapster said:


> What benefits do you see in a closed mount for Canon shooters, then?


Financial viability of the platform.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 16, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Third lense is already out: the RF 28-70mm F2
> Add a UWA 14-28mm F2 and a 70-135mm (or 140mm) and voila: there's your F2 trinity


14-28 f/2 would be quite massive.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 16, 2022)

Snapster said:


> They wont profit at all when people like me eventually switch to Sony.


People like you have already switched.
People like me will not.
Canon may lose some market share but they will not go out of business over it.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 16, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Genuine question, because I can't remember - was the EF 50mm f/1.4 weather sealed? Are midrange third party primes, typically?


Sigma Art series is strange.
There is no real indication of which ones are weather sealed or not.
EF L lenses were the same way.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 16, 2022)

Snapster said:


> Shouldn't we all agree that third party manufacturers making RF lenses would most of all benefit us, the consumer


Some people never buy third-party lenses.
I do not care much either way.
I mostly use EF lenses and my lens collection is almost complete.
The few Canon RF lenses that I own and intend to own would be bought regardless.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 16, 2022)

Snapster said:


> If they don't want to make such lenses, they should let others do so by leasing their patents. Canon gets money from that too, and there would be more options and healthy competition for us


I do not disagree with you there.
It would need to be a business arrangement that benefits all parties.
Canon and Sigma will do what makes business sense for themselves whether or not it makes business sense to us.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 16, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> At the end of the day, everyone votes with their dollars and if enough people switch to Sony vs switching to Canon then perhaps Canon will change their direction.


I agreed 100% with everything you wrote up to here.
I have no idea why anyone would buy a camera in the first place that did not have the lenses they want only to switch to another brand later.
Those people should have bought Sony in the first place unless they are unhappy with Sony for some other reason that would also have to change.
While Canon cares about profit they also care about market share.
I think Canon will probably end up licensing to third parties earlier than they plan to.
Canon has plenty of holes in their line up but it might hurt them to let third parties make lenses that Canon was going to make anyway.
Snapster seems to be more concerned with lenses that Canon will probably never make.
That is best argument that I have come across for Canon licensing to third parties.
Those would not be lost lens sales but could be lost camera sales.
That would be a thin line to walk though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2022)

Snapster said:


> Why so adamant to defend Canon's lens monopoly though?


You are misconstruing my statements. I am explaining, not defending. For some reason, people seem to think the stuff they want is logical and makes sense to everyone, and therefore it should happen. Personally, I try to live in the real world and understand the reasons things happen as they do (part of being a scientist, I suppose). That means that even for something I want to happen, I try to have a realistic understanding of the factors involved that make it more or less likely to actually happen. 



Snapster said:


> Shouldn't we all agree that third party manufacturers making RF lenses would most of all benefit us, the consumer?


Why should we all agree on that? Personally, I find that Canon's EF and RF lenses meet my needs. The one 3rd party lens I've bought is a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 that I use (albeit rarely) for astrophotography (although when a narrower FoV works, the RF 28-70/2 delivers equivalent 'star-stopping'). It's a fully manual lens, so if for some reason I wanted to replace mine with an RF version, Canon isn't blocking those. So generally speaking, 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount don't benefit me at all, since the Canon lenses meet my needs. Worth noting that they do so without the issues occurring that sometimes come up with 3rd party lenses that are reverse engineered to work with Canon bodies (e.g. the peripheral illumination problem a few years ago).



Snapster said:


> A closed mount with a limited lens selection doesn't benefit anyone.


Absolutely wrong. A closed Canon RF mount with a limited Canon RF lens selection *benefits Canon*, at least that's the logical inference from Canon blocking 3rd parties from making AF lenses for the RF mount. Benefit for Canon is the exact reason the closed Canon RF mount with a limited Canon RF lens selection exists. That is my primary point. You seem to think Canon should open RF the mount because it benefits Canon shooters. Canon's goal is benefit for Canon. Benefit for Canon shooters is only a consideration insofar as it is required to get those shooters to buy more Canon products.



Snapster said:


> Healthy competition between different lens manufacturers on the other hand would benefit Canon shooters with better lens selection, competitive pricing and quality. What benefits do you see in a closed mount for Canon shooters, then?


Generally, I agree. But would cheaper lenses made and sold by someone else benefit Canon? If not, which appears to be the case, why should Canon facilitate something that doesn't benefit them? They shouldn't, and they aren't. OTOH, they have licensed the RF mount and AF protocols to Red, because having RF lenses mount natively on Red cameras benefits Canon, enabling them to sell more lenses. That's how this works, and it's unfortunate that you can't seem to grasp these concepts.


----------



## neurorx (Dec 16, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> And a 70-135mm F2 (or 70-140mm) to complete the trinity


I would love that!


----------



## Snapster (Dec 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You are misconstruing my statements. I am explaining, not defending. For some reason, people seem to think the stuff they want is logical and makes sense to everyone, and therefore it should happen. Personally, I try to live in the real world and understand the reasons things happen as they do (part of being a scientist, I suppose). That means that even for something I want to happen, I try to have a realistic understanding of the factors involved that make it more or less likely to actually happen.
> 
> 
> Why should we all agree on that? Personally, I find that Canon's EF and RF lenses meet my needs. The one 3rd party lens I've bought is a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 that I use (albeit rarely) for astrophotography (although when a narrower FoV works, the RF 28-70/2 delivers equivalent 'star-stopping'). It's a fully manual lens, so if for some reason I wanted to replace mine with an RF version, Canon isn't blocking those. So generally speaking, 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount don't benefit me at all, since the Canon lenses meet my needs. Worth noting that they do so without the issues occurring that sometimes come up with 3rd party lenses that are reverse engineered to work with Canon bodies (e.g. the peripheral illumination problem a few years ago).
> ...


We all understand how businesses work and how their purpose is to maximize profits. Sometimes it's not best for the consumer, as is the case here. Canon can obviously do whatever they want with their patents.

Requesting mid-range lenses from Canon or the RF lens mount to be opened is not the same as "not getting it" as you seem to want to think. The businesses also need customer feedback and giving that to them is a more productive use of time than creating arguments on a forum.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2022)

Snapster said:


> We all understand how businesses work and how their purpose is to maximize profits. Sometimes it's not best for the consumer, as is the case here. Canon can obviously do whatever they want with their patents.
> 
> Requesting mid-range lenses from Canon or the RF lens mount to be opened is not the same as "not getting it" as you seem to want to think. The businesses also need customer feedback and giving that to them is a more productive use of time than creating arguments on a forum.


Lol. To paraphrase, "If Canon doesn't give me what I want, I'll switch to Sony and so will all the people like me, and Canon will suffer." Good luck with that. 

Feedback to Canon given here...isn't.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 16, 2022)

Snapster said:


> They wont profit at all when people like me eventually switch to Sony.
> 
> I've always been a Canon shooter and decided to give the R5 a go after the R. But my next camera won't be a Canon unless we start seeing mid-tier lenses from Tamron/ Sigma/Rokinon.
> 
> It's not just about price, either. All the fast L lenses are massive. For travel photography, that's a no.


You don't need to see those mentioned 3rd party lenses. By far, your best value for the $$ if you are looking for weather sealed L lens quality lenses for your R5 camera, is buying used EF lenses. Far more economical than switching to Sony.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 16, 2022)

Snapster said:


> ...
> 
> If they don't want to make such lenses, they should let others do so by leasing their patents. Canon gets money from that too, and there would be more options and healthy competition for us.


We have no idea if Canon plans on negotiating licensing agreements with Tamron and Sigma (and perhaps others). NIkon just recently negotiated an agreement with Tamron and rumors have it that they are in negotiations with Sigma. Canon may eventually do the same, when they feel that their RF lens lineup is filled out. We just don't know. Considering the number of EF lens choices from both Canon and multiple 3rd party brands, I see no reason why people are in such a hurry to get these "theoretical" 3rd party choices.

It's kind of funny, I have been spending a lot of time of Facebook R7 camera groups since getting the camera. I think, in general, lots more newer camera users, and hobbyists there compared to those visiting here. And yet, they are using EF lenses, buying EF lenses for their R7, consider EF lenses, whether new or used, to be just as desirable a choice when considering lenses for their camera. They understand that high quality, less expensive than RF lenses are available - in great quantity. Maybe that's why Canon considers this category of lenses low priority when addressing the RF lens lineup. I think they have looked at the question, how many people would buy a new RF mid level non-L lens, if they can get a used EF L lens for the same price?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Snapster seems to be more concerned with lenses that Canon will probably never make.


