Is Canon actually going to launch RF-S lenses alongside the Canon EOS R7?

[Jasonmc89]

I think if we get an R7 that we will get a few RF-S lenses. Not a full line up, but 2 or 3 standard lenses to bundle with the crop sensor camera. A kit lens and a short tele zoom maybe. Wouldn’t be that difficult or expensive for Canon to knock out an RF crop kit lens.

 

[reefroamer]

Couldn’t Canon just weld an EF-RF adapter on the back of an EF-S 10-18 or 10-22, jack the price up and call it a day?

 

[bichex]

Waiting for an R7. A better AF than my 7DII will be enough for me.
I think a pair of RFS lenses is an obvious way to go and there will always be people who buy it. By the way the 10-18 is good enough for landscapes. I'm not a fan of image quality so AF is my top priority.

 

[melgross]

The only purpose to APS-C is size and weight. I suppose it’s less expensive too. But what good is a slightly smaller, lighter body is it doesn’t also have smaller, lighter lenses to go with it?

I see some here don’t see the need for those lenses, preferring to use full size RF lenses. But then, what’s the point to the APS-C body? You can always crop the FF image down in post.

the biggest complaints over the years from those using APS-C bodies has been the poor selection of lenses and the less than stellar quality of those that do exist.

so will Canon treat this as just a consumer level body using FF lenses, a consumer level body with a handful of mediocre lenses, or as a semi pro, or even pro level body with some pro level lenses?

I assume a lot depends on how worried they are over the amount the latter would cannibalize their FF bodies and lenses. Besides, I thought the push these days was “everything FF.”

 

[dilbert]

With an image height that is short of the full frame sensor, either Canon brings out a "small" full frame sensor (Canon's APS-C is smaller than Nikon's APS-C) or perhaps this lens is an RF-S lens:

Patent: Canon RF 15-28mm f/4-5.6 IS and other wide angle optical designs - Canon Rumors

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. Eventually we're going to see more affordable RF mount lenses from Canon and one of the obvious types of lenses they'll need is an affordable wide angle zoom lens. Canon has published a patent...

www.canonrumors.com

(there is also the possibility that the 15-28 is FF and compromised, but other possibilities exist too)

 

[Jasonmc89]

The only purpose to APS-C is size and weight. I suppose it’s less expensive too. But what good is a slightly smaller, lighter body is it doesn’t also have smaller, lighter lenses to go with it?

I see some here don’t see the need for those lenses, preferring to use full size RF lenses. But then, what’s the point to the APS-C body? You can always crop the FF image down in post.

the biggest complaints over the years from those using APS-C bodies has been the poor selection of lenses and the less than stellar quality of those that do exist.

so will Canon treat this as just a consumer level body using FF lenses, a consumer level body with a handful of mediocre lenses, or as a semi pro, or even pro level body with some pro level lenses?

I assume a lot depends on how worried they are over the amount the latter would cannibalize their FF bodies and lenses. Besides, I thought the push these days was “everything FF.”

Unless you’ve got £30,000 to spend on a setup, a crop sensor body makes a lot of sense for birds and other wildlife. Or anything that requires reach for that matter. I could afford an R7 to go with my 100-400 but I couldn’t afford an R5 and a 600mm f4.

 

[dilbert]

I can only see the RF-S lens happening if they replace the M series with RF equivalents. Or they could make lenses with a APS-C image circle and label it as RF but that would be confusing for the rumored entry level RF full frame bodies.

Which will be sad. EF-M has a size & form factor that RF/RF-S can't touch.

 

[gregedwards69]

If it follows the strategy laid down by EF-S. then RF-S as the consumer line makes sense to me.

And I say this as an M user!

I see the M as being an interim measure that will go the same way as the Sony A mount. It did the job for the time that Canon badly needed to develop a small mirrorless system in order to compete with the competition, but the development in recent years has been piecemeal, to say the least. And not to mention, the M series has more in common with Powershots than it does with the EOS line, regardless of the name.

If canon can create a consumer-level RF-S camera and lenses, distilled from the Professional RF line - the same way as the EF-S cameras and lenses were developed for the consumer market, and retain compatibility with RF, EF and EF-S then I think it will be successful.

