When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Most of us out there are convinced that Canon is going to announce the EOS R7 Mark II in the next couple of months. We're looking at announcement coming in May or June of this year, at least that's what all the signs point to.
With the new “flagship” APS-C EOS R camera, we can also expect at least one higher-end zoom with the “RF-S” badge.
New RF-S Lenses
I do expect at least two new RF-S lenses that are up market from the current offerings this year. I would think a constant aperture zoom lens as well as a new prime would be logical developments.
I have been told that Canon will announce an RF-S 15-70mm F4 IS STM alongside the EOS R7 Mark II. For those hoping for an F2.8, that doesn't appear to be in the cards.
Canon does have the RF 16-28 F2.8 IS STM that would work just fine on crop cameras, even if it only hits the 35mm equivalent of 50mm. The RF 28-70 F2.8 IS STM is another option, but 28mm on the wide end with APS-C isn't the best.
No EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM Replacement?
I don't think we're going to see another lens like the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM for the EOS R system. Canon seems to be prioritizing reduction in size and weight with a lot of their Non-L zoom lenses.
A “prosumer” F4 RF-S zoom would sell extremely well, Canon has had no issue selling RF 24-105 F4L IS USM lenses, and this would be a Non-L version of that for crop cameras.
STM and not VCM?
I imagine STM is a more cost effective autofocus solution for non-L lenses as well as the ultra-wide L lenses that don't require moving a bunch of elements great distances. Canon has shrunk the size of the latest generation of STM motors making it an ideal solution for smaller and lighter lenses.
More things should trickle out throughout April as we get closer to May, which is usually a big announcement month in the industry. Hopefully we can still have nice things when the time comes and there aren't any delays.
Should be a big upgrade over RF-S 14-30 or 18-150 as a kit lense.
But I guess I still keep my adapted Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4, which weighs just 575 grams (incl adapter).
I would not buy a f/6.4 FF mid zoom, nor I would not buy a f/4 APS-C mid zoom. I consider FF f/4 to be acceptable compromise of versatility, IQ, and size/weight for wide and mid zooms, and f/2.8 to be acceptable on APS-C (I have the Sigma 10-18 and 18-50 f/2.8 lenses). I would LOVE a 15-70 f/2.8 RF-S lens. But f/4 on APS-C is a stop slower than I want.
And, indeed, why not vcm? Or is that only relevant for primes?
Hurry up with the R7ii, very keen to see what it will be!
APS-C F4 needs just the same exposure for the same image. Just the DOF change affirmation are something near reality, and just cause you are nearer to the subject on FF, not even 1/2 stop equivalent nearer, but you need M43 just that stop DOF lose, not APS-C.
It's been a few months since I posted a couple of good links that explain equivalence. I'm guessing you didn't read them, but I'll post them again in case someone other than you actually wants to try to properly understand the concept.
This link has a thorough explanation of the concept:
This link is a decent summary:
What is equivalence and why should I care?
There is no 'unused diameter' to remove. With telephoto lens designs, the limiting factor is the entrance pupil diameter and that is coincident with the front element. A 400mm f/4 lens will need a 100mm front element (slightly less, because really a lens called a 400/4 would be something like a 392mm f/4.13 and thus could have a 95mm front element). A smaller sensor won't change that.
DO will make the lens shorter, not lighter or smaller in diameter.
Try an empirical comparison. The OM 150-400mm f/4.5 is 115mm in diameter and weighs 1.9 kg. The Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO is 128mm in diameter and weighs 2.1 kg. The OM lens is for m4/3 sensors with a 2x crop factor, yet it's pretty much the same diameter and weight as the FF lens from Canon (the differences are because the OM lens is 1/3-stop slower).
You should have stopped with the above. That was a correct statement.
You can put an inferior diameter filter without vignetting or open more the diafragm without softening the corners of the image , cause you don't see the part of the image it's losening sharpness .