Originally posted by biz-engineer Canon , on the other hand have decided to make cheap primes (RF 35 STM, RF 50 STM and RF 85 STM) that are optically the same as EF primes, and more premium glass that is very expensive. The Nikon Z primes from 24mm to 85mm are nearly as good as the Zeiss Batis, but cost an average of $800 each. Very good.
You are mixing different things.
The RF 35 and 85 are on the same level as the Z ones, improved against old DSLR versions and substantially more expensive than those.
The RF 50 is no better than the EF and also no more expensive.
I guess the biggest difference in approach is:
Canon relies on their huge native lens base for EF which works as native lenses on RF. Their new RF lenses (mainly) add to the breadth of the offering, especially considering that many EF versions are already so good there is little to improve on optically.
Nikon on the other hand has focused on replicating F lenses in Z with the added value mainly being in tiny changes in MTF charts for the same healthy surcharge to prices that Sony and Canon also do.
As far as I could read the F lenses on adapter also do not active as native lenses but have (case by case) some (small) limitations and worse performance than on DSLR("
decreased autofocus reliability").