There was a time when sharpest images and longest focal length determined lens choice for one of my most enjoyable genres, bird phototgraphy.  As a consequence, gear has tended to be top-of-the-line quality and tripod-mounted heavy.  Quality continues to be a key factor, but light weight has more and more become the most sought attribute.  Regrettably, a light weight hand holdable long telephoto is missing from the RF lineup.

Also, rather than one size fits all, gear tailored to specific needs now gets consideration.  This was reflected in the recent purchase of Canon's mirrorless RF14-35mm f4L and RF70-200mm f4L zooms, great light weight and easy to carry high quality optics.  The RF100-500mm f4.5-7.1L was added at the same time, replacing a well-used EF100-400 f4.5-5.6L II.  Herein we hypothesize that both the missing long telephoto and the high quality lightweight "trinity zooms" are a result of Canon's best selling market strategy.

The RF zooms are remarkably light and compact compared to EF equivalents.  As a result, they are easy to pack and to carry during walk-around outings -- a use case that matches well with photographic interests in historical architecture, events and mountain scenics.  While the f2.8 versions of these lenses are admittedly better for indoors, low light and background blur, they are also heavier, bulkier and more expensive.  And, the f4 RF mount versions focus so close that wide open bokeh is not as much compromised relative to EF predecessors as one might think.  Canon has hit the mark with its f4L and f2.8L trinity lenses, and all are likely to sell well.

Added to that, most of my architecture and landscpe photography is done at f8 or f11.  The down side of opting for lighter weight is that if there is a need for low light or extreme background blur then a different lens -- heavier and more expensive -- would be needed.  None is contemplated for now.

On the other hand, the lack of a truly long focal length hand-holdable but high quality RF telephoto from Canon for bird photography continues to chafe.  In-the-field experience has shown that when chasing birds in a seashore environment best results are obtained with a handheld setup.  As a practical matter, a camera/lens weight of about eight pounds is my limit.  Currently, the EF400mm f4L DO II and 2X extender adapted to a gripped R5 meets that goal exactly.  This setup yields 800mm, but sometimes one can't move closer so that isn't always long enough.

Which brings us to manufacturer market strategies, their resultant product offerings and the match of those products to personal needs and preferences.  As a long time Canon user, I would of course prefer that Canon offer exactly what I want for each use.  Alas, that is not the case -- nor would it be for any manufacturer.  While I'm sure everyone can name something they wish was offered, I'll stick to my particular unmet long telephoto preference.

Looking elsewhere, Nikon has come to the table with a Z800mm f6.3 that, paired with a Z9, weighs in at virtually the same eight pounds as the gripped R5, adapted EF400 DO II and 2X extender setup.  Add a 1.4X teleconverter and the Nikon Z combo reaches 1120mm with only a few ounces added weight.  Even 1600mm is no longer a pipe dream!

On the Canon front, all we have is a rumored RF500mm f4.5L, a lens that would reach 1000mm with an RF2X extender.  Desirable if it became reality, but Canon seems to be going in a different direction -- more below.  For the first time ever, running a dual system starts to sound like a solution.

All of which leads to the final point of discussion: why is Nikon providing the long lens I want and Canon is not?  (Sony's offering is their well regarded 200-600mm f6.3 zoom -- but then zooms are rarely as sharp as primes, and I have a strong aversion to Sony's smallish bodies and (to me) overly complex user interfaces.)  That gap in the Canon lineup is where market strategy comes in.  Canon has held the top spot in overall sales for two decades or more.  What are they targeting to keep that position?  And, (tongue firmly in cheek) why are they ignoring me!!?  Only corporate bean counters know, although surely each of the big three are hoping to compete across all markets.  But, at the same time each must have it's favored approach.

My guess is that Canon is emphasizing two major market areas.  The first is the entry level market, where volume sales are still possible.  Thus, lots of APS-C bodies and low cost lenses.  This contributes to market volume leadership -- although one has to speculate that profits per unit would be low.  (There is a risk here, however, that the budget APS-C product line may be the next to come under pressure from smart phones.)  The second area of emphasis would seem to be major and highly visible pro domains such as weddings, events and sports.  There are a significant number of pros in these areas, and attracting their business surely creates a marketable prestige aura from being the leader in those segments.

Sadly, as a bird photographer, I don't fit in any of Canon's suggested emphasis categories.  If the above is true, then it is no surprise that the long hand-holdable telephoto I want lags behind other developments.  It seems that Canon's RF lens lineup reflects its market priorities -- and perhaps market share validates that strategy.  P.S. Canon's light weight RF f4L zooms and tilt-shifts do line up with my interest in historical architecture better than any other manufacturer's product line.  Further, the R5 is not only the best performing camera I've ever owned, but also the user interface suits the way I like to work perfectly.  Ergo, there is absolutely no interest in a complete brand switch.

Sony, starting from a distant third place, has displaced Nikon as runner-up to Canon, initially based on rapid innovation and class leading sensor technology.  The latter was noticed early on by landscapers, where industry leading dynamic range attracted brand switchers, albeit primarily from Nikon rather than Canon.  They have since parlayed that advantage into a strong overall market position, including what some believe to be the best overall action tracking autofocus available.

Nikon has suffered by comparison, slipping to a distant third in market share despite an outstanding array of bodies and lenses.  The introduction of so many telephoto lens choices (AF-S 500mm PF, Z400mm f4.5, Z400mm f2.8 TC, Z600mm f4 TC, Z800mm f6.3 PF, Z180-600mm f5.6-6.3), most of them in Nikon's mirrorless Z mount, suggests an attempt to attract wildlife and bird photographers disenchanted with the paucity of choices from Sony and Canon.  Since my favorite genre (birds) lies in that space, those Nikon products have a distinct appeal.

Is the above speculation accurate?  Don't know.  Is it overly simplistic?  Undoubtedly so.  And, we'll never know anyway.  Meanwhile, I contemplate that Nikon Z800 f6.3 and wish it could be adapted to a Canon R body!

© 2023 Michael W. Masters