Z250SA wrote: rscheffler wrote:
As seems to always be the case, Canon has failed miserably and grossly lacks innovation. This is yet another example of a product no one wants and will be clearly inferior to options available from the competition.
I'm guessing a 'prime' annoyance is that Canon lacks middle ground offerings between entry level 'cheap' primes and zooms and elite-level super-teles. Canon's apparent preference for larger, heavier, costlier zooms to replace certain primes (100-300 vs 300/2.8, 200-500 vs. 500/4) might be another factor. In this regard I think these new expensive zooms actually open up more of a gap to justify Canon developing smaller, mid-speed, mid-price telephoto primes. Anyway, I do think the missing middle ground is a valid complaint. It's possible Canon is first pursuing greater returns from broader market products that overlap some of the narrower niches that might eventually be addressed by higher performance primes.
Yes, the missing middle ground is a fact. But, is there any volume market left on the middle ground? Yes, of course there is to a degree. But the main question is if the Middle Grounders are prepared to pay around 3x the price of admittedly well performing "cheap line" STM lenses and up to the 200-800 lens just to gain a stop, almost two stops at best compared to the f/11. Is that comparably small(?) gain worth the price if you get a 500 or 600 f/6.3 but loose the flexibility of a zoom or gain two stops but have to carry 3x the weight compared to the 600/11? Is there a large enough middle ground market outside the few photo fora?
And any Canon 600 f/6.3 it will be "shot to pieces" by the f/4 primers along the usual lines.
That’s a good question and I suspect that Canon has done some market research exploring the magic middle. Interestingly, CR claims that Canon is considering an RF 400 do. I would have preferred that Canon pursue the lighter weight, mid-range, mid-priced lenses. I’ve used the entry level 800 f/11 and it didn’t work for a number of reasons for me including AF limitations, edge sharpness and aperture. Having owned a ef 400 do in the past, I would have welcomed such an RF version lens.
In terms of sharpness and performance, I was ecstatic with my 100-500. Unfortunately, I detested the mandatory extension with the tc and IQ took a hit. The ef 400 thrived with tc’s. For most of my WL, I need the 800+ FL. My 600 f/4 lived with the 1.4x tc. For all of you who dismiss the Nikon offerings, the 800 PF is wickedly sharp, lightweight enough to handhold for short periods, and is the size of my old 500 is ii. It fits easily in a carry on backpack unlike my old 600 f/4. For those who don’t shoot at an Uber long distance, the 600 PF is a super alternative, with outstanding optics in a package which weighs a bit more than the 100-500 and is only 3” longer (it’s actually shorter than the fully extended 100-500).
So, yes, I want the messy, smaller, high performing middle and as one of the primers wouldn’t shoot them down.
Dec 12, 2023 at 11:10 PM
Previous versions of armd's message #16417085 « Canon 200-800? »