Agreed – I don’t think Canon will ever make weather-sealed non-L lenses. Anyone who requires mid-grade lenses with weather sealing should be buying another brand.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 16, 2022)

Ph0t0 said:


> ...
> 
> You really think that a good 50mm 1.4 with a mid price point would sell a lot less than 50mm 1.2 with its current price (in Europe it is selling for over 2600eur)?
> 
> ...


My point isn't that the Canon 50 f1.4 would sell more or less than the 50mm f1.2. My point is that Canon knows world wide sales numbers and does world wide market research. The results of one camera store are essentially irrelevant. If they thought it would be one of their 25-30 most profitable lenses, than I think we would have seen the RF version. Can Canon be wrong? Of course they can. I'm sure 3-4 years ago they thought DSLRs would still be popular enough so that there would have been a 5D mark V, and perhaps another DSLR flagship. I think they have been surprised by the success of the R5 and R6, which apparently have sold so much better than projected that the high level DSLR is dead. The market is in great flux - and only so many (about 8) new RF lenses can be produced in a year. So we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Berowne (Dec 17, 2022)

There are eleven 50mm Lenses available, Canon and third party - adoptable via RF/EF-Adapter: 

RF 50/1.2L USM; RF 50/1.8 STM.
EF 50/1.8 STM; EF 50/1.4 USM; EF 50/1.2L USM; TS-E 50/2.8 Macro; 
Zeiss Planar1,4/50; Zeiss Milvus 1.4/50; Zeiss Otus1,4/55; Zeiss Milvus 2.0/50 (Macro)
Sigma 50 MM/1,4 DG HSM ART. 

Prices between 200€ and 3500€, 
Speed f1.2, f1.4, f1.8, f2.0 and f2.8; 
AF, MF, Macro and Tilt-Shift. 

Not enough?


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 17, 2022)

Berowne said:


> There are eleven 50mm Lenses available, Canon and third party - adoptable via RF/EF-Adapter:
> 
> RF 50/1.2L USM; RF 50/1.8 STM.
> EF 50/1.8 STM; EF 50/1.4 USM; EF 50/1.2L USM; TS-E 50/2.8 Macro;
> ...


I wish there also was an EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro lens available


----------



## Ph0t0 (Dec 17, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> My point isn't that the Canon 50 f1.4 would sell more or less than the 50mm f1.2. My point is that Canon knows world wide sales numbers and does world wide market research. The results of one camera store are essentially irrelevant. If they thought it would be one of their 25-30 most profitable lenses, than I think we would have seen the RF version. Can Canon be wrong? Of course they can. I'm sure 3-4 years ago they thought DSLRs would still be popular enough so that there would have been a 5D mark V, and perhaps another DSLR flagship. I think they have been surprised by the success of the R5 and R6, which apparently have sold so much better than projected that the high level DSLR is dead. The market is in great flux - and only so many (about 8) new RF lenses can be produced in a year. So we'll just have to wait and see.


The point I was trying to make was, that it is very probable that Canon is not just looking at sales numbers for certain lens models, but at the whole camera and lens lineup . 
What I mean by that: It could be that the big whites help them to sell more entry level cameras and lenses even if they don't make it in the "25-30 most profitable lenses" club, thus making those a priority over a lens like a 50mm 1.4 that would maybe make more profit, but hurt the sales of the whole system if released before other niches in the system are covered.

And yeah my experiences from one store are not really relevant when it comes to the worldwide sales. But maybe still more relevant than your assumption that the lens would not make it to the "25-30 most profitable lenses".
I think many lenses that are still to be released will make it to the club, but there may be other factors in play when people at Canon decide which lenses to prioritize.


----------



## Berowne (Dec 17, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I wish there also was an EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro lens available


Of course, the other EF-Lenses will also be discontinued at some time. But at this time only Leica offers a similar amount of native and available 50mm Lenses: 

* Nocti 0.95; Nocti 1.2; Lux 1.4; Apo-Cron 2.0 and non-Apo-Cron 2.0 - five in sum. 

Canon-Shooters have definitely a lot of choices in case of 50mm-Glass. No reason to complain. 
Greetings - Andreas


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 18, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I agreed 100% with everything you wrote up to here.
> I have no idea why anyone would buy a camera in the first place that did not have the lenses they want only to switch to another brand later.
> Those people should have bought Sony in the first place unless they are unhappy with Sony for some other reason that would also have to change.


Things change over time. By your logic, no one would have moved to Sony when their comparatively better full frame bodies were released.
It was not their lenses that caused them to change systems 

Snapster talks about the Sony 35/1.4 but it was only released last year and now wants Canon to do the same despite Sigma offering an Art version for EF.

I went from an old Canon DLSR to 7D+24-105/4 which was a big jump. I didn't really know what I was doing or whether I would get hooked by photography and buy another lens. One crumb after another (lens/body/lens/body) over many years has kept me in the Canon ecosystem. When R/RP were released I knew it would be a big step to migrate to mirrorless but the R wasn't enough for me. I could have jumped to Sony and adapted my EF lenses. The adapter issues and the features/ergonomics/familiarity/etc of the R5 meant that I didn't jump. The switching cost to Sony lenses was a disincentive for me and yet I have "upgraded" most of my EF to RF lenses happily... people are funny 

There could be particular use cases that justify multiple systems for people. A single niche lens like the EF8-15mm/4, EF11-24mm/4, TS-E or MP-E65mm or RF1200mm could commercially justify a new body to suit.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 18, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> While Canon cares about profit they also care about market share.
> I think Canon will probably end up licensing to third parties earlier than they plan to.


Profit/shareholder return is the business imperative and especially long term profit/ROI for Japanese traditional management.

Market share is an interesting one... depends on the segment in some ways as each one needs to be approached differently. 
Leica/Phase One etc have tiny market share but can still be profitable. 
If Canon's market share is declining in a declining segment then their strategy isn't working and I am sure that they will look to other options. 
That said, new R bodies and expensive RF lenses seem to be selling above expectations despite supply chain issues. That would indicate that they are doing better than they thought and their strategy is working.



EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon has plenty of holes in their line up but it might hurt them to let third parties make lenses that Canon was going to make anyway.


Can you point to the glaringly obvious holes? High price points (RF600/4, 800/5.6) is one thing but focal length/aperture?
I always mention the 40mm pancake but it wouldn't be a profitable lens as a RF70-200mm for instance. A 50/1.4 seems obvious but there are already 3rd parties eg Sigma Art that do a good job there.
Their "holes" don't seem to be hurting them financially too much at this time.


----------



## Kiton (Dec 18, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Or lack of demand.



I do not think it is lack of demand as much as a lack of will. They like big flashy trophy glass that make people talk. And, as others mentioned, they totally blew it and made a shitty 50 EF for years, maybe they afraid of touching now  if the 50 1.2 came with a sherpa, it might sell better, but who the hell wants to carry that beast. not me! Sharp as hell, but, the size of fuel tanker.


----------



## aledronix (Dec 18, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Or lack of demand.


There is a 1800 $ gap between the existing options. There is DEFINITELY a demand to bridge the gap.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 18, 2022)

Kiton said:


> I do not think it is lack of demand as much as a lack of will. They like big flashy trophy glass that make people talk. And, as others mentioned, they totally blew it and made a shitty 50 EF for years, maybe they afraid of touching now  if the 50 1.2 came with a sherpa, it might sell better, but who the hell wants to carry that beast. not me! Sharp as hell, but, the size of fuel tanker.


As someone who used the EF 50/1.4 a lot during the film era (when having a cheap fast lightweight lens was important, as the grain of the films with ISO higher than 400 was rarely acceptable), I lack the will to routinely carry such a lens for use on modern sensors.


----------



## Kiton (Dec 18, 2022)

Kit. said:


> As someone who used the EF 50/1.4 a lot during the film era (when having a cheap fast lightweight lens was important, as the grain of the films with ISO higher than 400 was rarely acceptable), I lack the will to routinely carry such a lens for use on modern sensors.


1000% Canon says just use the current 50 1.4 on an adapter. They have not looked at that lens in so long they forget how shit it was. I tired 2 over the years and gave them away. One to my daughter, who after not very long, gave it back to me and said no thanks dad! I love the ef 85 1.8 for portatis and use it on a adapter, or bring an old 1d x mk 2 for portraits with that lens. But the 50 1.4 is a joke. Sometimes I bring 2 1d x mk 2, one with the 85 and one with the 135 f 2, for the obvious totally different effects.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 18, 2022)

Kiton said:


> 1000% Canon says just use the current 50 1.4 on an adapter. They have not looked at that lens in so long they forget how shit it was.


It was the kind of shit _useful_ in the film era.

Now, if you want to redo it to be non-shit for modern sensors, it will weight and cost 3 times as much. Given that ISO 3200 is the new ISO 400 now, the lens will have a dubious value.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2022)

Kit. said:


> It was the kind of shit _useful_ in the film era.
> 
> Now, if you want to redo it to be non-shit for modern sensors, it will weight and cost 3 times as much. Given that ISO 3200 is the new ISO 400 now, the lens will have a dubious value.


