I'm not a fan of Canon's recent decision to ban some third-party manufacturers from selling RF mount lenses. It's a smart short-term financial decision, but the long run is a different story.
Because of this decision, I invested in a Sigma lens (24-70mm and adaptor), and while the adaptor is one more piece of gear to lug around, I'd rather vote with my dollar. I don't support Canon's decision. Then, this week, I purchased another Sigma lens (35mm prime) instead of a Canon lens.
Maybe it won't make a dent in Canon's bank account, but that's two lenses sold that should have gone to Canon. I did it because I remember what younger Walid needed. I relied on third-party lenses because purchasing native lenses was out of budget, but I still needed to get the job done. Once I was able to afford more, I bought a small handful of lenses from Canon.
I was a loyal Canon user. I paused on buying another camera after my 5D Mark II purchase. I ran that camera into the ground with multiple repairs because I did not want to jump brands like many others! I did not feel anything sold by Canon for a number of years was worth the purchase, but I still stayed with the brand, counting on camera repairs to get me through.
Then, they released the R6 and I was impressed, felt it was worthy of making the purchase. My R6 needed lenses and my only option was the expensive selections from Canon because they won't allow other brands to create RF mount lenses.
They'll cash in, but in the long run, they lost a lot of brand loyalty. That's the biggest price tag. Here is how we can learn from Canon's decision as small business.
Here Is How Canon’s Decision Will Help You Do Better
- Canon customers have some options. Our clients have substantially more options, and behaving like Canon won't win any new clients. It's always important to remind yourself that clients have other options. They will go with the businesses who made them feel valued. Do you help your clients feel valued and appreciated?
- The market will make or break your business! If you treat your clients like they have no value, then the market will find another king of the hill (or queen)! As photographers, it's important to remind ourselves that ultimately the market will decide who wins. Canon's move is great for the short term, but in the long run it pushes new photographers to other competing brands. You and I may not have the luxury of waiting for the long run. Never feel entitled to anyone's business. We should be thankful and practice gratitude in our daily business happenings.
- Canon's move is pretty much "buy our lenses, and that's your only option" That doesn't sit well with me. When I started photography, the 3rd party lenses helped me! And when I was able to buy native Canon lenses, I did and Canon benefited from that. When you give your clients the "this way or the highway" treatment, they'll take the highway almost every single time. Always give your clients multiple options, never corner them.
- Younger me needed third-party lenses to learn and develop my photography business. Today's new photographer may not jump on Canon gear because of this limitation. They'll start with Sony or someone else and build brand loyalty over there. The lesson for photographers: don't ignore the people who are new to the market but have small budgets. Treat them well, give them options, and allow them to have a small sample of your work! If you treat them well, they'll build with you.
- Yes, they're making more money by forcing Canon lens sales, but it's leaving a bad taste with much of the community. I doubt I'm the only spiteful person who bought a Sigma lens. By now, we've read countless articles about Canon's decision. It clearly struck a nerve with the photography community! There's a lesson here: bad news travels fast, far, and wide. Treat your clients like gold. They could go elsewhere, but they choose to support you. It seems Canon forgot that, but it can serve as a lesson for you and me.
I'm confused though. Even if Canon allowed third-party RF lenses, would you still have bought Canon's version? I wouldn't have and I think this is the rub. I agree that this move by Canon is boneheaded. But, I understand it. I'm in the market for a cheaper alternative to Canon's RF 400mm and/or 600mm offerings. I just don't have $12K-$13K laying around. If Sigma were allowed to make RF versions of these, I'm sure they'd be a ton cheaper and just as good. Again, a "problem". Back in the day when Canon seemed either unwilling or incapable of making the cameras we all wanted, I very well near jumped ship to Sony. But, then Canon "saw the light". I think (HOPE) they're smart enough to see it again and open the door to third party lens makers. If history is any indicator, I think they will and all will be forgiven and forgotten. I've heard it said that if Canon keeps this up, third-party makers won't ever come back. I seriously doubt that.
