Upload & Sell: Off
| p.3 #6 · Official: 24-70mm f/4L IS and 35mm f/2 IS released! |
But if I have to choose between 2.8 and 4.0 I choose 2.8. More light to the sensor, more creative possibilties with DOF and bokeh, higher shutter speeds, or lower ISO settings. I made that choice for the 70-200 zoom that I have in 2.8 and not 4.0. For the same reason I have the fastest primes as well. I know, this is not for everyone and as a general hiking setup or street photography kit the 4.0 lenses are a much better combo, but if size matters, there are already much more attractive alternatives, like an m4/3 or NEX...Show more →
You have summed up the current situation fairly well.
However, it is worth noting that Nikon sales for interchangeable cameras and lenses have improved in 2012 as compared to 2011. Nikon, like Canon, is mostly a traditional DSLR company, so it's worth pondering why their sales have improved unlike Canon. Sure they have their 1-series mirrorless cameras, but those sales numbers are much smaller compared to their traditional DSLRs.
I do not think Canon is wrong in releasing lenses like the 35 f/2 IS and 24-70 f/4 IS, especially since we all know the prices of these lenses will fall in time to come. The folks who can afford those heavy and expensive f/2.8 zooms or f/1.4 primes really belong to a minority.
My hypothesis is that Canon's failure to address their sensor shortcomings, propensity to handicap their lower-end cameras (particularly in important things like AF), underwhelming products such the EOS-M with its hopeless AF, tendency to over-price their products and failure to address market needs in a timely manner (e.g. pixel count of 5D3 vs D800) are the underlying reasons for their loss of market shares. Nikon made huge strides since the advent of their D3/D300, hopefully Canon can do the same. Otherwise, it's all doom and gloom for them.
It's also worth noting there are more folks switching to m43 from the Canon camp than from Nikon.