I suspect Canon knows this, which is why there have been updates to the 50/1.8 and 50/1.2, while the 50/1.4 has languished.


----------



## Skux (Dec 19, 2022)

All this over half a stop of light lol


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 19, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Can you point to the glaringly obvious holes?


No wide-angle L prime lenses.
No zoom lenses past 500 mm.
Lack of mid-priced lenses.
IMHO the non-L lens line-up is pretty much set.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 19, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Things change over time. By your logic, no one would have moved to Sony when their comparatively better full frame bodies were released.


Did you miss this part?
"unless they are unhappy with Sony for some other reason that would also have to change."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2022)

Skux said:


> All this over half a stop of light lol


Well, in fairness it's about more than that. The 50/1.8 lenses are cheaply built and don't exactly have stellar IQ, particularly away from the center of the frame. Granted, the same is true of the EF 50/1.4, but that's an old lens design. A modern 50/1.4 along the lines of the 35/1.8 and 85/2 would be better built, have IS, and likely be sharp in the center wide open and have decent corners by f/4 or so. Canon just doesn't seem to want to make one. 

OTOH, there's no pleasing some people, e.g. @Kiton saying there's no RF 85/2 and when corrected on that saying he has one but it's macro and slow-focusing so, "It doesn't really count as an 85mm general purpose lens." Whatever.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 19, 2022)

Snapster said:


> We all understand how businesses work and how their purpose is to maximize profits


Businesses that maximize profits in the short term tend not to do well in the long term, see Sunbeam.
Businesses exist to increase shareholder value.
Sometimes value and profit do not even align.
Twitter was sold for $44B.
They barely broke even.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 19, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> No wide-angle L prime lenses.
> No zoom lenses past 500 mm.
> Lack of mid-priced lenses.
> IMHO the non-L lens line-up is pretty much set.


Yep, Canon doesn't have any ultra wide L lenses. Their EF14L was very expensive and not great. The question for Canon is what is the volume of sales for this segment. The RF16/2.8 meets the vlogging needs and there is a lot of competition from Sigma. Perhaps this rumour will address the the missing bits in the moderately wide focal lengths.

Has Canon ever made a zoom past 500mm? Prior to the RF100-500mm, has Canon ever made a zoom past 400mm?

The mid priced 50mm is missing but aren't the f4 zoom trinity reasonably priced?

I guess my point is that Canon is still on their path to releasing new RF lenses ie they haven't stopped yet although some EF/EF-S/EF-M lenses have been discontinued so that would provide some comfort that more RF lenses are to come. That hasn't stopped people wanting more and this is natural but would seem strange that users would lose money switching for lenses that don't seem to be niche/specialty ones.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 19, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Businesses that maximize profits in the short term tend not to do long in the long term, see Sunbeam.
> Businesses exist to increase shareholder value.
> Sometimes value and profit do not even align.
> Twitter was sold for $44B.
> They barely broke even.


And now Telsa's price is down significantly with Elon selling >$3B of stock to fund the refinancing of his Twitter debt. Not the richest person in the world anymore but not broke either. His current management skills are another thing.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 19, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Did you miss this part?
> "unless they are unhappy with Sony for some other reason that would also have to change."


I didn't follow your meaning for that part. If I misunderstood then feel free to ignore


----------



## Berowne (Dec 19, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect Canon knows this, which is why there have been updates to the 50/1.8 and 50/1.2, while the 50/1.4 has languished.


As you always say, Canon knows it. If you scroll down, you can learn what they know.  Just MTF Charts: Canon Prime Lenses


----------



## Kiton (Dec 19, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, in fairness it's about more than that. The 50/1.8 lenses are cheaply built and don't exactly have stellar IQ, particularly away from the center of the frame. Granted, the same is true of the EF 50/1.4, but that's an old lens design. A modern 50/1.4 along the lines of the 35/1.8 and 85/2 would be better built, have IS, and likely be sharp in the center wide open and have decent corners by f/4 or so. Canon just doesn't seem to want to make one.
> 
> OTOH, there's no pleasing some people, e.g. @Kiton saying there's no RF 85/2 and when corrected on that saying he has one but it's macro and slow-focusing so, "It doesn't really count as an 85mm general purpose lens." Whatever.


You are right about the 50s, I have the 1.8 for now, it is an ok walk around lens, but it lacks! The focus in low light is brutal. The 85 macro is a specialty or niche lens, that is fact, all there is no doubt to that. It is a very sharp nice lens, in it targeted place. No more, no less. It deserves its place in the lineup, but so does a non macro 85. I shoot pictures every day of my life, people stop me at events and in the street to talk gear very often. I do not think I am wrong or alone in wanting a small light decent prime in wide, 50 and 85 range.

One of the most often asked questions is, when walking around with a 70-200 f4, why I do not have a 2.8. I have both, but if walking around in daylight with no assignment, I take the 4.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2022)

Kiton said:


> The 85 macro is a specialty or niche lens, that is fact, all there is no doubt to that. It is a very sharp nice lens, in it targeted place. No more, no less. It deserves its place in the lineup, but so does a non macro 85.


Canon disagrees: "With a focal length of 85 millimeters and a bright, maximum aperture of f/2 for beautiful bokeh, this versatile lens is a great choice for portraits and street photography, as well as low light scenes or during concerts, and with the addition of macro capability, even close-up and macro photography will provide stellar results."

The current RF 85/2 is the non-L 85mm. There are two versions of the L-series lens. I very much doubt there will be another RF 85mm lens from Canon.


----------



## chasingrealness (Dec 19, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> F1.4?


The world needs a coma-free 20mm f/1.2 piece of glass.


----------



## Jethro (Dec 19, 2022)

Kiton said:


> The 85 macro is a specialty or niche lens, that is fact, all there is no doubt to that. It is a very sharp nice lens, in it targeted place. No more, no less.


Well, yes, there is quite a bit of doubt about that. The RF 85mm f/2 only magnifies up to .5x. In years gone by it would barely even be considered a 'macro' lens (ie there is a certain amount of marketing hype in so doing), as a traditional specialist macro lens magnifies 1x. That's not to say it's not useful to macro photographers - for a number of years I used the EF 24-70 f/4L, whch has an excellent .7x macro magnification. But that was an all-rounder lens with a useful macro function as the cherry on top, and so is the RF 85 f/2.


----------



## Kiton (Dec 20, 2022)

Jethro said:


> Well, yes, there is quite a bit of doubt about that. The RF 85mm f/2 only magnifies up to .5x. In years gone by it would barely even be considered a 'macro' lens (ie there is a certain amount of marketing hype in so doing), as a traditional specialist macro lens magnifies 1x. That's not to say it's not useful to macro photographers - for a number of years I used the EF 24-70 f/4L, whch has an excellent .7x macro magnification. But that was an all-rounder lens with a useful macro function as the cherry on top, and so is the RF 85 f/2.



Well, if you guys are right, I can't wait for sigma to be permitted by the canon gods to make glass for RF. The 85 f2 is really nice in some applications and really shit in others. It totally stinks for video too. I guess it is true what they say, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can not please all of the people all of the time. the 50 1.8 is mediocre hold over lens and so is the 85 f2.


----------



## Jethro (Dec 20, 2022)

Kiton said:


> The 85 f2 is really nice in some applications and really shit in others. It totally stinks for video too. I guess it is true what they say, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can not please all of the people all of the time. the 50 1.8 is mediocre hold over lens and so is the 85 f2.


I think you're being very hard on this lens (which is not an L, I should add) - Hans at Optical Limits is enthusiastic (Highly recommended) about it's optical performance:

"... the Canon RF 85mm f/2 STM IS macro is capable of delivering outstanding image quality. It's already very sharp at f/2 - even on a high megapixel body - and it's about as sharp as it gets at f/4. Lateral CAs are negligible. There's a slight degree of pincushion distortion but image auto-correction can eliminate the traces without significant side effects. A vignetting of 2 f-stops at f/2 is in line with other lenses in this class so an activated auto-correction is a good idea here."

I can't comment on it's video performance, but for a lens of this price and specs, it looks pretty impressive to me.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 20, 2022)

Jethro said:


> I think you're being very hard on this lens (which is not an L, I should add) - Hans at Optical Limits is enthusiastic (Highly recommended) about it's optical performance:
> 
> "... the Canon RF 85mm f/2 STM IS macro is capable of delivering outstanding image quality. It's already very sharp at f/2 - even on a high megapixel body - and it's about as sharp as it gets at f/4. Lateral CAs are negligible. There's a slight degree of pincushion distortion but image auto-correction can eliminate the traces without significant side effects. A vignetting of 2 f-stops at f/2 is in line with other lenses in this class so an activated auto-correction is a good idea here."
> 
> I can't comment on it's video performance, but for a lens of this price and specs, it looks pretty impressive to me.