Yes in the video I said that I would have purchased Canon's own version because it's a pain if you forget the adaptor.
It was a patent infringement. As photographers, we should all understand the value of protecting your intellectual property. In time, Canon may decide license the use of that IP. But it is their Intellectual Property - and no other company has the right to use it without Canon's consent.
I totally agree. As one who spent most of their career in Reasearch & Engineering, new product develpment doesn't happen without protecting your inventions (Intellectual Property). If Canon opened up the flood gates and allow Sigma, Tamron, etc. to build lenses for Canon's RF cameras, whose to say another company will build even cheaper gear that will further dilute and diminish the quality of Canon's brand? Even worse, why aren't some people complaining that there needs to be a cheaper Canon mirrorless clone camera body? Do you want Canon to be the next Bell & Howell, hawking their junk on late night TV?.
That’s a strange argument, considering we all just lived through a few decades where third party lenses were broadly available for every Canon mount the entire time, to Canon’s own benefit.
Mirrorless isn’t some kind of upside down world.
Equally strange because other manufacturers have been totally fine licensing their mounts for years, again to their own benefit, and none of the unreasonable catastrophes you listed have come to pass.
Clone camera bodies? Really dude? Really? Sky falling much?
Apparently, those 3rd party EF lenses weren't infringing upon Canon's patents.
Canon cannot stop company's from selling lenses which fit the RF mount (look at all of the 3rd party manual focus lenses which are currently available). But something about what this one company was doing was a patent infringement. The rapidity with which the infringing lenses were pulled from the market would seem to indicate that the company in question knew they were going to lose in court (and have to pay punitive damages).
Don’t forget EF-S lenses
And EF-M
Sigma pre-ART was known for unreliable AF because they were using reverse engineered protocols.
It’s not like Canon had any fewer patents on its other mounts. The difference is that 3rd party lenses got much better and Canon decided to close the gates.
And it’s not a mystery as to what happened here, allegedly Viltrox was spoofing a Canon lens to trick R cameras into thinking it was a Canon lens.
Anyway, I’m glad all this shook down when it did as I was about to add an R5 to the stable. I’ve owned almost all the ART lenses when I relied on EF and F mount. So if Canon’s going to wall off it’s garden that’s it’s choice, but right now there isn’t anything in that garden that I need, better for me to stay out it.
EF has been around since 1987. Many of those patents are expired. RF has only been around since 2018. It will be a few years yet before the newer patents expire.
During the 6 or 8 years when Canon was asleep I looked at a 24-105 and bought the Canon and Sigma Art. The vintage Canon was garbage compared to the modern Sigma. In that case competition is good because Canon upped their game, so if Canon closes the door for 3rd party lenses they won't have to update as much.
I am not an IP lawyer but I am smart enough to know that Canon can license the lens mount to other manuf but they don't need to license the camera mount.
Just wait until they have built in features that are available by subscription like Audi and BMW. For all I know they already do that.
.
A brand and its reputation are NOT affected by accessories that are made by 3rd party manufacturers. Do I think less of BMW because really cheap tires can fit on their rims, or because I can get a battery or windshield wipers for my BMW at Walmart? Hell no!
You seem to have a different way of thinking and feeling about things - a way that doesn't mesh with the way everyone else thinks and feels.
.
No... you think less of Canon because you can't put sigma RF lens on it...
Yes, exactly!
Apparently there’s a law on the books in the States that aims to keep manufacturers from blocking third parties from making products that are compatible with the original manufacturer’s product.
Which is apparently why you can still find manual focus lenses being released for RF mount from places like Laowa.
Canon is allegedly having to be creative with it’s C&Ds. I believe “RF-mount” is an enforceable trademark, so you can see 3rd parties using “R-mount” instead. Viltrox apparently got slapped down because their AF lenses were spoofing one of Canon’s EF lenses in order to trick the camera into thinking they were Canon lenses. I’m not familiar enough with software IP to say for sure, but in this case Viltrox apparently didn’t reverse engineer anything (jury-rigging is not infringement) but rather they cloned the protocols from an existing lenses which would be copyright infringement.
