[Klaus]

https://photorumors.com/2023/10/16/first...-stm-lens/

So, another el-cheapo lens while the EOS world continues to wait for mid-class lenses.

[Rover]

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.

[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

[Rover]

I don't think I've spoken for anyone but myself. And you can't, in good conscience, call me anti-Canon; after all, I've been using their gear for over 15 years, and have a truckload of EF-mount gear that I have no intention of ditching. It's just that they, as a business, have made some decisions - that they are completely entitled to - that made me assess them critically (as I, too, am completely entitled to) and come to the decision of taking at least a part of my business elsewhere. I'm just a user, not a company employee, so I don't owe it to them to like every decision they make (and they, conversely, have every right to not give a single toss about what I'm thinking).

[wim]

I don't think I've spoken for anyone but myself. And you can't, in good conscience, call me anti-Canon; after all, I've been using their gear for over 15 years, and have a truckload of EF-mount gear that I have no intention of ditching. It's just that they, as a business, have made some decisions - that they are completely entitled to - that made me assess them critically (as I, too, am completely entitled to) and come to the decision of taking at least a part of my business elsewhere. I'm just a user, not a company employee, so I don't owe it to them to like every decision they make (and they, conversely, have every right to not give a single toss about what I'm thinking).

I did mention your remarks can only relate to you.

I just wanted to mention that for me it is different, in addition, which was not meant as a comment to you, as I indicated, that I am not happy with the general negative treatment of Canon stuff here over the past few years.

I am very happy with my Canon equipment .

Kind regards, Wim

[Klaus]

Canon L stuff is great - no doubts. I think I mentioned more than once that they are the kings in lens quality (although Sony has caught up lately).

Still, Sigma and Tamron are selling A LOT of lenses - at some stage during the DSLR era, Sigma was even the biggest lens manufacturer (not sure about today).
So, it's safe to state that most people WANT third-party lenses. And in the case of R-mount, that's simply a big fat negative bullet point.
Not everybody can afford L-glass. And regarding non-L glass, Canon isn't anything special, really. On the contrary.

As far as RAW vs JPEG testing goes - I hear you. In my own book, the struggle isn't so much about camera-produced JPGs. I, for one, would never use these simply because I pretty much always do shadow/highlight recovery in post (but your mileage may vary here). I struggle when seeing what something like DxO Photolab can do with the RAWs. The softness recovery capability is shocking at times. Lenses that I'd previously touched only with gloves suddenly produce results that are more than just decent - which, of course, raises the question of how far the classic "hard" criteria are still relevant (or at least THAT relevant). So, it may not be YouTube that is killing the review websites; it may be AI. I always suspected that AI would kill the need for "bokeh lenses" eventually, but I'm surprised that the first victim may be "lens sharpness".
While it is undoubtedly true that FF image quality is killing MFT at the moment, I do wonder whether FF sensors make any sense long term. The megapixel race has been silly for years anyway. Very few amateurs need more than 20 megapixels, really. AI can lift MFT images to a quality level where there's little to complain about already. The old "noisy image" argument is basically gone. However, Oly/Pana have to get their arses up and running to make AI-optimized bokeh a reality. If Apply/Google can do it, they should be able to do it as well. I hope that they can manage this before they've lost too much market share.

[Klaus]

MTFs:
https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/rf/lineup/rf-s.../spec.html

[liamsmith9x]

This lens is a hard sell for me.  $329 for this lens verses a DJI Pocket 2 at $349 or a Pocket 3 at $519.

wordle