The down time is here, when is the Canon momentum coming?

[SwissFrank]

@mawz that's kind of what the MTF charts suggested. My own tests show it better. Hmmm, maybe my EF50/1.8 MkI (I had the pro-build 1987 model) was out of alignment?!!? Yikes, I only took about 10,000 photos with it over 20+ years! (The 50/1.4 didn't fit my backpack as well for just normal day-to-day carry.)

 

[neuroanatomist]

@SwissFrank Maybe your RF 24-105/4L is out of alignment.

 

[mawz]

@SwissFrank The EF 50STM has a revised optical design and updated coatings vs the older MK1/II versions.It's definitely and visibly better than any of the 3 or so EF 50/1.8's I've had over the years. IIRC I've had 1 Mk1 and 2 MkII's.

The RF50STM got an Aspherical element as well, so should be even better, but I don't see that much difference between the two STM versions beyond slightly better MFD (0.3m vs 0.35m)

 

[kafala]

Can we get a set of 1.8 primes with no focus breathing and fast auto focus like Nikon and Panasonic that will be good for video. The cheap RF primes with the stm motors are super slow to focus in video mode and they suffer from terrible focus breathing. Canon is only offering heavy 1.2 primes or trash cheap non weather sealed primes. There's no in between.

 

[woodman411]

There's also the EF Sigma Art 50 f/1.4, but that's probably too large if you're looking for smaller size, I've seen used one go for below $500 now.

 

[Dreysi]

Dear Canon, please give your Canon R3 the same features as all the low end cameras that came out very soon after it. Feeling forgotten and salty over here. Oh okay you want me to buy a low end camera so i can get pre-roll oh sure np-)

 

[David - Sydney]

Which lenses for R7 are you looking for? There are a lot of white ones that fit nicely... if you have the cash

 

[mawz]

Which lenses for R7 are you looking for? There are a lot of white ones that fit nicely... if you have the cash

As mentioned elsewhere, 9-22/4 IS, 15-45/2.8 and 15-70/4 IS would be what I'm looking for for my R7. NB - these are crop factor adjusted versions of lenses I can buy today from Sony and Fuji for their APS-C systems.

The long end is well covered, and not just by white ones.

 

[neuroanatomist]

As mentioned elsewhere, 9-22/4 IS, 15-45/2.8 and 15-70/4 IS would be what I'm looking for for my R7. NB - these are crop factor adjusted versions of lenses I can buy today from Sony and Fuji for their APS-C systems.

The long end is well covered, and not just by white ones.

I'm sure we'll see a UWA zoom for RF-S. I'm not sure we'll see anything with a constant aperture. If you require that, I suspect you should just switch to Fuji sooner rather than later, since they have chosen to fill the high-end APS-C niche that Canon apparently will not.

 

[mawz]

I'm sure we'll see a UWA zoom for RF-S. I'm not sure we'll see anything with a constant aperture. If you require that, I suspect you should just switch to Fuji sooner rather than later, since they have chosen to fill the high-end APS-C niche that Canon apparently will not.

I'm actually a very recent switcher to RF mount, because the ergonomics of the R7 and value for dollar are better than what Fuji offers, I deliberately chose RF over Fuji because of the R7 and R10. The R7 delivers performance rivalling an X-H2s for not much more money than an X-S20, and with better ergonomics than either.

RF-S mount is all of 12 months old at this point. We cannot make any assumptions yet about what Canon might do in terms of how the lens line develops. We are in a pretty good place compared to any of the crop mounts at a similar age (and better than both Sony or Nikon managed at 12 months into their APS-C mirrorless system).

 

[neuroanatomist]

RF-S mount is all of 12 months old at this point. We cannot make any assumptions yet about what Canon might do in terms of how the lens line develops. We are in a pretty good place compared to any of the crop mounts at a similar age (and better than both Sony or Nikon managed at 12 months into their APS-C mirrorless system).

