rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Hoagie058 wrote:
Anyone else bothered by the fact that we can’t get a Sigma 200 F2 for RF? How about the 135 1.4?
I like Canon’s usability but this type of thing makes me rethink my switch from Sony to Canon 18 months ago.
Those are certainly cool lenses and caused me momentary pangs of envy. But when I evaluate how I do my work, I honestly have very little need for such lenses. Sure, I could readily use them, as I shoot social events in some venues where I'm already at ISO 6400 1/320-1/400 f/2. But would a 135/1.4 truly make a worthwhile difference? I mean, I get by fine with the 135/1.8. Do I really need even more blown out bokeh? Will my clients actually care about that? I checked reviews of the 135/1.4 and image comparisons of it wide open against 1.8, and TBH, it was mostly 'meh' for me. Sure there are differences, but not enough to give me regrets about using Canon.
I'm actually way more envious of the Sony 50-150/2... 
I generally like what Canon has done with RF lenses. Yes, I strongly believe they should have released their own 50-150/2 version shortly after the 28-70/2, and am baffled they haven't yet. And there certainly are still gaps in the RF lineup, at the low, middle and upper ends. But I'm also not held back from being able to do the work I need to do with what Canon's RF stable currently offers.
Other systems will always have something interesting that my current system of choice doesn't. I guess rather than a glass half empty, I'm looking at it as a glass half full that can (and hopefully will) be filled further.
EB-1 wrote:
Yes, it has. I spend far more on lenses than cameras. I'm not sure if that is typical, but I wonder how much Sony is leaving on the table with all the 3rd party lenses people use instead of buying Snoy. Maybe they make up for it with sensors and other products.
EBH
I think it's the price Sony had to pay to get a foot in the door for their early mirrorless cameras with anyone other than those wanting them as a platform onto which to adapt legacy "alt" lenses. I mean, I tried the first couple generations of a7 series cameras and AF was poor compared to DSLRs for anything moving, and the UI was not appealing at all. But despite that, Sony's strategy paid off and has put them in a very strong market position. Even if they lose some lens sales, they're still selling bodies. And I do think some aspire to upgrade to Sony lenses when they can. This was definitely the case for someone with whom I work on a few projects. He's a generation younger and was attracted to Sony, whereas the rest of us older shooters are either Canon or Nikon. He started with an a7III (I think) and the Tamron 70-180 and 28-75 combo, and it got acceptable results needed for that work. As he gained more experience, he upgraded to an a9 and Sony 70-200/2.8 v1 and noticed a huge performance boost. A lot of that will be on the a9 vs. a7III... but there's certainly an appeal to going 'full Sony' to eliminate the restrictions Sony has imposed on off brand lens compatibility. Sony isn't entirely benevolent. They're certainly using the foothold third party lenses provide via a more affordable entry point, to migrate/convert some of those users to Sony lenses, whether for access to otherwise restricted features, or due to brand image/appeal. What we don't know is how many third party lens users eventually add Sony lenses, or how many don't see the need to do so because the third party lenses already provide everything they need. And as the third parties get better, more numerous, and address more niches, there's certainly some risk for Sony that fewer will see the need or desire to buy Sony lenses. Yes they'll still sell cameras to those photographers, but like probably everyone here, I currently have a few Canon cameras, but way more lenses. And any company will want those repeat sales.
Even if Canon doesn't open up RF more fully to third party FF lens options, we still benefit from the likes of Sony doing so because the competition will prevent Canon from ignoring the world outside their walled garden. And I think we've already seen that with lenses like the 16-28/2.8, 28-70/2.8 and 200-800. Not as cheap as third party, but also optically not far off from L lenses.
|