Ultimately this has little to do with Canon protecting their IP, that’s just the means to the end. They don’t want third parties on their mount, and are choosing to prevent this both through any legal means available as well as refusing to license their protocols.
The only hitch seems to be the protocols, so you’re likely to continue to see only manual focus lenses be released from third parties until such point as Canon gives up this gambit, or until some novel communication protocols are created (if such a thing is even possible). At which point you’d likely see a quick round of firmware updates from Canon for all it’s cameras to block them.
Which is anti-consumer. And lawmakers in various places seem to be in agreement.
Yes, you are correct if the blog was about the legal aspects of this story. However, the point of the blog, each bullet point within the blog, and the full video were to focus on the customer part of it.
That's why in the very first paragraph I spoke about short-term profits vs long-term effects. How can we as a small business learn from Canon's move and treat our loyal (or new) clients better? I never questioned the legal aspect of it.
.
I buy Canon's version of any lens I need that they make.
However, I need many lenses that Canon doesn't make. I need lenses that Canon doesn't even have anything close to. So I buy Sigma and Laowa for those specialty needs.
I rely heavily on 3rd party lenses because they make what I need, and Canon has no equivalents. I do not buy 3rd party lenses because they are cheaper than Canon. Budget and price have nothing to do with it.
I needed a truly long supertelephoto zoom. Canon makes nothing in this category at all. Sigma makes an excellent 300-800mm f5.6. I must buy Sigma because Canon has nothing anywhere close to this lens.
I need a smaller, lighter long zoom with very versatile range, small and light enough to handhold, but long enough to fill the frame with a small Pika at 15 feet, or for a frame-filling portrait of a Whitetail buck in the woods at 20 yards. Sigma makes a 60-600mm f6.3 lens that fits my needs perfectly. Canon offers nothing that is anywhere close to this lens. So once again I am forced to buy Sigma.
I need a truly wide angle lens that has full 1:1 macro capabilities. Where are you, Canon? Do you really offer NOTHING in this category? Seriously? Nothing in your new RF mount? Not even anything in the EF mount that you have abandoned? No ultra wide angle macro at all? Seriously? So I will be forced to buy Laowa. Laowa does not ignore the niche needs that I have, as they make a 15mm macro lens with true 1:1 magnification.
I need a wide angle macro probe lens. Canon, where are you? Nothing? Really? And so once again I will be forced to buy a Laowa 24mm macro probe with unbelievable 2:1 macro magnification.
I absolutely NEED 3rd party lenses because Canon does not make specialty lenses. They ignore my needs and only make the more mainstream stuff.
So ....... if Canon refuses to make the lenses that I need, and they also refuse to let 3rd party manufacturers make the lenses I need in their new mount, then what choice is Canon giving me?
I have been a loyal Canon customer since 2007. I have spent over $22,000 on Canon L series lenses. Yes, you read that right - over $22,000 on Canon lenses alone. And I have bought many Canon bodies - a 1D Mk 2, a 5D, a 50D, a 7D Mk 2, a 6D, a 1D Mk4, and a 5D Mk 4. I have not bought any ILC body other than Canon, ever. Totally loyal to them.
But now Canon is telling me that they don't want me to be their customer any more. I buy Canon bodies. I buy Canon lenses. I only go to 3rd party lenses when I need something that Canon does not make, and has no close equivalent for. If they don't want to make what I need, then at least they should allow someone else to make it. But no, they literally do not want me to be able to have a truly long supertelephoto zoom. And they do not want me to be able to shoot with an ultra wide angle true macro lens.
Canon is trying to force me to shoot differently than I want to. I have all of these hopes and dreams about how certain scenes could look if I shot them a certain way, with certain gear, but Canon wants to prevent me rom ever having the gear that will make my dreams a reality. Other manufacturers make lenses that will allow me to shoot these hopes and dreams, but Canon does not want them to be able to fit on their camera bodies. So what can I do? Either give up on my hopes and dreams and just do the same-old same-old photography, or switch to Sony.
