IlyaSnopchenko Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
alundeb wrote:
In my view, the 10-18 mm range just seems a more valuable extension to the RF-S 18-45 or 18-150 than a re-housed 11-22 would be.
I think these two ranges served different purposes. In EF, the 10-22 was meant to mesh with a full-frame 24-something lens (24-70, 24-85, 24-105), while the 10-18 was aimed at complimenting EF-S zooms (18-135, 17-55 etc.) This was also reflected in how 10-22 was way more upscale than the 10-18.
matejphoto wrote:
I doubt that we will see more premium lenses from Canon for the RF-s. I think their strategy is that is you want premium then go full frame.
I feel the same, even though I don't like this one bit (but then again, I'm not buying into the RF system anyway). After all, Canon once gave us the 17-55/2.8, which was an excellent lens - even if mine did break a couple of times. But the IQ and the AF was there.
Honestly I think it is sensible strategy for Canon. The RF-s will be ultra competitive on price. For everything else there is FF.
The industry is under immense pressure from smartphones on the lower end so they need to be smart on where they spend the resources.
Ironically, if one starts digging into the equivalence thing, the cellphones might sometimes have an edge over these ultra slow lenses. Of course, the sensor size advantage is still there anyway, but RF-S certainly would be near the bottom of my option list if I had been buying into a new camera system without prior attachments, simply because how uninspiring the lenses are. I do have a Nikon Z 16-50/3.5-6.3 pancake zoom, but even this one looks quite a bit more appealing than the Canon 18-45/4.5-6.3: bigger range on both sides, and slightly faster aperture towards the wide side.
|