We have the EF-S and EF-M lineups for comparison. While there were some 'high end' lenses in those lineups, they were few and far between. The EF-S 17-55 was launched early in Canon's APS-C lens history, and never updated nor moved over the the M line. The EF-S 10-22 that was pretty close to constant aperture (f/3.5-4.5) was updated with the slower and lower build quality EF-S 10-18. With EF-M, there were no constant aperture zooms. There were two fast primes (22/2 and 32/1.4), both of which are very nice lenses. But for zoom lenses, mirrorless opened up the possibility of slower than f/5.6 at the long end...and Canon took that bull by the horns with EF-M and RF-S.

On the body side, the 7-series has the longest update cycle of any Canon ILC series. Many people here clamored for a 7DIII, Canon never delivered one. Together with the limited efforts on 'better' APS-C lenses, it suggests Canon has no real appetite to serve the high-end APS-C market.

Given that history, I do expect we'll see an RF-S prime or two, but probably no constant aperture zooms.

 

[mawz]

We have the EF-S and EF-M lineups for comparison. While there were some 'high end' lenses in those lineups, they were few and far between. The EF-S 17-55 was launched early in Canon's APS-C lens history, and never updated nor moved over the the M line. The EF-S 10-22 that was pretty close to constant aperture (f/3.5-4.5) was updated with the slower and lower build quality EF-S 10-18. With EF-M, there were no constant aperture zooms. There were two fast primes (22/2 and 32/1.4), both of which are very nice lenses. But for zoom lenses, mirrorless opened up the possibility of slower than f/5.6 at the long end...and Canon took that bull by the horns with EF-M and RF-S.

On the body side, the 7-series has the longest update cycle of any Canon ILC series. Many people here clamored for a 7DIII, Canon never delivered one. Together with the limited efforts on 'better' APS-C lenses, it suggests Canon has no real appetite to serve the high-end APS-C market.

Given that history, I do expect we'll see an RF-S prime or two, but probably no constant aperture zooms.

We can't use the EF-M line as an example, Canon didn't release any higher-end bodies in that line, the closest being the M6/M6II which were size-focused. So nothing comparable to the R7. The EF-M lens line was very well matched to the bodies released.

EF-S is also hard to compare, since Canon has restricted entry of 3rd party AF lenses to RF mount unlike EF-S. There was limited need for Canon to release good first party options since the 17-55 was a consistently strong seller and there was a wide selection of 3rd party options for wides and fast normals. Canon has instead put itself in a situation where it needs 1st party lenses to cover these uses since 3rd party ones are not available due to Canon's actions.

 

[neuroanatomist]

We can't use the EF-M line as an example, Canon didn't release any higher-end bodies in that line, the closest being the M6/M6II which were size-focused. So nothing comparable to the R7. The EF-M lens line was very well matched to the bodies released.

EF-S is also hard to compare, since Canon has restricted entry of 3rd party AF lenses to RF mount unlike EF-S. There was limited need for Canon to release good first party options since the 17-55 was a consistently strong seller and there was a wide selection of 3rd party options for wides and fast normals. Canon has instead put itself in a situation where it needs 1st party lenses to cover these uses since 3rd party ones are not available due to Canon's actions.

Time will tell.

One difference with the R bodies is that Canon has started releasing FF lenses that are equally useful for APS-C bodies in terms focal length but more importantly in terms of price. There's the 16/2.8 (wide angle 26mm on APS-C), the 28/2.8 (normal 45mm on APS-C), the 15-30 (wide-normal 24-48 on APS-C) and 24-50 (normal-short tele 38-80mm on APS-C), and 24-105 non-L (normal-tele 38-168 on APS-C), all of which are in the $250-550 range that puts them in the consumer realm. Less need for APS-C lenses when there are already FF lenses that meet the need.

 

[mawz]

Time will tell.

One difference with the R bodies is that Canon has started releasing FF lenses that are equally useful for APS-C bodies in terms focal length but more importantly in terms of price. There's the 16/2.8 (wide angle 26mm on APS-C), the 28/2.8 (normal 45mm on APS-C), the 15-30 (wide-normal 24-48 on APS-C) and 24-50 (normal-short tele 38-80mm on APS-C), and 24-105 non-L (normal-tele 38-168 on APS-C), all of which are in the $250-550 range that puts them in the consumer realm. Less need for APS-C lenses when there are already FF lenses that meet the need.

