Re: Friday rant: The future of Canon RF and 3rd party lenses
2
MAC wrote:
sportyaccordy wrote:
MAC wrote:
Lisa Horton wrote:
LennyLevino wrote:
If you think about it, the reason Canon won't allow third parties is that they know their lenses aren't up to par and aren't worth their price. If they were truly confident in their products, they wouldn't care if third parties made lenses for their mount.
Imagine Sigma releasing their 50mm Art on the Z Mount. Nobody would buy it, because Nikon's own 50mm f1.8 is better optically while also half the price.
I think it more likely that the decision is based on sales numbers and profits than on confidence in their lenses.
agree
Canon has provided some great values like the R6II, the R8, and the R7
and now they need to recoup with lens sales in a diminishing market when they haven't even had a chance to fill RF future catalogue.
it would be dumb to let someone else eat your lunch when you depend on RF lens sales to fuel your survival in a diminishing overall market
Yall are acting like Canon cant cash in directly on those 3rd party sales through licensing fees, exactly the way that Nikon and Fuji are.
yeah, right, it remains to be seen how this works out
and, Nikon hasn’t licensed any FF lenses and just a few APSC lenses (siggy prime trio). So if it is so beneficial, why doesn’t Nikon open up the floodgates to FF?
Nikon has licensed some FF lenses. They have the Tamron 2.8 trio (17-28, 28-75, 70-180) and a whole set of Viltrox 1.8 primes (24, 35, 50, 85)
And if you are a Fuji user, you got this aggravation going on…
Problem with Sigma 18-50/2.8 and X-T5: Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
Thats the exception to the rule........ the vast majority of 3rd party glass works fine; if they didn't people would not buy them.
If you haven’t even developed your RF catalogue, do you want someone else developing it for you…
This is a false dichotomy; allowing 3rd party lenses doesn't mean Canon has to give up developing its own lens lineup....... literally everyone else with 3rd party glass has plenty of 1st party glass as well.
There's really zero reason for Canon to lock out 3rd party glass, which is why its so bizarre that yall are defending them limiting your choices.
OK there's an argument for how locking out 3rd party lenses benefits Canon, but even that is shaky.
future research depends on benefits to Canon
However theres zero argument for how Canon locking out 3rd party lenses benefits you..............
future research dollars bring future innovative products
you act like they would make the same money licensing products - not so, those less expensive products are not profit centers
They would be for Canon.... if a 3rd party manufacturer makes a lens and pays Canon a licensing fee, what is the cost to Canon? I dont buy the lost sale argument, because 3rd party glass is often way cheaper than 1st party stuff.... so if Tamron makes a $1000 2.8 zoom that is not taking away from a $2000 L zoom that the Tamron customer was never going to buy in the first place. However if there are no 3rd party options and no RF or EF options someone wants (I can think of a lot of such examples) then Canon will probably lose the customer from the system entirely. Penny wise pound foolish.
what is hard for you to understand monopoly
Again, how does Canon's monopoly benefit users? Are yall so invested in seeing Canon win that you are willing to lose for their benefit?
And while Canon is #1 I don't think they are #1 in FF mirrorless, and frankly if they keep this strategy going I don't know if they ever will be...............