Canon will soon announce the Canon EOS R8 and Canon EOS R50 along with two new kit lenses

[neuroanatomist]

I am aware of the focusing limitations, but that lens was already small and had a faster aperture. Hell, even the EF-M one was still faster at f/6.3 despite being tiny. Canon is going the wrong direction and being lazy, and it's showing.

I disagree that they're being lazy. The rehousing of the EF-M 18-150 optics in an RF-S barrel indicates that the same should have been possible for the EF-M 55-200/4.5-6.3. Rehousing that design could have been termed 'lazy', but instead they designed a 50-210/5-7.1 – slightly broader zoom range that starts closer to the 18-45 kit lens, and slower (something that few entry-level buyers care about). If the newly-designed lens is true to Canon's form, it will be cheaper than the EF-M 55-200 to produce, and have a higher MSRP (I'd guess $400, vs the $350 EF-M telezoom). So it's not being lazy, but rather maximizing profit. For Canon Inc. and their shareholders, that's the right direction...regardless of what you or I think as customers.

 

[gabriele]

24-50mm f/4.5-6.3?
Is this a joke or something?

 

[John Wilde]

In the meantime, Canon's letter 'M' continues to make me smile. As Canon appears to prepare to flood the market with low-cost R bodies and lenses, I still don't understand.

It's more cost-effective to have one mount than two. The introduction of RF meant that EF-M would eventually be phased out. Of course, making one mount, and then changing your mind and making a different incompatible mount, doesn't sound like an optimal plan.

 

[John Wilde]

24-50mm f/4.5-6.3?
Is this a joke or something?

That's nothing new. The R10 kit lens is 4.5-6.3.

 

[blackcoffee17]

55-210mm f/5-7.1
How far will that aperture drop? F11 on the next iteration? The EF-M 55-200 is already tiny, so why the even darker aperture?

 

[blackcoffee17]

24-50mm f/4.5-6.3?
Is this a joke or something?

Why would be a joke? Nikon has a very similar full frame lens. It's tiny and that's the point.

 

[kafala]

Can we get a set a full-frame 1.8 primes like Panasonic, Sony, and Nikon that have good auto focus for video. The stm motors are loud and slow. I want 1.8 primes for gimbal work since the 1.2 primes are bazookas and aren't the fastest to focus either. That's where canon is lagging behind. Canon needs more lenses that are good for video. The L lenses are good for video but they're pretty heavy for gimbal work as well.

 

[HikeBike]

Some things in life I will never understand;

Canon's elimination of their M bodies and EF-M lenses...fits this category.

I like the unification of the mount. If my wife buys an R50 and I already have an R6, she will instantly have lenses available for use. She’s probably not going to slap an f/2.8 zoom on an R50, but a 24mm prime and other lenses would work nicely on both cameras, which saves us from buying additional gear.

The same applies to individuals who "upgrade" from one model to another. R50 to R6...keep your lenses.

 

[nunataks]

I like the unification of the mount. If my wife buys an R50 and I already have an R6, she will instantly have lenses available for use. She’s probably not going to slap an f/2.8 zoom on an R50, but a 24mm prime and other lenses would work nicely on both cameras, which saves us from buying additional gear.

The same applies to individuals who "upgrade" from one model to another. R50 to R6...keep your lenses.

Imagine a crop lens on the R6, what would it have like 8mp?

 

[entoman]

Imagine a crop lens on the R6, what would it have like 8mp?

Yes, in crop mode the R6 is 8MP, so it would make little sense to keep crop lenses when upgrading from a R50. It's always sensible to consider future options such as switching to full frame, so I'd always advise purchasers of APS-C bodies to buy full frame lenses.

 

[HikeBike]

Imagine a crop lens on the R6, what would it have like 8mp?

Fair point...you're not going to keep them all when going from crop to full. However, I bought a handful of full-frame primes and an L zoom when I had a crop camera, so that would be a practical example of saving lenses and money.

But the saving of crop lenses would still apply when going from R50 to R10 or R7.

 

[scyrene]

I am aware of the focusing limitations, but that lens was already small and had a faster aperture. Hell, even the EF-M one was still faster at f/6.3 despite being tiny. Canon is going the wrong direction and being lazy, and it's showing.

Why is a narrower aperture "lazier" than a wider one? They still produce f/1.2 lenses you know. You just have to pay extra for them.

 

[scyrene]

Imagine a crop lens on the R6, what would it have like 8mp?

I use the R6 in crop mode quite a lot. ~7.8MP is fine for sharing online, and oftentimes for what I'm shooting the edges are irrelevant, so I'd be cropping anyway. Crop mode saves memory card space in that situation.

 

[nunataks]

Why is a narrower aperture "lazier" than a wider one? They still produce f/1.2 lenses you know. You just have to pay extra for them.