To quiet down the STM motors, the body slows down the focus in video mode to "let's have a coffee break while it racks focus" type of speeds. 

Personally, I like the lens very much for the stills it delivers. My main gripe is the working distance needed for full-body shots, I have to keep running ahead of my kids. But that's a generic 85mm issue


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 20, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I didn't follow your meaning for that part. If I misunderstood then feel free to ignore


I read it again and I was not entirely clear.
I will try to be better next time.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 20, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Has Canon ever made a zoom past 500mm? Prior to the RF100-500mm, has Canon ever made a zoom past 400mm?


No, but Tamron and Sigma were there to fill the hole.
Sony has one and Nikon has one on their roadmap.


----------



## photographer (Dec 20, 2022)

Snapster said:


> They wont profit at all when people like me eventually switch to Sony.
> 
> I've always been a Canon shooter and decided to give the R5 a go after the R. But my next camera won't be a Canon unless we start seeing mid-tier lenses from Tamron/ Sigma/Rokinon.
> 
> It's not just about price, either. All the fast L lenses are massive. For travel photography, that's a no.


Sigma art lenses are also massive. Canon RF 50 1.2 - 950 g and Sigma Art 50 1.4 - 815 g. I know - EF 1.4 x RF 1.2 - not ideal for comparison. Sony FE 50 1.2 GM weighs 778 g. I would not change the system because of the saved 172 g per lens.


----------



## photographer (Dec 20, 2022)

webphoto said:


> That’s exactly what I think, too. It is very frustrating how Canon isn’t allowing third party companies to make lenses with autofocus. The customers are really the losers here. I am seriously considering switching to Sony because of this.


On the other hand, there are many people who have Canon because it has top quality lenses. And if someone has the 35, 50 and 85 L 1.2 or the 15 - 35, 24 - 70 and 70 - 200 L 2.8, will they mind that Sigma can't make RF lenses? Probably in the future Canon will make more affordable 1.4 lenses, but they decided to satisfy professionals (L 1.2) and hobby photographers (1.8) first. Does anyone blame Apple for not making $200 phones? Certainly not shareholders.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 20, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> No, but Tamron and Sigma were there to fill the hole.


Do these lenses not work with the adapter?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 20, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Do these lenses not work with the adapter?


The Sigma works but it requires some tweaking with the Sigma Dock.
I have not heard of anyone getting the Tamron to focus well.
I can't imagine a Canon version having any problems at all.


----------



## nunataks (Dec 20, 2022)

The arguments in this thread are so funny - at the moment Canon can get away with closing their mount because Nikon is losing market share, but at the same time very soon Sony is going to start eating into their share with the new smaller/better lenses and options for cameras. On the other end, Fuji is also now eating into their shares with their growing options and choices. Canon got into mirrorless late along with Nikon and it cost them both, and now it looks like Canon didn't learn from their mistakes about third parties and they're going to end up losing out in a year or two even more.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 20, 2022)

nunataks said:


> The arguments in this thread are so funny - at the moment Canon can get away with closing their mount because Nikon is losing market share, but at the same time very soon Sony is going to start eating into their share with the new smaller/better lenses and options for cameras.


Or there is going to be another Vaio moment, as Sony happens to be unable to compete with Canon on body prices.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2022)

nunataks said:


> ...very soon Sony is going to start eating into their share with the new smaller/better lenses and options for cameras. On the other end, Fuji is also now eating into their shares with their growing options and choices. Canon got into mirrorless late along with Nikon and it cost them both, and now it looks like Canon didn't learn from their mistakes about third parties and they're going to end up losing out in a year or two even more.


You're the one making funny arguments here. On what do you base these predictions? Do you not realize the data show the opposite? From 2020 to 2021 (the most recent YoY data, since this year's data are not yet available, obviously), Fuji gained 0.9% share, Sony gained 1.9% share, and Canon gained 2.5% share. Canon not only dominates the camera market, they continue to gain relative to all the other manufacturers, further increasing their dominance.

But hey, keep on predicting and maybe someday you'll be right.




...or not.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 20, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> And a 70-135mm F2 (or 70-140mm) to complete the trinity


OK, but make it a macro-zoom, even if only 1:2 !


----------



## nunataks (Dec 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You're the one making funny arguments here. On what do you base these predictions? Do you not realize the data show the opposite? From 2020 to 2021 (the most recent YoY data, since this year's data are not yet available, obviously), Fuji gained 0.9% share, Sony gained 1.9% share, and Canon gained 2.5% share. Canon not only dominates the camera market, they continue to gain relative to all the other manufacturers, further increasing their dominance.
> 
> But hey, keep on predicting and maybe someday you'll be right.
> 
> ...



I mean you're cherry picking statistics since most of Canon's share comes from the 5D IV and now discontinued M series but sure keep on picking!


----------



## TonyG (Dec 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon not only dominates the camera market, they continue to gain relative to all the other manufacturers, further increasing their dominance.



Before you start with the insults, here is my opinion.
I love my Canon kit, but I also like my Sony kit.
Sony has some things Canon does not, and Canon has some things Sony does not.
To say that Canon *Dominates* the market, (and I know you're going to bring up their ILC sales, which includes all the DSLR bodies they still sell like the Txi series...etc,etc) is not a fair assessment as the future of photography technology is the mirrorless market and both Canon and Sony are pretty close to each other.

They are both market leaders and I think are both neck in neck right now in terms of body features and lens design.
One will release a new body this year, the other will release a body the year after. It is a competitive market with both leaders pushing each other at the moment. I love this competition because I am able to get some pretty awesome premium features that would have only been saved for a higher tier body in a lower more affordable body.

That being said, IF a professional who wants or needs a feature or lens now, they will not settle for less and will not be brand loyal and will purchase what they need. I am a prime example of this. I needed wide glass and went with the only other option I was able to purchase. I would prefer to stick to the RF line, I love my R6 and patiently waiting for an R5ii to come out to make the upgrade, but I am still waiting for a 35 1.2/1.4 and a 14 1.8 to replace my Sony GM's.

I was going to move my R6's to R5's as I am slowly consolidating everything to Canon, but since the R6ii's were released, I chose to wait for the R5ii, I would have loved to wait for the R1, but:
1: I have to wait until 2024, as of today my A1 is my prime work horse I use and it works amazing. By the time the R1 is released, there might be an A1ii which would be another deciding factor to contend with between the brand war.
2: I prefer a smaller more portable body and I can only assume the R1 is going to be a large gripped body.

A professional who makes money in this field can swap gear around and play with multiple systems. However, someone new or a hobbyist who has been waiting and waiting and waiting, might not be so loyal as to continue to wait.
Cannon will never die in doom, but one thing I have noticed is a lot of these youtubers are all running Sony gear. So as a new photographer, or videographer, guess what they might be enticed to purchase as their first system and grow with. The R5c is a perfect example of how it should be on the Netflix approved video list in order to compete with Sony's FX3. Just because the current generation is loyal to Canon because of their history, does not mean future generations will be.
The smartest thing I think Canon did was release the R6ii. It gave way to a ton of used R6's that are a cheaper viable option to push people to the Canon ecosystem. IF they do the R5ii in the spring, Another wave of used R5's will hit the market and push DSLR users to mirrorless and RF glass.

Canon has caught up with Sony's mirrorless market in many regards, but this lens thing is still a pain to deal with. What is interesting is the crazy sales on RF L glass right now. I sometimes wonder what the actual margins are on the manufacturing of the glass.


----------



## Snapster (Dec 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lol. To paraphrase, "If Canon doesn't give me what I want, I'll switch to Sony and so will all the people like me, and Canon will suffer." Good luck with that.
> 
> Feedback to Canon given here...isn't.


Now you're just trying really hard to incite further pointless argument. Why did you even post that nonsense?

If I was a Canon exec, I would be paying close attention to sites like these to get insight what heavy-users think.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 20, 2022)

Kiton said:


> I do not think it is lack of demand as much as a lack of will. They like big flashy trophy glass that make people talk. And, as others mentioned, they totally blew it and made a shitty 50 EF for years, maybe they afraid of touching now


Do you really think either of these statements is realistic?


----------



## EricN (Dec 20, 2022)

Snapster said:


> Now you're just trying really hard to incite further pointless argument. Why did you even post that nonsense?
> 
> If I was a Canon exec, I would be paying close attention to sites like these to get insight what heavy-users think.


If I was a Canon exec, I would set up something like Canon Professional Services and send requests for opinions directly to people already invested Canon products


----------



## Kit. (Dec 20, 2022)

TonyG said:


> and a 14 1.8


Just curious: what do you need such a lens for? Night sky?


