It looks like Canon is keeping the price of the upgraded the same making this new version $700 cheaper than the Nikon version. That’s substantial.
True, but I thought Canon was aiming for the top spot in terms of lens performance? Wasn’t this what L lenses were supposed to be about? Or are they now happy with the top spot in price/performance ratio?
This is probably the first time an update of such an essential lens isn’t even trying to better its most significant rival that was released more than a year ago.
I’ll probably be called a Nikon fanboy again for writing this, but I find this a significant development in the history of the EOS mount, and in the history of DSLR lenses in general.
It doesn’t mean Canon didn’t have the ability to design a better lens of course, it means they decided not to.
My guess is that they couldn’t afford to in a context where they are directing resources towards mirrorless. This comes on top of their decision to remain the only manufacturer not offering a stabilized version of their 24-70 f2.8 years after everybody else did. So the 2 lenses most used by working pros are now “confirmed” not to be a top priority for Canon.
They also decided 10 years ago that their sensors were “good enough” and that video AF was the area to invest in. We’ve seen how that has worked for Sony.
What does that mean for the future of the EOS mount?
Cheers,
Bernard