Because its obvious they can produce it they're just cost saving while still raising the price. You should see how much that old 55-250 cost compared to what this new one will.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Even many non budget lenses have gone to darkside.

Which non-budget lens went dark? And don't mention the 100-500 because that lens had no equivalent before.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Why is a narrower aperture "lazier" than a wider one? They still produce f/1.2 lenses you know. You just have to pay extra for them.

It's just cost-cutting for more profit. Not so long ago Canon could make a very nice 55-250 5.6 with brilliant image quality for a very low price.
Now we going to pay the same money for almost a stop darker aperture and less mm. But we should be happy for the 50g weight saving.

 

[blackcoffee17]

That was a DSLR lens though and DSLRs lenses are limited to F5.6 since a lot of cameras won't focus with slower lenses (too little light hits the AF-sensor). So Canon couldn't release slower AF-lenses for them, it was a technical limitation.
Using slower lenses on a DSLR also means darker viewfinder. At F8 or slower the viewfinder beomes really dark and already at F5.6 it's quite dim already.

The current mirrorless cameras can achieve focus at F/22 so that's a big difference compared to F5.6 for DSLRs.
Also, nowdays with mirrorless it seems like the priority has shifted towards smaller and cheaper lenses that wasn't possible before. And that seems to be what sells to the masses.
For people like me that wants/needs faster, better quality glass and don't care that much about size, we got the L range that will continue to expand.

AF is one thing but 7.1 vs 5.6 is another. A lot less light. And you don't really have anything equivalent in the L range. The 100-500 is a different league in price and size and the 100-400 is still much larger and a lot more expensive.

What is disappointing is that we had better choices in the EF era, 10+ years ago. I can't wait for the 50-180 F5.6-F9 APS-C lens with plastic mount for $500.

 

[photophil]

I use the R6 in crop mode quite a lot. ~7.8MP is fine for sharing online, and oftentimes for what I'm shooting the edges are irrelevant, so I'd be cropping anyway. Crop mode saves memory card space in that situation.

Absolutely. IQ in macros with low ISO are very forgiving on crop mode. I often only carry a prime and using crop mode to compose when your reach is not enough is totally fine in most instances where I am only taking snapshots.

I like the unification of the mount. If my wife buys an R50 and I already have an R6, she will instantly have lenses available for use. She’s probably not going to slap an f/2.8 zoom on an R50, but a 24mm prime and other lenses would work nicely on both cameras, which saves us from buying additional gear.

The same applies to individuals who "upgrade" from one model to another. R50 to R6...keep your lenses.

I plan on going the other way. R6 for serious shooting, R50 (or R10, don't know yet) for vacation and maybe birding where I need extra reach out of the 100-400.

 

[photophil]

AF is one thing but 7.1 vs 5.6 is another. A lot less light. And you don't really have anything equivalent in the L range. The 100-500 is a different league in price and size and the 100-400 is still much larger and a lot more expensive.

What is disappointing is that we had better choices in the EF era, 10+ years ago. I can't wait for the 50-180 F5-6-F9 APS-C lens with plastic mount for $500.

Not that I do not agree with the sentiment that the crop lenses are less than mediocre, but for the sake of argument, 10 years ago the EF mount ecosystem had been 26 years in the making.

 

[jordanisaak]

The R8 Dream: The R8 takes the sensor and image processor from the R6II and drops it in an RP-like body. The 24-50mm is affordable, but delivers surprisingly good image quality in a small and lightweight lens, making it a kit lens worth buying on its own for photographers wanting full frame performance with minimal bulk.

Much more likely: The R8 adds a DigicX to the RP but changes little else, including the sensor. AF and tracking are brought up to par with the R6II, but sensor quality remains a weak point. The 24-50mm is cheap, and its IQ matches the price. Its only reason for existence is to drop a few hundred bucks off the price of the cheapest Canon FF kit.

The R50 Dream: The R50 brings the 32mp sensor from the R7 into a cheaper body with none of the frills and some strategic crippling of FPS and 4k full sensor video. It includes an interchangeable mount so that existing EF-M users can migrate seamlessly and use their much loved 22mm and 32mm primes without having to wait for Canon to rehouse them. The 55-210mm is a notable step up in image quality from the EF-M 55-200mm, resolving well on the higher resolution sensor.

Much more likely: The R50 is an M50 with a DigicX processor and RF mount. AF tracking is improved to match the R10, with no other substantial improvements. The new telephoto lens is a rehoused EF-M 55-200mm, but they added a bit more length into the zoom mechanism. Optical quality is the same as the original, except there's an extra 10mm of increasing softness on the long end. The R50 still becomes the best selling interchangeable lens mirrorless camera in the world on the day it launches.