Great way to start a conversation by calling me fanboy. So 3500USD will justify it? I don't think so.
If Canon comes out with a 50-150/2L or 70-150/2L, a $3500 cost would not surprise me in the least. I'd preorder one, regardless. Hopefully they won't take nearly as long as the 6 years it took Sony to follow Canon's 28-70/2.
Personally, 40-135/2L will do for me, I use 40mm more than 35 or 50. So I can skip the RF100L & RF135L. And finally something can replace my EF135L.
So what are you doing here? You could just say you want it and ignore my comment.Starting a meaningful conversation with you would be a waste of time judging by the tone of your original post. You wanted to jab at Sony so you saw what you wanted to see.
I would order a lens like that at $3500 and it looks like neuro as well so you are clueless on lens R&D and pricing. Canon won't be asking for your insight anytime soon
There’s already the 28-70/2, I’d prefer less overlap. 70-150/2 is pretty reasonable and could come in a little bigger than the 70-200/2.8.
Personally, 40-135/2L will do for me, I use 40mm more than 35 or 50. So I can skip the RF100L & RF135L. And finally something can replace my EF135L.
So what are you doing here? You could just say you want it and ignore my comment.
I will jab Sony all day because Sony punishes a1 users, which I was. For an expensive flagship, I get treated like peasants, and you expect me to keep kissing $ony's a$$? You can do it.
It seemed to me as more of a jab at people who jab at Canon until Sony does it.
If Canon launches an xx-150/2 zoom, I’ll buy it to pair with my 28-70/2, but for me the combination of the RF 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8 is much more useful.
The EF 400 f/4L should give a decent idea on the size and price, the front element should have the same 100mm diameter.
Not the comparison I'd have chosen. A 70-200/2 with a 1.4x TC would give a 98-280/2.8...that sounds very much like an existing RF lens that costs $9500.