Looks like I will be forced to switch to Sony even though I don't want to. I just want to stick with Canon, but have lenses available that will enable me to shoot different ways than the conventional ways. But Canon doesn't want that. They don't want me anymore. I have been dumped.
.
In short, they erased your brand loyalty. I feel the same way. They also discouraged new photographers from starting with Canon. Short term profits, longterm problems.
Well said Tom.
Time to join the ranks of the Polycamerous! There’s plenty to enjoy from any given manufacturer (even Pentax!) so give it a whirl. Over the last few years I’ve owned cameras from at least 7 different mounts, and they all have something they do well. And many do something the best that no one else does.
No company is ever loyal to it’s customers, at least not like customers are loyal to a company. A customer uses the tools to create, but a company sells the tools for profit. Two different goals.
And all you have to do is to buy EF to RF adapter... But you rather change all of your 100 cameras and 1000 lenses...
.
But I want to use all of the specialty niche lenses that have not been made yet ... and those lenses will not be made in EF mount. 3rd party manufacturers are already halting manufacture of EF mount lenses ... doubt this? Just look at any brand new lenses that are just now being announced or released, and they are not being made in EF mount. So an EF to RF adaptor will not do me any good for all of these new lenses that are only being made in Sony mount.
Sure, the current EF lenses that already exist can be used on RF cameras with use of the adaptor. But that will exclude me from being able to use lenses like the Tamron 50-400mm and any other brand new designs. So what good will that adaptor do me in 5 or 10 or 15 years?
.
I thought you were just being a big cry baby, but this is a really good point. You are right. It seems that the really innovative stuff is all going to Sony these days.
David,
Thank you for being open minded, and willing to consider that maybe I am not just a big cry baby. I do get accused of that from time to time on photography forums, but I always have real life experiences and desires lying behind whatever point I am trying to make.
Completely agree.
Interestingly came back to write this comment because the next thing on my Google recommended stories was this, which I assume won't be coming to RF: https://www.cined.com/samyang-v-af-t1-9-lineup-of-lenses-for-sony-e-moun...
I'd suggest hiring either a Sony or Nikon body (as they appear to be moving more towards the Sony approach than the Canon one, at least with a Tamron licensed lens, so might be another option), along with one of the EF adaptors, and seeing what you like/dislike about each.
In many places outside the US, EF lenses are more expensive than much newer and better Sony G lenses. For example:
Sony PZ 16-35mm f /4 G - $1400 AUD on sale
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L - $1799 AUD on sale
Sony 35GM - $1799 AUD
Canon 35L II - $2899 AUD
So why would I want to buy old gear for an inflated price when they competition is selling newer gear for cheaper along with excellent third party options.
No Nedd to buy new EF L lenses from Canon... They are half the price second hand in as good as new co dition. For that reason I stay with Canon. There are plenty L lenses for very good price and if more people decide to leave Canon there will be even more and cheaper
People buy new for a number of reasons. For example:
Warranty, which is non transferable.
Although where I’m from Canon only provides a 1 year warranty on their lenses.
Sigma gives 7 years of warranty.
I wonder who is more confident in their product’s build quality, hmmm?
Holy cow! The 35mm GMaster is cheaper than Canon’s 7 year old DSLR 35mm? Dang dude.
Not to mention that had Sigma never launched their 35mm ART, Canon might never have felt the need to update their old 35mm L. That shows the value of competition. Canon got showed up, and had to compete.
Either lens they choose, the customer wins.
But in this case Sony users definitely come out on top
Yeah pretty crazy how much they overprice things here, the 35L II based on its age alone should be the same price or less as the 35GM. If the 35L II is that price, you can only imagine how expensive the RF 35L will be once it's released.