 

[SHAMwow]

Nobody is freaking out. It's just funny the R6 is staring you guys in the face.

 

[davidcl0nel]

If they will bring an sub 500€ APS-C-R-camera (R10, R100, whatever), then they should add some cheap APS-C-lenses like the typical 18-55 f/something, darker than before.
If they bring only the ... i don't know... 2000€ R7, nobody cares about a whole set of sub-par lenses. A single good 17-55 f/2.8 maybe (a lot cheaper than a RF24-70 f/2.8), and a 10-24, and thats it....

 

[scyrene]

I think Nikon has a whopping two Z-DX lenses. Having an APS-C body and zero APS-C specific lenses is bad marketing.

Given how few customers (judging by Amazon question sections anyway) seem to understand the different existing mounts, I very much doubt it would make much difference.

 

[scyrene]

The only purpose to APS-C is size and weight. I suppose it’s less expensive too. But what good is a slightly smaller, lighter body is it doesn’t also have smaller, lighter lenses to go with it?

I see some here don’t see the need for those lenses, preferring to use full size RF lenses. But then, what’s the point to the APS-C body? You can always crop the FF image down in post.

the biggest complaints over the years from those using APS-C bodies has been the poor selection of lenses and the less than stellar quality of those that do exist.

so will Canon treat this as just a consumer level body using FF lenses, a consumer level body with a handful of mediocre lenses, or as a semi pro, or even pro level body with some pro level lenses?

I assume a lot depends on how worried they are over the amount the latter would cannibalize their FF bodies and lenses. Besides, I thought the push these days was “everything FF.”

Here we go again. The purpose of a 7-series camera is specifically to offer higher resolution than cropping FF can provide, for "reach", and certain 1-series features at a much lower cost. Small/light is catered to by the M-series. An RF camera is unlikely to be able to compete on the smallest size, and if it has the name R7 it will not be sacrificing build quality, AF, etc, which mitigates against smallness too.

If they bring out APS-C RF bodies to replace the "Rebels" then dedicated lenses makes more sense, but then I'd expect a different name.

 

[Martin K]

There's nothing smaller and lighter about a 7D, unless you compare it with a 1D. Nor is it designed to be cheaper, unless you compare it with an XXD or XXD series camera. It was for those who wanted a longer field of view and rapid action, for birding and the like. An alternative or a companion to a 1D or a 5D. I would imagine the R7 would go for the same market, to satisfy all the 7D2 owners who want to modernise. For that the first RF-S lenses might be high class zooms in the 200-600 range, smaller, lighter and cheaper than the pure RF range. Such lenses might be killers in this market. The lower level stuff could come later if and when the RXX and RXXX ranges are launched.

 

[Loswr]

I see the M as being an interim measure that will go the same way as the Sony A mount. It did the job for the time that Canon badly needed to develop a small mirrorless system in order to compete with the competition, but the development in recent years has been piecemeal, to say the least. And not to mention, the M series has more in common with Powershots than it does with the EOS line, regardless of the name.

That ‘interim measure’ has sat firmly on top of the Japan best-seller ILC list, holding the top 2-3 slots month after month for close to 3 years now.

 

[unfocused]

There's nothing smaller and lighter about a 7D, unless you compare it with a 1D. Nor is it designed to be cheaper, unless you compare it with an XXD or XXD series camera. It was for those who wanted a longer field of view and rapid action, for birding and the like. An alternative or a companion to a 1D or a 5D. I would imagine the R7 would go for the same market, to satisfy all the 7D2 owners who want to modernise. For that the first RF-S lenses might be high class zooms in the 200-600 range, smaller, lighter and cheaper than the pure RF range. Such lenses might be killers in this market. The lower level stuff could come later if and when the RXX and RXXX ranges are launched.

There's really no point in making crop-specific zooms in the 200-600 range. People who know far more about lens design than I do have pointed out that the size, weight and cost savings would not be significant. In addition, they would be limiting lenses that are already for a niche market to an even smaller niche because full-frame users would not find them appealing.