----------



## scyrene (Dec 20, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The Sigma works but it requires some tweaking with the Sigma Dock.
> I have not heard of anyone getting the Tamron to focus well.
> I can't imagine a Canon version having any problems at all.


I simply don't see Canon releasing a zoom that goes past 500mm natively; I would expect at most a super-expensive supertele zoom like the recent patents, along the lines of the 200-400+1.4. They added 100mm on to their standard L long zoom (100-500 replacing the EF 100-400L) and both that and the consumer RF 100-400 are compatible with teleconverters, so I think they will feel it's covered adequately.


----------



## Kiton (Dec 20, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Do you really think either of these statements is realistic?


the shitty EF 50 part, YES!


----------



## Kiton (Dec 20, 2022)

EricN said:


> If I was a Canon exec, I would set up something like Canon Professional Services and send requests for opinions directly to people already invested Canon products


I do not know what country you are in, but I have had CPS since the begining of the program. It is 250 a year here I believe. Other than front of the line repairs, which is a god send at times, the rest of CPS is a total joke. The rewards page on CPS has not worked in 2 years here.


----------



## Kiton (Dec 20, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The Sigma works but it requires some tweaking with the Sigma Dock.
> I have not heard of anyone getting the Tamron to focus well.
> I can't imagine a Canon version having any problems at all.


I had a few sigma adapters, traded them all in at my shop. not viable for my needs. I am sure they are great for some users and well worth it.


----------



## TonyG (Dec 20, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Just curious: what do you need such a lens for? Night sky?


Yea, I use it for both Landscape and Astro. 
The RF 15-35 works great too but the 1.8 comes in handy at dusk landscape scenes and for playing with Astro.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 20, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Just curious: what do you need such a lens for? Night sky?


a 14/1.8 is ideal for astro-landscapes and especially milky way shots. I use my 14/2.8 just for that (and for multi-shot panoramas) but f.18 would mean lower ISO/faster shutter speeds.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 20, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I simply don't see Canon releasing a zoom that goes past 500mm natively; I would expect at most a super-expensive supertele zoom like the recent patents, along the lines of the 200-400+1.4. They added 100mm on to their standard L long zoom (100-500 replacing the EF 100-400L) and both that and the consumer RF 100-400 are compatible with teleconverters, so I think they will feel it's covered adequately.


I tend to agree especially with the 600/800mm f11 being so light/compact/cheap.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 20, 2022)

EricN said:


> If I was a Canon exec, I would set up something like Canon Professional Services and send requests for opinions directly to people already invested Canon products


CPS is run very differently in different countries. For Australia, it is only open to professionals ie with business setup and a minimum of 2 bodies. Note that they updated the "1D" description to include R3 but not "5D" to "5D/R5". Professionals clearly must not own R6 let alone R which uses the same 5Div sensor.
https://cps.canon.com.au/cps/membership/qualification
Even if I put in a business number and 1 x 5D body with 3+ lenses, it says I don't qualify!

My point is that CPS Australia is quite limited and they don't need/want feedback from cashed-up amateurs or even professionals with one body.

CPS in other regions seems to be much easier to join and Canon could reach those members easily. 
Neuro has mentioned in the past that Canon uses the warranty cards for people to send back their information and current kit but those aren't used in all countries and assumes that there is a reasonable % sending them back. I don't send them back for any product simply because local legislation covers virtually everything anyway.

I am sure that Canon accesses their professional users well and have focus groups but I am less convinced that feedback from their non-professional use base is substantial. Reseller feedback especially in Japan would one source though and sales figures.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2022)

nunataks said:


> I mean you're cherry picking statistics since most of Canon's share comes from the 5D IV and now discontinued M series but sure keep on picking!


Lol, no, most of Canon’s sales are not of the 5DIV. And if you think I’m cherry picking data, you know nothing about data analysis. We’re discussing camera sales and you brought up and made predictive statements about market share, and I’m talking about total global digital camera sales by manufacturer per year, i.e., global market share. Data don’t get less cherry-picked than that. What would you like, data on total sales of cameras and cars combined? Sheesh.

Cherry picking would be something like most full frame digital cameras sold in one country over a two-month period. Sony actually did a press release like that once.

Feel to try again. I won’t expect coherent logic, so I won’t be disappointed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2022)

TonyG said:


> Before you start with the insults, here is my opinion.
> I love my Canon kit, but I also like my Sony kit.
> Sony has some things Canon does not, and Canon has some things Sony does not.
> To say that Canon *Dominates* the market, (and I know you're going to bring up their ILC sales, which includes all the DSLR bodies they still sell like the Txi series...etc,etc) is not a fair assessment as the future of photography technology is the mirrorless market and both Canon and Sony are pretty close to each other.
> ...


A point-by-point rebuttal is moot (and in fact, I agree with many of your points). @nunataks specifically brought up market share, and I responded with data on market share that show his/her conclusions to be fallacious.

If you want to compare features and design to decide who is ‘dominant’, that’s a fool’s errand because the features and designs that appeal to people are personal decisions that are linked to their personal needs and expectations. Thanks for sharing your opinion, but it is irrelevant to my reply.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2022)

EricN said:


> If I was a Canon exec, I would set up something like Canon Professional Services and send requests for opinions directly to people already invested Canon products


Nonsense. Perusing a forum full of randos posting their opinions is a much better way to conduct market research. CPS feedback, targeted marketing surveys (I’ve received several over the years), analysis of purchasing patterns and buyer demographics over time, all of that crap is a distant third fiddle compared to reading posts on CR forum…especially posts by well-informed people like @Snapster.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2022)

Kiton said:


> I do not know what country you are in, but I have had CPS since the begining of the program. It is 250 a year here I believe. Other than front of the line repairs, which is a god send at times, the rest of CPS is a total joke. The rewards page on CPS has not worked in 2 years here.


One main point of CPS is the gear lending, member direct and even more importantly from the Canon representation at major sporting events. Knowing what pros want to try and actually use is good information. Granted, with the ongoing decline of the professional photography pool, those data are becoming less important.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> CPS feedback, targeted marketing surveys (I’ve received several over the years),


 Could these be CPS point based surveys or maybe a Canon engineer seeding a survey with a "would buy" for his project.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Could these be CPS point based surveys or maybe a Canon engineer seeding a survey with a "would buy" for his project.


I’m not a CPS member. I have no idea how Canon selects their survey recipients. The questions were pretty broad, most of the registration card info recapitulated (demographics like age/income, gear owned), asking about desired features for bodies (multiple choice checkboxes with options like faster AF, higher frame rate, more DR, etc.), other surveys were focused (pun intended) on desired lenses and their features.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nonsense. Perusing a forum full of randos posting their opinions is a much better way to conduct market research. CPS feedback, targeted marketing surveys (I’ve received several over the years), analysis of purchasing patterns and buyer demographics over time, all of that crap is a distant third fiddle compared to reading posts on CR forum…especially posts by well-informed people like @Snapster.


Well, I don't think that your comment is sarcastic!
As one of those "randos" I resemble that remark (nod to the Three Stooges).

As a focus group, we aren't bad...
- Global spread of users with multiple bodies/lenses within the Canon ecosystem ie significant investment in their kit
- Most with some past or current experience of other ecosystems
- Very likely to buy future Canon products
- An above average level of skill in different photographic genres.
- A mix of professionals (however you like to define it), prosumers and casual users.
- Some users will excellent knowledge of technical niches from patents to optical physics to logistics and data/company financial analysis
- Reasonably self moderated to reduce or at least challenge outlier statements
- Much better than cesspools like DPR or others

And most importantly...cheaper than a focus group


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Well, I don't think that your comment is sarcastic!
> As one of those "randos" I resemble that remark (nod to the Three Stooges).
> 
> As a focus group, we aren't bad...
> ...


I don't disagree with your characterizations (and to be clear, I also count myself among the randos). We certainly don't represent the broad ILC market. A self-selected group of people with a strong technical interest in gear may bot represent Canon's major high-end market, either, but that's closer at least.

However, I don't think Canon pays attention to CR forum. Granted, it may have changed recently but a few years back a mod indicated he'd polled the IPs used to access the site, and only one of the tens of thousands was from a Canon-registered address (it was Canon USA, not HQ), and that access was a one-off. Heck, it could even have been me, I used the free WiFi in the lobby at the Branchburg, NJ service center when I was waiting for the shutter recall service on my 1D X.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't disagree with your characterizations (and to be clear, I also count myself among the randos). We certainly don't represent the broad ILC market. A self-selected group of people with a strong technical interest in gear may bot represent Canon's major high-end market, either, but that's closer at least.
> 
> However, I don't think Canon pays attention to CR forum. Granted, it may have changed recently but a few years back a mod indicated he'd polled the IPs used to access the site, and only one of the tens of thousands was from a Canon-registered address (it was Canon USA, not HQ), and that access was a one-off. Heck, it could even have been me, I used the free WiFi in the lobby at the Branchburg, NJ service center when I was waiting for the shutter recall service on my 1D X.


