[wim]

It appears that $1000-ish L lenses are the middle class now in Canon land (14-35, 24-105, 70-200/4).
Honestly, anything else we could expect from Canon with almost no third-party entries to put the pressure on the monopoly?
And honestly, while there are good lenses in the RF lineup, I still think I was right to steer clear of this system (I pity those who chose to stick with Canon in the (erroneous) belief that it's the only place they could go with their EF lenses). At least the Z mount is slowly gaining more Tamrons now, and it's still more adaptable.

Considering the fact that I have had more trouble over the years with 3rd-party lenses in general than I would really care for, I am one of those who is glad to have stayed with Canon. Personally, I am no longer buying and testing lenses like crazy like I used to do up to, say, 10 years ago, and I don't care about other systems anymore as long as Canon provides what I need and/or want.

I have been into Canon now for a long time, used to be a Pentax-afficionado in my analog days, but never liked the slighly cold rendering, and really love the rendition of Canon L-glass. I have only 1 lens that is not a Canon one for my Canon system, and that is a single Samyang one, which I happen to like, even though it doesn't entirely render the same way Canon glass does, although it comes close.

And if I want or need to carry little, I always have my MFT-stuff, and am very happy with that. Especially the Olympus stuff, as the rendering is very similar to the Canon stuff.

One thing is extremely important to me, and that is that I can actually use both Canon and Olympus equipment while focusing manually through the viewfinder. That is something that is impossible for me with a Nikon camera, due to my eye-defect I am afraid, and therefore another very good reason to stay with Canon (and Olympus).

I do use both EF and RF lenses on my Eos R, and very happy with that. I also use my EF lenses on my Oly bodies occasionally, if the need arises.

All in all, IMO, you make all kinds of assumptions, which really only relate to yourself, but not necessarily to other people's needs and/or wants.

I am also getting really fed up with all the negative remarks about Canon on this site here. IMO, that is totally undeserved. At least they had the guts to create a really new system with the R-line, and designed it with a lot of leeway to be prepared for future developments. They still make very good cameras, at least on a par with the competition, and they make darn good lenses too. This remark is not specifically directed at you, but at the general remarks I tend to see here ever since the R-line became available.

I also think it is time to no longer rate lenses based on raw image performance as the be all and end all, which many still do here, as the peripheral performance in raw is quite often cropped away in jpgs, while the lens still gets the designed and indicated viiewing angle, especially when it comes to the cheaper lenses. L-lenses generally do not suffer from this, or not as much, but that is to be expected.

Also, the Canon RF L-lenses do outperform the old EF L-lenses, and often quite spectacularly so. The lenses I use most right now, 24-105L, 35 F/1.8, 50L and 85L certainly are considerably better than the older EF-versions, and personally I was happy to pay the price for those. I also own the 24-240, and for the price it is IMO a very nice all-in-one lens for when the need arises.

I did and do advise quite a few people on cameras and stuff, never excluding any brand they may have a preference for, IOW, staying as neutral as humanly possible, and I can assure that all those who have gone the Canon way are very happy with their cameras, lenses, and the results they produce.

Anyway, that's my take for now.
Kind regards, Wim