As far as I know, Canon only ever made one APS-C zoom telephoto, the modest 55-250mm. I can't see them breaking that pattern with R lenses. Instead, the only real "need" for lenses specific to crop sensors is in the wide angle to normal range.

 

[Blue Zurich]

What no one has mentioned is that we already have a crop factor RF camera: the C70!
What i would conclude is that it doesn't make sense to have consumer zoom lenses for the R7 and C70:
The R7 being somewhere between R6/R5 in size is not a compact camera, so no one would come up with the idea that it's an EOS M competitor and compact consumer zooms or even consumer primes don't make much sense.

Having an RP/R10 with small cleap FF lenses is much better consumer strat.

If only they would make an uncompromised compact body, equivalent to the Sony A7C, with uncompromised but compact L primes.

There is a size difference between the R5 and 6?

 

[SteveC]

That ‘interim measure’ has sat firmly on top of the Japan best-seller ILC list, holding the top 2-3 slots month after month for close to 3 years now.

As usual, someone is mistaking "lack of development" for "about to be killed." It's a mature product line that is selling well.

 

[amfoto1]

Of course Canon will introduce a couple "crop only" lenses to complement whatever APS-C RF camera they launch.

However, they will not be "RF-S" lenses. Canon has emphatically stated "there will be no EF-S lenses in the RF mount". But I think people have misinterpreted this.

It does not mean that all RF lenses will be full frame designs. Even so, of necessity there will be some "crop only" designs. But there will not be a specialized version of the RF bayonet mount designed to prevent those lenses from being used on the full frame mirrorless cameras, the way the EF-S mount does with full frame DSLRs. (A clue to this is that R-series cameras are able to use crop lenses now and shoot in a "crop mode", using only part of their sensor. This wasn't an option with Canon full frame DSLRs. But it has been a widely available feature on full frame/FX Nikon and others.)

There is no longer any need for anything like the EF-S mount. Keep in mind that when it was introduced in 2004 Canon was the only camera company offering both full frame and APS-C cameras... so in part the EF-S mount was created to prevent accidental use of the lenses on the full frame cameras. This was both to prevent user confusion and because Canon anticipated some crop specific lens designs might physically interfere the moving mirror inside a full frame DSLR. Since today's camera buyers are much more knowledgeable about the different sensor formats and lenses needed to accommodate them, because other camera and lens makers have not bothered to make a restrictive mount for their crop designs, and because the R-series are mirrorless... there no longer is need for a special mount like the EF-S.

There are rumors of some other crop only RF lenses, but primarily there need to be a general purpose "kit" lens (18-45mm) and an ultrawide (10-24mm). Both of these lenses have been on Canon's RF lens roadmap for some years now.

Full frame capable lenses lenses can serve most other purposes on an APS-C R-series camera. So why create any crop only lenses at all? Well, some reasons are that the lenses can be smaller, lighter and less expensive. They don't need to produce as large an image circle, so can use smaller diameter elements. Also, what's very wide on full frame is only marginally wide on APS-C... so there's a strong argument for a crop only ultrawide.

Ultimately there may be a few additional crop only RF lenses, such as a compact/affordable telephoto zoom, a more premium walkaround lens, possibly a compact/affordable macro lens and possibly one or two ultracompact/"pancake" lenses. This is much like what we see now with EF-S lenses.

 

[Loswr]

At this time, we do not know what the lenses will be, but we have had a Canon RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM on our roadmap for a long time, could this be an RF-S lens?

Or could the R7 be a sub-$800 FF body that launches with a 24-105 non-L kit, a 24-105 + 100-400 dual lens kit, and the 18-45 as an inexpensive UWA zoom to go with it?

The market is shrinking. Canon doesn’t need 4 levels of cameras with a full staircase on each floor, like the xD/xxD/xxxD/xxxxD nomenclature from the DSLR heyday.

 

[John Wilde]

As usual, someone is mistaking "lack of development" for "about to be killed." It's a mature product line that is selling well.

"The [M50 II] 4K/24p video is heavily cropped and you can't use the camera's dual-pixel autofocus (it's contrast-detection only)" -DPR

That doesn't sound mature to me.