Exactly, even if you hate third parties or other brands, you should want them to exist and succeed to make those first party options cheaper for you. All the third party competition may be one of the reasons why Sony lenses are so much more aggressively priced, regardless it's a huge win for the consumer.
“If” Canon ever releases an RF 35 L. It’s supposed to be f/1.2, and an announcement has been “just around the corner” for at least a year and a half.
Meanwhile the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 has been out for over 3 years, and while huge is as good (or better depending on the review you read) than the 35 GM, and I just checked and it’s bonkers but the Sigma is USD$500 less than the old Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L II??
Like. Wow.
Well.. If you rather spend money now for third-party RF lenses to find out that Canon update will make them useless will that feel any better? Sigma, Tamron and all the other third-party lenses were always slow... I am on Canon with Canon lenses for reason. This reminds me of people bragging about Apple and Android... Same story
.
I am on Canon bodies with Canon lenses, too. But Canon doesn't make enough different kinds of lenses, so I need lots of 3rd party lenses for my Canon bodies, too. Because Canon refuses to make unusual niche lenses for narrow case use scenarios.
.
FWIW the cripple hammered AF on the 5Dmk2 was better with the Sigma Art than with the mk1 24-105 and the 85mm 1.8 Canon works great on Sony with an adaptor.
Some MBA genius decided this was a way to control the market and consumer for the next few quarters...
I’m glad you’re happy with your gear, but I think you’re letting motivated reasoning and choice supportive bias creep into your communication strategy a bit much.
For example: without Sigma, Canon users would never have enjoyed an epic 105mm f/1.4 lens. Or had access to the best 14mm f/1.8 available (until Sony’s version). Until RF mount, Canon only provided a 50mm f/1.4 that was an unchanged design from the ‘90s, and Sigma’s 50mm f/1.4 was pretty revolutionary for them.
Canon can’t (and won’t) be able to produce every type of lens for it’s mount. Which is where third parties provide a valuable addition. And were Canon to open their mount and license the protocols to 3rd parties there’s no danger in them releasing firmware for all of their RF cameras en mass for the specific purpose of breaking third party support.
As a Canon user, the only one who loses from Canon’s gambit is you. It’s in your best interest for there to be competition within the mount, so that Canon doesn’t get lazy because they have you trapped.
Well 200/2.0 and 200/1.8, 85/1.2, 50/1.2...how different is 100/1.4 to 85/1.2... I think one of the reasons Canon never felt the need to produce 100/1.4... Same with 135/2.0 vs 135/1.8... And are we comparing AF speed and accuracy also? How about contrast? How many shots can you nail on 100/1.4 from sigma? BTW... I am not saying no to Sigma and Tamron... But its a cheap replecement and nothing else... Unless there is something special Canon don't have in lineup and it actually makes sense to spend money for..
Yes… 200mm f/2, a real lens for the Everyman that one. And hooo boy, that 200mm f/1.8 from 1988… yeah, no kidding, why bother making a 105mm f/1.4 to compete with Sigma and Nikon in 2018 when you have that….
…THIRTY YEAR old gem out there. C’mon man, this is what being an apologist is.
The Sigma 105/1.4 is phenomenal by the way and absolutely affordable by every comparison. And Canon wasn’t under pressure to make one because Sigma filled the niche for them.
The Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 is ‘80s p*rno soft, and the vast majority of people can only afford a f/1.4 to begin with. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 was the superior choice.
The idea that modern lenses from these long standing 3rd parties are somehow inferior has been proven wrong a hundred times over. They’re more than good for the money.
And the vast majority of photographers don’t have 200mm f/2 money. The vast majority of people need something good and affordable. That’s what the entire issue is here.
And every portrait photographer dream about the thirty years old lens until today lol how affordable was sigma 50/1.4 when it came out compared to canons 50/1.4? Are you really talkin about affordability here? How much is sigma 135/1.8 compare to canon 135/2.0?
