There are 4 wide-angle L prime lenses coming in the next 12 months [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Super telephoto primes sell in far far fewer numbers than a 35mm f1.4, if there are to be no 3rd party options on RF then Canon would do well to fill the gaps themselves.
Sigma offer; 35mm f2, 35mm f1.4 and a 35mm f1.2 on both E and L mount. Canon are a larger company that charge higher prices. I’m sure they can manage a 35mm f1.4 and a 35mm f1.2 for RF.
Upvote
0
Another adapter question....
Can a EF-S lens be adapted to RF via the R mount adapter? Normally EF-S lenses can't be used on EF mount but I am not sure if the R mount adapter allows them (and automatically shifts to crop mode).
Upvote
0
so the move to R mount has actually increased the number of lenses available to RF/EF + EF-S
Upvote
0
Fuji will attract upgraders from 35mm full frame & smaller buyers than current medium format customers of more established brands.
If I was shooting Hassleblad, PhaseOne, etc I wouldn't bother with Fuji unless I had no choice.
Upvote
0
Done it before. Only use it for stationary subjects as the ergonomics for it as convenient as a smartphone focusing.
Upvote
0
Or get a like new used. Mine cost $1200 USD with box and everything. If not for the fact someone sold it used, I would not have known.
Upvote
0
I found the May 8, 2013 Forbes article for which your reply may be based on.
Will copy paste the relevant parts below. @Del Paso tagging you as you may be of interested to read this.
=====
MEB: An established market, plus established competitors, plus a new target audience for Leica… it all adds up to a tall order. How is is the S-System selling?
StS: There are no industry-wide figures, but we think the core medium format market is roughly 6000 units per year – worldwide, for all brands. We are not yet the market leader (I estimate Phase One to have 40-45% market share), but we already have 20% share – and this is only after 3 years after introduction.
Now consider that we had very limited production capacity all this time. Since launch, we’ve had more orders than we could produce, so the camera always on back-order. With our new factory in Wetzlar, Germany, going on-line next year, we will be able to increase capacity, which of course will help us make further inroads in terms of market share. We have historically succeeded not by copying a market but by reinventing it. We did it back in the day with the M, and we’re doing it now with the S-System.
=====
At the price points Phase One, Hassleblad & Leica charges I am not surprised that roughly 6000 units per year – worldwide, for all brands.
FujiFILM with its Canon full frame & RF L price points will expand the medium format market to more than that.
Although famous photogs like Annie Leibovitz has been spotted using FujiFILM GFX 100s for
- 2022 Rihanna's Vogue pregnancy shoot
- 2022 Star Wars Vanity Fair Cover Shoot
Last edited:
Upvote
0
If they’re not going to let third-party makers come to the party the least they could do is make an astro-centric 20mm f/1.4. I’ll be very interested in that 24mm, though.
Upvote
0
THAT is the problem I’ve had with the Canon lineup so far. I needed a macro anyway so I got the RF 100mm (and it’s phenomenal btw) but otherwise I’m just adapting third-party EF glass. That and my Samyang RF 85. Sad they can’t keep making that lens. It’s a banger for the price.
Upvote
0
Someone might think that the prospect of wide Canon primes would console those disappointed that native RF options from 3rd parties like Sigma and Tamron, (whose wide EF primes are massively popular and competitive) are being blocked by Canon.
I've found Sigma's 24 1.4 Art to be better than Canon's EF 24 1.4 on EF, more so on RF, where the gap in auto-focus performance is closed. Neither appears to resolve above 30mpix IMO, so switching from a 5D4 to an r5, for instance, only weakens the argument in favour of Canon's current 24 1.4 over the cheaper 3rd party option.
I wouldn't say no to native RF mount that was lighter and/or resolved significantly better and more consistently across the aperture range, but the new RF model would need to be clearly superior and remain competitive before I'd upgrade from an adapted Sigma 24.
New users may care less.
I've found Sigma's 24 1.4 Art to be better than Canon's EF 24 1.4 on EF, more so on RF, where the gap in auto-focus performance is closed. Neither appears to resolve above 30mpix IMO, so switching from a 5D4 to an r5, for instance, only weakens the argument in favour of Canon's current 24 1.4 over the cheaper 3rd party option.
I wouldn't say no to native RF mount that was lighter and/or resolved significantly better and more consistently across the aperture range, but the new RF model would need to be clearly superior and remain competitive before I'd upgrade from an adapted Sigma 24.
New users may care less.
Upvote
0
So, because the lenses you want Canon to make aren’t available, Canon is illogical. Hubris.
There are three zoom trinities, a non-L set, an f/4 L set, and an f/2.8 L set. Logically, that covers a majority of photographers’ needs and budgets. There are macro lenses and fast portrait primes. Arguably a 35/1.2-1.4 is missing, as is a 135/1.8-2, and I have no doubt those will come in due course.
The most likely logic is that Canon is releasing lenses in an order intended to maximize their profit.
Upvote
0
My experience with EF 17-40 L is that it has lots of chromatic aberration out of the center. I haven't really been happy with it's images even after lens distortion correction. I guess I chose poorly.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