Actually, you would think that Canon would monitor it to see where the leaks/rumours are coming from! 
Whether deliberate leaks or accidental or malicious.
The CR2/3 rumours are certainly fodder for the wider Canon community of forums from facebook to youtubers and other websites.

I use a VPN that currently is via Japan so IP addresses aren't always useful but it would still be interesting for the mods to do a simple check.... it only takes one


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Actually, you would think that Canon would monitor it to see where the leaks/rumours are coming from!
> Whether deliberate leaks or accidental or malicious.
> The CR2/3 rumours are certainly fodder for the wider Canon community of forums from facebook to youtubers and other websites.


Main page, maybe. But the forums are something of a morass.


----------



## Kiton (Dec 21, 2022)

Jethro said:


> I think you're being very hard on this lens (which is not an L, I should add) - Hans at Optical Limits is enthusiastic (Highly recommended) about it's optical performance:
> 
> "... the Canon RF 85mm f/2 STM IS macro is capable of delivering outstanding image quality. It's already very sharp at f/2 - even on a high megapixel body - and it's about as sharp as it gets at f/4. Lateral CAs are negligible. There's a slight degree of pincushion distortion but image auto-correction can eliminate the traces without significant side effects. A vignetting of 2 f-stops at f/2 is in line with other lenses in this class so an activated auto-correction is a good idea here."
> 
> I can't comment on it's video performance, but for a lens of this price and specs, it looks pretty impressive to me.


I am actually not that hard on the lens, I like the lens. but I want a faster focusing lens for general use. They have 2 $3,000 plus (locally) 85 1.2, they can have 2 85 f1.8 gen lens. It is the company that I am hard on. Justifiably. The biggest newspaper in town bought 2x R3 and glass for most of the team (14 staffers) and most of the guys feel the same as I do, love the cameras, could push the company managers over Niagara Falls in an instant.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 21, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> As a focus group, we aren't bad...


I am not sure Canon hearing that they are DOOOOMED over and over again will help their business decisions very much.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I am not sure Canon hearing that they are DOOOOMED over and over again will help their business decisions very much.


Not only that, I suspect it means that if they do peruse the forums here, they'd rapidly get the impression that many posters here are clueless about reality and reach the conclusion that there is not sufficient business-relevant wheat to be gleaned here from among all the asinine chaff.


----------



## nunataks (Dec 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lol, no, most of Canon’s sales are not of the 5DIV. And if you think I’m cherry picking data, you know nothing about data analysis. We’re discussing camera sales and you brought up and made predictive statements about market share, and I’m talking about total global digital camera sales by manufacturer per year, i.e., global market share. Data don’t get less cherry-picked than that. What would you like, data on total sales of cameras and cars combined? Sheesh.
> 
> Cherry picking would be something like most full frame digital cameras sold in one country over a two-month period. Sony actually did a press release like that once.
> 
> Feel to try again. I won’t expect coherent logic, so I won’t be disappointed.



Since you'd like to resort to insults instead of actual data, here's some that I very quickly Googled:









10 top-selling mirrorless cameras in 2022 so far: Canon is still the daddy


Canon owns the top 3 spots in 2022's best-selling mirrorless cameras in Japan so far – and APS-C bodies rule the roost




www.digitalcameraworld.com





Notice that the Canon cameras on the list are outdated (the M series is dead and the RP is on its way out and heavily discounted) but sure let me know how new and improved Canon products are selling well still! They're hanging on to old stuff that is still selling, but won't be for long.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 21, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Since you'd like to resort to insults instead of actual data, here's some that I very quickly Googled:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you’re saying that old crap from Canon outsells shiny new stuff from the rest?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Since you'd like to resort to insults instead of actual data, here's some that I very quickly Googled:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And you accuse me of cherry-picking data? Geez. That article is based on BCN data, which represent about half of the retailers in Japan, which comprises less than 10% of the global mirrorless market, which comprises about 60% of the ILC market. In other words, your 'data' are a cherry-picked summary of about 3% of the ILC market. For a 6-month period. And those data confirm that Canon is still on top (though the recent BCN data show some Sony cameras in the top spots). But you conclude Canon is going to lose market share. 

Well, as I said – I did not expect a logically coherent response, and obviously I set the bar at the right level.


----------



## nunataks (Dec 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> And you accuse me of cherry-picking data? Geez. That article is based on BCN data, which represent about half of the retailers in Japan, which comprises less than 10% of the global mirrorless market, which comprises about 60% of the ILC market. In other words, your 'data' are a cherry-picked summary of about 3% of the ILC market. For a 6-month period. And those data confirm that Canon is still on top (though the recent BCN data show some Sony cameras in the top spots). But you conclude Canon is going to lose market share.
> 
> Well, as I said – I did not expect a logically coherent response, and obviously I set the bar at the right level.



Again, insults just show that you're not confident about your point and the fact that I said that of course they're currently on top but their refusal to innovate will hurt them in the long run is still accurate, which you of course did not comprehend. Old and nearly discontinued cameras won't last too long - and they don't exactly have great stuff out to replace those models once sales dry up, while other brands do.

I'll give you a few minutes to try and figure that one out, but it's ok if you can't come up with a good response - I'm sure you tried!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Again, insults just show that you're not confident about your point and the fact that I said that of course they're currently on top but their refusal to innovate will hurt them in the long run is still accurate, which you of course did not comprehend. Old and nearly discontinued cameras won't last too long - and they don't exactly have great stuff out to replace those models once sales dry up, while other brands do.
> 
> I'll give you a few minutes to try and figure that one out, but it's ok if you can't come up with a good response - I'm sure you tried!


I remember a decade ago, the oh-so-wise pundits here DRoned on and on about how Nikon was DRubbing Canon’s sensor DR, and how Canon’s refusal to innovate with their sensor design meant they would soon lose market share. 

News flash: they didn’t. They gained. 

Your predictions, like your interpretation of the current sales numbers, are hollow. But go ahead and have another run at that football, Charlie. I’m sure Lucy will leave it on the ground for you this time.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not only that, I suspect it means that if they do peruse the forums here, they'd rapidly get the impression that many posters here are clueless about reality and reach the conclusion that there is not sufficient business-relevant wheat to be gleaned here from among all the asinine chaff.


I suspect Canon does like many companies and pays a third-party to do the monitoring for them, as it is much more cost effective. Now that doesn't mean that there is an actual person anywhere reading these comments. Instead, what happens is a bot scours hundreds of sites looking for keywords, phrases and combinations of words for dozens or hundreds of different clients and then sends a summary to each client.

An individual or team at Canon is most likely assigned to go through the reports and flag anything that needs to be moved up the corporate ladder.

For example, Canon might have had someone looking for "R5" and "Overheating." When that combination of words hit an alarming number of instances they knew they had a problem. Similarly, they might have the bots looking for "Canon," "Mirrorless," and "Freezing."

They probably even get data that shows how frequently Nikon, Sony and Canon are associated with positive and negative terms, just to spot trends. For example the report might tell them that in 2015, 70% of Nikon mentions were positive, while 80% of Canon mentions were positive, while in 2022, 80% of Nikon mentions were positive and 80% of Canon mentions were positive.

You are correct that individual comments are of no interest to Canon, but I am reasonably certain that they are monitoring this and other sites as an early warning system and to do basic corporate research. We are aggregate data and they want that data, but individual opinions are just that, individual opinions. (Wisdom of the crowd = significant. Individual opinions = insignificant).


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 21, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I am not sure Canon hearing that they are DOOOOMED over and over again will help their business decisions very much.


I still contend that CR is better than other forums - and not only as I contribute regularly  

Easy to ignore the silly comments especially when it is a common theme for a long time and the numbers show the opposite. Dipping into any DPR article on Canon shows there is almost nothing constructive in them.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not only that, I suspect it means that if they do peruse the forums here, they'd rapidly get the impression that many posters here are clueless about reality and reach the conclusion that there is not sufficient business-relevant wheat to be gleaned here from among all the asinine chaff.


Clueless posters can still buy Canon stuff. I think that most of the obvious fan boys from other ecosystems leave CR pretty quickly once they are asked to say something with some degree of logic.

What I am surprised about is the responses from posts about lenses that are at the very pointy end of the market whether buyers or renters. The negative comments for RF600/4, RF800/5.6 for instance about price and yet salivating over a 200-500mm/4+1.4x which have to cost more.

