Third-party lenses from the "mainstream" players like Tamron and Sigma serve a couple of very important purposes
First, they usually represent a higher value proposition than OEM lenses, where you might give up things like corner sharpness, a faster maximum aperture, or AF speed in exchange for a much lower price.
Second, they often fill a void in the OEM lens catalog. Tamron's recently-announced 70-300 f/4.5 - 6.3 for the Nikon Z cameras is a perfect example. Nikon makes a stunningly good Z 70-200 f/2.8, but it is big, heavy, and expensive - as one would expect from such a lens. Nikon have said they have no plans to make a native Z mount alternative with a more modest maximum aperture, which would reduce size, heft, and cost. Until Tamon's announcement, the only option for Z shooters was Nikon's own F mount 70-300 AF-P. That's gem of a lens, and a bargain too, and it works perfectly with the FTZ adapter, but I would rather shoot native mount glass given the choice.
If Canon is putting the squeeze on third-party manufacturers because they are worried about customers not buying their native RF glass, they are being very short-sighted. There are people shopping R bodies who will happily pay the premium for RF glass, but I would wager there are just as many who simply can't afford to do so. Unless there are third-party lens options, those buyers will cross the R bodies off their short list very quickly, and Canon will lose customers entirely to Sony and Nikon .
Speaking of Sony, this is exactly the reason why their technically superior Betamax format lost out to JVC's VHS format back in the early days of the VCR. Sony refused to license their tech to other VCR manufacturers because they wanted to hold the market captive to their hardware whereas JVC welcomed the chance to do so. I think we all know how that story ended for Sony, and I suspect if Canon doesn't re-think their approach, they may find themselves in a similar situation.
Thank you for showing my photo for the Member photo!
Third-party lenses from the "mainstream" players like Tamron and Sigma serve a couple of very important purposes
First, they usually represent a higher value proposition than OEM lenses, where you might give up things like corner sharpness, a faster maximum aperture, or AF speed in exchange for a much lower price.
Second, they often fill a void in the OEM lens catalog. Tamron's recently-announced 70-300 f/4.5 - 6.3 for the Nikon Z cameras is a perfect example. Nikon makes a stunningly good Z 70-200 f/2.8, but it is big, heavy, and expensive - as one would expect from such a lens. Nikon have said they have no plans to make a native Z mount alternative with a more modest maximum aperture, which would reduce size, heft, and cost. Until Tamon's announcement, the only option for Z shooters was Nikon's own F mount 70-300 AF-P. That's gem of a lens, and a bargain too, and it works perfectly with the FTZ adapter, but I would rather shoot native mount glass given the choice.
If Canon is putting the squeeze on third-party manufacturers because they are worried about customers not buying their native RF glass, they are being very short-sighted. There are people shopping R bodies who will happily pay the premium for RF glass, but I would wager there are just as many who simply can't afford to do so. Unless there are third-party lens options, those buyers will cross the R bodies off their short list very quickly, and Canon will lose customers entirely to Sony and Nikon .
Speaking of Sony, this is exactly the reason why their technically superior Betamax format lost out to JVC's VHS format back in the early days of the VCR. Sony refused to license their tech to other VCR manufacturers because they wanted to hold the market captive to their hardware whereas JVC welcomed the chance to do so. I think we all know how that story ended for Sony, and I suspect if Canon doesn't re-think their approach, they may find themselves in a similar situation.