I agree on the utility of the FF lenses, which is a large part of why I'm not asking for RF-S primes (although I'd like to see the EF-M 22/2 and 32/1.4 get rehoused in RF-S versions). I'd like to see an 18-20mm, but honestly if that was an RF 20/2.8 comparable to the RF16 I'd be happy.

Of the lenses you list, only the 15-30 is really not a great fit, it's wide enough, but not really long enough (I've tried 24-50's in the past as an everyday lens and never found them to work well, on both DSLR's and FF Mirrorless). Sony's FE 28-60 is just long enough to not feel like the long end is constraining. 24-105's are a great pairing with an APS-C UWA zoom as a 2 lens kit.

 

[neuroanatomist]

24-105's are a great pairing with an APS-C UWA zoom as a 2 lens kit.

For me, the ideal M kit was the M11-22, M18-150 and M22/2. I used to travel with both that for daytime walking around with family and a FF body (1D X then R3) and L lenses including 1-2 TS-E for blue/golden hour solo outings.

This summer, I’m simplifying with just the R8. The 14-35/4, 24-105/4 snd 24/1.8 will be the walkaround kit, with the TS-E 17 and RF 100-400 left at lodgings except for occasional outings.

 

[mawz]

For me, the ideal M kit was the M11-22, M18-150 and M22/2. I used to travel with both that for daytime walking around with family and a FF body (1D X then R3) and L lenses including 1-2 TS-E for blue/golden hour solo outings.

This summer, I’m simplifying with just the R8. The 14-35/4, 24-105/4 snd 24/1.8 will be the walkaround kit, with the TS-E 17 and RF 100-400 left at lodgings except for occasional outings.

Right now I'm using the EF-S10-18 and RF-S 18-150 as my base kit on the R7. I'll add a TTArtisan 25/2, EF50STM or Tamron 90 Macro as needed, and will acquire the RF100-400 soon for hiking.

 

[SwissFrank]

As mentioned elsewhere, 9-22/4 IS, 15-45/2.8 and 15-70/4 IS would be what I'm looking for for my R7.

In my tests of the EF135/2 vs. RF135/1.8 on the R5, the RF is "only" hand-holdable about 1-1.5 more stops. For instance the EF at 1/30th is about enough even when using full resolution. The RF can do 1/15 (better than the EF @ 1/30) or 1/8th (a bit worse).

Personally I'd prefer NOT having the additional IS in each lens. Besides being size weight and cost, I must assume it has SOME kind of impact on image quality. Although the new lenses are just mind-blowing, perhaps they could be yet better without this.

 

[SwissFrank]

RF-S mount is all of 12 months old at this point. We cannot make any assumptions yet about what Canon might do in terms of how the lens line develops.

Looking at EF-M might give a good guess. I'm seeing the following. Canon left the "small-sensor Leica M-like prime" feel to Fuji. That's not what I would have wanted to happen but it happened.

EF-M32mm f/1.4 STM
EF-M18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM
EF-M28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM
EF-M15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM
EF-M55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM
EF-M11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
EF-M22mm f/2 STM
EF-M18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

Or EF-S: 24 lenses but only 3 primes.

In contrast Fuji has 21 primes and 17 zooms for the X-mount. As an old-skool Leica M and Mamiya 7 rangefinder user, I like this lens approach, but I only want to own one camera system now and it's Canon. The R5 with a 16/2.8 or 50/1.8 on it is nice and small in the backpack, and I guess that's good enough. Even if they made 200 small primes I'd probably still only have two but they might be 20 and 45.

 

[davidespinosa]

I’m certain the company that has led the ILC market for 20 years has better maps and directions guiding them to their desired destination (profit and continued market leadership) than a guy who managed a rental outfit.

I know you are trying really hard to chase everyone off this forum, but no need to get personal with @jeffa4444 . Thanks !

 

[neuroanatomist]

Right now I'm using the EF-S10-18 and RF-S 18-150 as my base kit on the R7. I'll add a TTArtisan 25/2, EF50STM or Tamron 90 Macro as needed, and will acquire the RF100-400 soon for hiking.

The RF 100-400 is an excellent lens!