In any case, I would suggest that most buyers of the lower end of the market rely mostly on recommendations from reseller staff rather than perusing technical forums on rumours. I wonder what type of education they receive from Canon to promote their products.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 21, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I suspect Canon does like many companies and pays a third-party to do the monitoring for them, as it is much more cost effective.
> An individual or team at Canon is most likely assigned to go through the reports and flag anything that needs to be moved up the corporate ladder.
> You are correct that individual comments are of no interest to Canon, but I am reasonably certain that they are monitoring this and other sites as an early warning system and to do basic corporate research. We are aggregate data and they want that data, but individual opinions are just that, individual opinions. (Wisdom of the crowd = significant. Individual opinions = insignificant).


I believe that their marketing teams would take the time to read the formal reviews - particularly the ones where Canon provided the equipment. All reviewers have some bias (conscious or otherwise) to take into consideration. The number of eyeballs that read/watch them would be a significant factor.

The overheating storm in a tea cup did prompt quick firmware updates from the engineers so the feedback was definitely received.
9-July R5 announce date 
~30-July R5 shipping date
27-August R5 firmware 1.1 with improved temperature / video record times (in the 3 video modes affected)
It was a quick fix from timed to measured temperature but I don't think that you can expect a much faster response.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 21, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Again, insults just show that you're not confident about your point and the fact that I said that of course they're currently on top but their refusal to innovate will hurt them in the long run is still accurate, which you of course did not comprehend. Old and nearly discontinued cameras won't last too long - and they don't exactly have great stuff out to replace those models once sales dry up, while other brands do.
> 
> I'll give you a few minutes to try and figure that one out, but it's ok if you can't come up with a good response - I'm sure you tried!


1. Criticising your data isn't the same as insulting you.

2. What "refusal to innovate" are you referring to?

3. Surely selling more of old bodies that are presumably cheaper to manufacture, implying higher profit margins per unit, is better business? Why wouldn't that continue if it were the case at present? Hasn't the majority of Canon's (and presumably most other manufacturers') income come from the lower end products, which sell in larger numbers?


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 22, 2022)

nunataks said:


> but sure let me know how new and improved Canon products are selling well still! They're hanging on to old stuff that is still selling, but won't be for long.


It took me 5 minutes to find the information you requested from Canon's annual report and 1Q/2Q3Q updates!
Summary is that the R mount bodies / RF lenses are highly profitable and continue to sell in excess of their plan and the overall market has picked up year on year despite Covid and supply chain issues. Market share of ~50%.

From Canon's annual 2021 financial results (2022 should be out end of January):
...*profitability recovered to a normal double-digit level in 2021.*
As for camera demand, despite concerns that it would shrink significantly due to the pandemic, demand remained relatively strong... and the impact made by new full-frame mirrorless cameras released by each company.
As for the* size of the market in 2021*, although it shrank by 200 thousand units, due to the insufficient supply of products by each company, it* was still 5.4 million units.
Our unit sales in 2021 totaled 2.74 million units, 20 thousand units fewer than in 2020, also due to the insufficient supply of products,* particularly entry-class cameras. However, for the *EOS R5 and EOS R6, sales volumes and price levels remained stable,* despite them being in the market for more than a year. Additionally,* unit sales of our RF lens lineup*, which was expanded to 26 lenses through the addition of 8 new products, *increased substantially,* thanks to their synergy with cameras
We have been expanding our core product lineup by increasing the number of highly profitable EOS R systems over the years. As a result, *the sustained profitability of the camera business has increased significantly, resulting in an overall 25% increase in camera sales and a significant improvement in profitability in 2021.*
In *2022, the size of the camera market is expected to be 5.65 million units, a 5% increase over 2021*, which takes into account the carryover from 2021 due to supply shortages.
As for RF lenses, we will work to increase unit sales of our lineup, which currently consists of 26 models, through further synergy with cameras.

Through the timely launch of products that expand the range of choices available to users, *we will maintain high profitability by increasing sales and improving our product mix.*

From Canon's 2Q21 financials:
*...we raised our outlook for the size of the global camera market by 200 thousand units and now expect the overall size to be 6 million units for the full year.*
In the second quarter, the share of total sales attributable to the *EOS R5 and EOS R6, for which sales remain strong, has increased more than expected*
...*the number of full-frame mirrorless camera users who purchase RF lenses has been accelerating since the launch of the R5 and R6*, creating a situation where we cannot supply some products in a timely manner.
...in response to strong demand for camera bodies, *we raised our unit sales projection by 100 thousand units, and now project full-year unit sales to be 3 million units.*

From Canon's 3Q21 financials (prior to the R3):
... *due to the global shortage of parts, the size of this year’s market is now projected to be 5.9 million units, 100 thousand units fewer than in our previous projection. Similarly, we expect our own unit sales to be 2.95 million units, 50 thousand units fewer than in our previous projection*.
...*the EOS R5 and EOS R6, they continue to be strong selling models. As for our enhanced lineup of lenses, we exceeded our unit sales plan thanks to their synergy with camera bodies.*


----------



## Jethro (Dec 22, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> It took me 5 minutes to find the information you requested from Canon's annual report and 1Q/2Q3Q updates!
> Summary is that the R mount bodies / RF lenses are highly profitable and continue to sell in excess of their plan and the overall market has picked up year on year despite Covid and supply chain issues. Market share of ~50%.
> 
> From Canon's annual 2021 financial results (2022 should be out end of January):
> ...


You're clearly right - but I fear you may be wasting your time ...


----------



## unfocused (Dec 22, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I believe that their marketing teams would take the time to read the formal reviews - particularly the ones where Canon provided the equipment. All reviewers have some bias (conscious or otherwise) to take into consideration. The number of eyeballs that read/watch them would be a significant factor….


My comments were aimed at forum discussions. Certainly they follow reviews, at least the legitimate ones that have respectable readership.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 22, 2022)

kaihp said:


> I'm probably gonna put my ignorance of (and non-use of) WA lenses out there, but wouldn't three lenses of 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm seem too closely spaced together?


It would seem that way. In my experience though, it seems like the wider the angle gets the bigger apparent difference from the next narrower. The difference between 14mm and 16mm looks huge to me. 35mm vs 50mm seems like less difference to me.


----------



## Nemorino (Dec 22, 2022)

Just have a look at the angle a focol length deliver:
14mm : 114.2°
20mm: 94.5°
24mm: 84.1°
28mm: 75.4°
35mm: 63.4°
This are the angles of Sigma prime lenses, info found at geizhals.de


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 23, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I suspect Canon does like many companies and pays a third-party to do the monitoring for them, as it is much more cost effective. Now that doesn't mean that there is an actual person anywhere reading these comments. Instead, what happens is a bot scours hundreds of sites looking for keywords, phrases and combinations of words for dozens or hundreds of different clients and then sends a summary to each client.
> 
> An individual or team at Canon is most likely assigned to go through the reports and flag anything that needs to be moved up the corporate ladder.
> 
> ...


Or maybe they just waited for the warranty claims to start coming in. I think that would be more likely than actually searching the internet for things going wrong. Warranty claims are real results, internet forums are just full of unhappy whiners.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 23, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I believe that their marketing teams would take the time to read the formal reviews - particularly the ones where Canon provided the equipment. All reviewers have some bias (conscious or otherwise) to take into consideration. The number of eyeballs that read/watch them would be a significant factor.


They probably review and edit many of them, or at the very least give the reviewer the narrative. Otherwise why give your equipment to someone who is going to berate it.

The testers they want true opinions, reviewers are part of sales.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 23, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I wish there also was an EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro lens available


Yes yes yes ! Provided it is excellent at infinity setting as well.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 23, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Yes yes yes ! Provided it is excellent at infinity setting as well.


And bonus points for being able to blend in sonically when shooting a nest of angry hornets!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 23, 2022)

nunataks said:


> Since you'd like to resort to insults instead of actual data, here's some that I very quickly Googled:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sony only has one new camera on that list.
I do have to admit that was an impressive sales performance from the a7 IV.
It will be interesting to see if the R6 II can make it on the list.
Canon has so many interesting cameras at every price point that I would only expect the lower-priced cameras to make it on the list.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 23, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I would suggest that most buyers of the lower end of the market rely mostly on recommendations from reseller staff rather than perusing technical forums on rumours. I wonder what type of education they receive from Canon to promote their products.


Just going by the YouTube videos that camera stores put out on Canon vs other brands, I would say that Canon provides much better education.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 23, 2022)

Nemorino said:


> Just have a look at the angle a focol length deliver:
> 14mm : 114.2°
> 20mm: 94.5°
> 24mm: 84.1°
> ...


You can calculate the FOV angle from the formula *FOV = 2 arctan (x / (2 f)) *where x is the diagonal of the sensor and f the focal length. But, who needs to do that if you can look them up.