You’re cherry picking your arguments and ignoring anything that invalidates your point:
Canon’s EF 50mm f/1.4 sucks, and was a design from the ‘90s. Canon was too lazy to update it. As far as modern 50mm f/1.4 lenses go, Sigma’s lens was affordable for the quality and the market segment, and was excellent. Without it Canon users had no good choices from Canon.
People can dream about a 30 year old 200mm f/1.8 all they want, but its an irrelevant lens for 98% of people. The purpose of having third party options is to provide the masses with those options. The existence of Canon’s (discontinued and unavailable) 200mm f/1.8 didn’t negate the usefulness of a beautiful lens like the 105mm f/1.4 from Sigma that could actually be purchased, and was affordable to more people. Canon’s 200mm f/2 is actually better than the f/1.8, but how many people can afford, what, a $5000 lens vs the $1600 Sigma? If you can find one, they’re unavailable everywhere, meanwhile the Sigma is shipping today from everywhere.
Tell me, how many photos can you take with a lens that you can’t buy?
Hint: Zero.
And since you ignored it: tell me about Canon’s 14mm f/1.8… oh that’s right, they never made one. I’ve owned both of Canon’s slow 14mm f/2.8 lenses by the way, and they’re markedly inferior to the Sigma 14mm f/1.8. Which is itself inferior to the Sony 14mm f/1.8. And no, I don’t care that there’s a rumour of a patent for a Canon 12mm f/1.8. It doesn’t exist, and I spent years doing useful astrophotography with the Sigma on EF.
I’m not sure what your beef is with Sigma’s 135mm f/1.8. It was (and is) available for 4 different mounts. I can’t find Canon’s 135mm f/2 for sale new anywhere. Either way, how does that support your argument that third party lenses in general aren’t necessary?
I guess that’s my request if you:
Articulate why 3rd party lenses are unnecessary, and why consumers are actually better off with less options.
First of all, canon never said that they won't allow other companies to design RF glass. They said that RF mount is still in development.
What is your beef with 14/1.8.. Get a tracker... You will get lot better results and for lot cheaper
Yes. We don't need 3rd party lenses... Only you do... As I mentioned... This is like never ending BS between Mac and android and Windows... All the time the same.
How many people is actually buying Sony or Nikon because of Sigma and Tamron? A7 lll users who left Canon because they haven't been happy with the lenses?
Why don't you meantion Sigma 20/1.4 for astro landscapes? Because its rubbish? But I am cherry picking.
How many companies have 28-70/2.0? Oh sorry I forgot thats not in budget of people who rather buy 24, 35, 50 and 85, because 28-70 is not wide enough and not long enough.
Discussion with you reminds me of DxO Mark scores. I got Canon for the reason that they had all I needed in line up in 2008... And I am still happy with them today. If you not happy stop bragging and buy Sony, Nikon of Fuji... I hope there will be many second hand 200/2.0 for sale from ppl like you. Good luck with Sigma and Tamron or Samyang then.
Lol, I own and regularly use Canon, Sony, Nikon, Pentax, and Hasselblad. I know the value of choice.
When I started out in photography I did so with a Rebel T3i. I could barely afford it. Most people who have owned a Canon have only owned a Rebel. More people have bought 3rd party lenses than those who bought premium “L” glass. Because most people don’t have 2, 3, or 7 grand to spend on a single lens. I’m lucky, between my T3i days and now my financial situation has changed. For most people it’s gotten worse.
They couldn’t afford lenses like the Sigma 24-35 f/2 for EF mount, a lens that Canon nor anyone else had a competitor for at the time. But those of us who could, did, and were happy to have the option. Meanwhile people with less means could buy less expensive 3rd party options which were good for the money, especially compared to whatever meagre offering Canon had. And now, those of us with means have access to lenses like Tamron’s revolutionary 35-150mm f/2-2.8, something which has no competition in it’s class.
For your information, the new Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG DN is amazing. Better than any other 20mm on the market. You don’t need a star tracker when you have f/1.4, which is especially useful for Aurora photography which can’t be tracked anyway.
