I've been on the fence for a while with Canon, looking for a compelling argument to go all in on the RF system and today I've decided to sell up and return to Sony, which is sad.
My main concern is the spiraling cost which together with the size/weight premium of many of the options compared to Sony makes it overall a very easy decision. Add to this the lack of so many compelling 3rd party and oem lenses for Sony mount like the new Tamron 25-200 2.8-5.6 and Sigma 20-200 and the uwa 14 and 16 1.8 not to mention the compact 14-24 2.8 and new 24-60 2.8 all at very competitive prices and generally smaller, lighter and weather sealed with excellent af motors just makes me feel Canon is becoming less and less interested in me as a customer. I was thinking of waiting for the rumored 300-600 4-5.6 before fully deciding, but I can only imagine this will be another £5-6k lens and for 1/3rd of a stop tele advantage compared to Sony 200-600 5.6-6.3, I've decided to cut my losses and move on.
Overall, I think the R5ii is probably a tiny bit more responsive than the a1ii, but I don't currently have a native Sony lens yet to confirm that, so I am going to assume once it does have a Sony oem lens attached it's going to be the same or better and that 3rd party will always be a little bit behind, price you pay! Even with the 3rd party lenses I have been impressed, but I do like the Canon R5ii and will miss it.
I thought I would like the RF 100-500 more than I do and I am now faced with some big decisions, add a series of f1.4 lenses, basically to get the better af, I'm not even that bothered about the 1.4, just the better af speed and build and was considering 20,35,85 and a 70-200 2.8 z at a mouth watering cost close to £9k.
Depending how I do it, the Sony 16mm 1.8 (Canon fast uwa only goes to 20 1.4 currently) 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 and 70-200 gmii 2.8+1.4x tc would cost close to £6k and if I went 3rd party for some of the options you can get the primes for roughly £2k or less and £2.5k for the native 70-200 gm ii and the 1.4x tc, roughly 50% or less.
That means I can also buy a 14-24/24-60 for my a7cr and also swap the 200-800 for a 200-600 with no real need for the 100-500, as the 70-200 will cover the low part of the range fitted to the lighter a7cr and 200-600(w/wo 1.4xtc) on the a1ii to replace the 200-800.
I don't suppose Canon will change their approach while people continue to pay what they charge but as it stands I feel Canon has pushed me away, also this will be permanent, at these prices this is a final switch and Canon will no longer be affordable to me anyway, even if I ever wanted to return, again which is very sad.
My main concern is the spiraling cost which together with the size/weight premium of many of the options compared to Sony makes it overall a very easy decision. Add to this the lack of so many compelling 3rd party and oem lenses for Sony mount like the new Tamron 25-200 2.8-5.6 and Sigma 20-200 and the uwa 14 and 16 1.8 not to mention the compact 14-24 2.8 and new 24-60 2.8 all at very competitive prices and generally smaller, lighter and weather sealed with excellent af motors just makes me feel Canon is becoming less and less interested in me as a customer. I was thinking of waiting for the rumored 300-600 4-5.6 before fully deciding, but I can only imagine this will be another £5-6k lens and for 1/3rd of a stop tele advantage compared to Sony 200-600 5.6-6.3, I've decided to cut my losses and move on.
Overall, I think the R5ii is probably a tiny bit more responsive than the a1ii, but I don't currently have a native Sony lens yet to confirm that, so I am going to assume once it does have a Sony oem lens attached it's going to be the same or better and that 3rd party will always be a little bit behind, price you pay! Even with the 3rd party lenses I have been impressed, but I do like the Canon R5ii and will miss it.
I thought I would like the RF 100-500 more than I do and I am now faced with some big decisions, add a series of f1.4 lenses, basically to get the better af, I'm not even that bothered about the 1.4, just the better af speed and build and was considering 20,35,85 and a 70-200 2.8 z at a mouth watering cost close to £9k.
Depending how I do it, the Sony 16mm 1.8 (Canon fast uwa only goes to 20 1.4 currently) 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 and 70-200 gmii 2.8+1.4x tc would cost close to £6k and if I went 3rd party for some of the options you can get the primes for roughly £2k or less and £2.5k for the native 70-200 gm ii and the 1.4x tc, roughly 50% or less.
That means I can also buy a 14-24/24-60 for my a7cr and also swap the 200-800 for a 200-600 with no real need for the 100-500, as the 70-200 will cover the low part of the range fitted to the lighter a7cr and 200-600(w/wo 1.4xtc) on the a1ii to replace the 200-800.
I don't suppose Canon will change their approach while people continue to pay what they charge but as it stands I feel Canon has pushed me away, also this will be permanent, at these prices this is a final switch and Canon will no longer be affordable to me anyway, even if I ever wanted to return, again which is very sad.