----------



## chasingrealness (Dec 25, 2022)

Ok so what are we thinking for announcement timeline?


----------



## shadow (Dec 29, 2022)

Snapster said:


> I'm definitely not onboard with Canon's strategy of offering only entry level lenses and uber expensive and bulky L lenses.
> 
> I need my lenses weather sealed so that pretty much rules out the cheaper lenses. The prices rule out most L lenses. There's a massive gap between a $200 and $2500 50mm lens. I'm not going to get either and don't really understand why they won't let third party manufacturers fill that gap.
> 
> Also, lenses that weigh 500-600 grams feel perfectly balanced with R5/R6. We badly need 1.4 primes in that weight class with weather sealing.



Massive gap, exactly my thoughts still. These L series lens address the high end full frame body price, great but you are correct nothing in mid range, so I guess all the R10's never upgrade from the kit lens? Are R7 shooters buying $2-3000 lenses? I guess so. If someone wants a R5 or R3, sure $2000+ lenses. But now watching these announcements over 6 months without decent 1.8 or 2.8 $600-$1200 IS garden variety APSC lenses (like my Sony 11mm F/1.8, 18-105 f/4 with OSS I own), I find it strange that releasing the R8 at rumoured under R10 price still holding out without respective RF-S APSC lenses to be a weird market in the mid range. If the strategy is to target high end only, I get it. So we will see what happens at the CP show in February.


----------



## shadow (Dec 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon’s goal isn’t to give you what you want. Their goal is profit,


Coming from a bean counting and non marketing customer oriented perspective, sure. I get the non 3rd party thing you often mention in these threads. But, one glaring omission is to leave out market share, which Sony is gaining on Canon. The downfall of US manufacturers, short term quarterly profits was all that mattered. QC in US built, crap quality 1980's automobiles is a good example. Toyota and Honda focused on the customer and usurped the failed US bean counting, non customer focused crap quality cars.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 29, 2022)

shadow said:


> [...] But, one glaring omission is to leave out market share, which Sony is gaining on Canon.[...]


Is it? Do you mean market share for cameras+lenses, cameras or only FF cameras? Are you talking about global or local market share? The numbers I've seen from retailers and analyssts aren't very convincing either way and Sony is still playing musical chairs with their yearly reporting by moving their camera unit around so you can't do year-over-year comparisons. Canon will say "we shipped 3 million cameras this year", Sony reports "This division made some profit, the camera unit will move out".

When I look at tech youtubers, it's pretty much Sony all the way. When I look around in my neighbourhood it's virtually only smartphones. When I go on a photography workshop it's 75% Canon, 20% Nikon and a sprinkling of OlympusOM system, Pentax and Sony. When I read CanonRumours Canon is both ******* and perpetual market leader. 
And Sony will issue a press releases that for a single day in August, for a single retailer, between 9 and 10 AM that day, they sold more FF bodies with a greek letter than anyone else


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 29, 2022)

shadow said:


> R10's never upgrade from the kit lens?


In real life, R10 users adapt EF and EF-S lenses and use full-frame telephoto lenses like the RF 100-400.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2022)

shadow said:


> But, one glaring omission is to leave out market share, which Sony is gaining on Canon.


In 2021 (the most recent data available), Sony’s YoY gain in camera market share was 1.9%. Canon’s gain was 2.5%. Canon’s current camera market share of 48% is over double that of #2 Sony. Several years ago, Canon was a bit lower, low to mid 40’s, and #2 Nikon was much closer, in the high 30’s. Both the longer-term and current trends show Canon continuing to gain market share at a faster rate than their competitors.

Sorry, but the only glaring omission here is your failure to know the actual data.


----------



## shadow (Dec 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but the only glaring omission here is your failure to know the actual data











Lensrentals' most-rented cameras & lenses of 2022: Canon & Sony dominate, video on the rise


Lensrentals has published the annual roundup of its most-rented gear for 2022. As in 2021, Canon and Sony dominated the rental shares. However, DSLR gear, like Canon EF cameras and lenses, dipped in popularity, while Sony gear was more rented than in 2021.




www.dpreview.com





By far, the best year-over-year performance goes to Sony, which saw its market share increase by 3.5 percentage points.


----------



## shadow (Dec 29, 2022)

Sony and Canon Both Claim to Be #1 in Mirrorless Cameras -- Who Really Is?


Sony and Canon are both claiming to be the #1 camera company when it comes to mirrorless cameras based on the same sales data. Here's why.




petapixel.com













Sony knocks Canon off the top spot for mirrorless camera sales


According to the recent BCN report, Sony has overtaken Canon for sales of mirrorless cameras in Japanese retailers




www.digitalcameraworld.com













Mirrorless Camera Market | Size, Share, Growth | 2022 – 2027


As per our research report, the global mirrorless camera market size is projected to reach USD 2.54 billion in 2027.




virtuemarketresearch.com













Global Mirrorless Camera Market 2022-2027 | December 2022 Updated


The global mirrorless camera market is growing due to rise in vloggers and professional photographers. Camera manufacturers are aiming for more backward integration




mobilityforesights.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2022)

shadow said:


> Lensrentals' most-rented cameras & lenses of 2022: Canon & Sony dominate, video on the rise
> 
> 
> Lensrentals has published the annual roundup of its most-rented gear for 2022. As in 2021, Canon and Sony dominated the rental shares. However, DSLR gear, like Canon EF cameras and lenses, dipped in popularity, while Sony gear was more rented than in 2021.
> ...


Seriously, you are going to use data on camera and lens rentals by one rental vendor in one country to support your point? I mean, seriously? WTF?!? 

Maybe you think 'market share' in that blog post means actual camera and lens sales, if so you need to read more carefully. The whole article is about rental data from LensRentals. Did you take lessons from @nunataks on how to cherry pick data to support erroneous conclusions?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2022)

shadow said:


> Sony and Canon Both Claim to Be #1 in Mirrorless Cameras -- Who Really Is?
> 
> 
> Sony and Canon are both claiming to be the #1 camera company when it comes to mirrorless cameras based on the same sales data. Here's why.
> ...


Speculative reports on predictions for the next 5 years? Lol. Remember when the DSLR was going to be dead (as in, no more commercial production) in 5 years? That was 2013, and in 2021 40% of the cameras that Canon sold were DSLRs. 

Market segments and subsegments? That's a rabbit hole that @koenkooi already mentioned. News flash, Leica dominates the market share of camera brands starting with the letter 'L'. I mean, they're not even a blip in global camera sales, but if all you care about is L-named brands, Leica is the clear winner.

Why don't you go and Google '2021 global camera market share'?


----------



## shadow (Dec 29, 2022)

Here is a 2022 report, but I am sure it too is erroneous.









The latest digital camera global market share (2021) - Nikon Rumors


The Japanese Techno System Research published their latest digital camera global market share (the orange circle shows the Japanese companies at 94.4% based on 8.49 million units shipped): Canon: 45.8% (-2.1%) Sony: 27% (+4.9%) Nikon: 11.3% (-2.4%) Fujifilm: 5.9% (+0.3%) Panasonic: 4.4%...




nikonrumors.com





The _Japanese Techno System Research_ published their latest digital camera global market share (the orange circle shows the Japanese companies at 94.4% based on 8.49 million units shipped):


Canon: 45.8% (-2.1%)
Sony: 27% (+4.9%)
Nikon: 11.3% (-2.4%)
Fujifilm: 5.9% (+0.3%)
Panasonic: 4.4% (unchanged)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2022)

shadow said:


> Here is a 2022 report, but I am sure it too is erroneous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, that’s the kind of data I’m talking about! This is the ‘current’ version (released last month) of the data to which I was referring, which was released last year. I hadn't seen these data yet. I should have taken my own advice!

Canon still dominates the market, of course, but that’s a notable gain for Sony. And yet another losing year for Nikon in spite of several new camera launches.

In light of this, Canon’s APS-C R bodies make more sense. The biggest potential market segment overall comprises xxD and xxxD owners, given Canon’s dominance of the DSLR market for years. If the new R bodies appeal to that segment, I suspect the trend will revert to what it’s been for years. But time will tell. Sony has a long way to go to be anything but #2, but a 7% yearly gain is impressive!


----------



## Andrew_kuttor (Jan 2, 2023)

I just want an 8-15 or 8-25 F2.8 fisheye (RF-L) please


----------



## JTM-77 (Wednesday at 4:21 PM)

Maximilian said:


> They already have the 16, 24 and 35mm Wide angle Prime lenses for RF


----------



## Maximilian (Wednesday at 7:05 PM)

@JTM-77:
I was talking about RF *L primes *and the prices Canon is calling for compared to EF L primes.

Can you show me an RF 16 mm *L prime*? And what‘s its price?


----------