How’s Canon’s 20mm len… oh right, they don’t make one. Unless you’re talking about the slow, film-era 20mm f/2.8 from 1992. The old Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG HSM still kicks Canon’s butt there. Heck, even Samyang makes a more usable, faster 20mm than Canon.
Gosh, you sure got me on that one!
How good is Canon’s RF 24mm f/1.4? Oh, right, they don’t have one. Better use the old DSLR lens I guess. But surely they have a new 35mm f/1.2 like Sigma? No? Not that either? And we established that they don’t have anything new that’s wide that’s faster than 16mm f/2.8 or a zoom that’s 14mm f/4.
But, good thing Canon RF owners don’t even have the OpTiOn, right?
You seem to misunderstand something here: Consumers having the Option of using third party lenses is 100% Benefit and 0% Detriment
But by all means, keep the faith bud.
~~Canon works in mysterious ways~~ I guess 😂
P.S.: I own both Mac and PC. You’re the one here who’s owned only one brand for 14 years and is arguing to death that said brand can do no wrong.
P.S.S.: Canon has been confirmed to have said they are not open to third party lenses until they’ve had a captive market for a few more years. They’ve been quoted as saying that they aren’t open to the idea of licensing 3rd parties until late 2024 at the earliest. Go read up on it if you want.
Oh sure... Just another troll... Yeah right.. So you just don't know what you want until now... Byeeee
Byeeee!
I’ll be out there, taking photos that you can’t take, because you lack the same lens options that I have access to.
But, heck, they say that limitations breed creativity!
So maybe you’re better off! 😂
Sure... If you get chance to get off the keyboard... Looking forward to see your unusual photos in your empty gallery here 🤣
Boop!
I’m not so invested in a website that I need to post all my photos here.
Your gallery is nice though, a shame that you’re artificially hamstringing yourself. You could do some good work with a broader lens lineup.
“his is a burner account I use for fun when I feel like arguing with people”
Well done for admitting you’re a troll.
“..who have faulty, illogical arguments.”
Thanks! Other guy who came out of nowhere with some shade at the end of an internet argument between two separate other people. Good thing I had you to repeat what I wrote to really drive it home.
Did you want to add something to the discussion about whether having the totally optional option of third party lenses is good (my take) or bad bad very bad (my sparring partner’s take)?
Or are you doing the exact same thing as me and bothering (trolling) someone you find objectionable, but paradoxically trying to claim moral high ground?
“I have no skin in the game here as I don't, or ever plan on owning a Canon setup, but this decision was just bizarre... in this world of value for money and options that customers demand, it seems ridiculous to alienate such a large portion of potential buyers.”
Looks like you and I agree on the issue being discussed (although I do have skin in the game as I own canon gear amongst others), which makes your presence here increasingly curious. Are you just trying to get your comment count up? Or are you self-appointed troll patrol?
No, I just don’t agree with cowards who can’t use their own name online and blatantly admit they created an account purely for the purpose of annoying or arguing with people.
You will gone soon anyway so continuing this discussion is irrelevant, so be gone, troll.
Self-appointed troll-patrol then, got it.
From my point of view it’s smarter not to associate my public persona with the things that may slip off my thumbs onto an internet comment section. Albeit, they aren’t even especially provocative things. “3rd party lenses good” is hardly a controversial take on an article which echos the sentiment. And my debate partner was the first to break protocol when he refused to tackle the points I brought up and went for the ad hominems.
But, since you’re rendering me guilty anyway, I’ll give you the same counterpoint he gave me:
You know, judging by the relative comment counts you and the other guy have showing on your profiles, contrasted with the comparative quality of your photography (and star ratings), it’s at least clear that he spends more time holding his camera and you spend more time logged into this website. You might consider that you’re a little too-invested. Which would explain your compulsion to police others’ activities when it’s not your official duty.
But then again I’m just an anonymous coward with an empty gallery, who’s never rated a single photograph.