An RF-S ultra-wide lens is next from Canon [CR2]

[John Wilde]

Not sure I'd characterize it that way. Given that APS-C bodies outsell FF bodies by ~4:1, it's a market segment very much wanted.

Canon projects that they will sell 2.9 million interchangeable lens cameras this year. They couldn't hit that target without selling oodles of APS-C cameras.

 

[quiquae]

Such criticisms apparently ignore the existence of the EF-S 10-18mm and EF-S 10-22mm that can be readily adapted. The RF 15-30 is also relatively inexpensive and provides a native WA option for the APS-C R bodies, as does the even cheaper RF 16/2.8.

But both EF-S lenses are humongous compared to the nice-and-compact 11-22, especially with the adapter taken into account. Back in the days, I tried to use the 10-18 on an EOS M2 for a while, before giving up and going for the 11-22 because it was too unwieldy. And if you try to argue that size is irrelevant, I'd counter that you might as well choose full frame in that case.

As for 15-30 and 16, they're both too long to be relevant to a discussion about UWA lenses, although I do agree that they look pretty compelling if what you want is a good 24-48mm or 26mm equivalent lens. Based on the sample shots I've seen, I'd take the 15-30 on APS-C any day over the 18-45, even with the uncomfortably short long end.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But both EF-S lenses are humongous compared to the nice-and-compact 11-22, especially with the adapter taken into account. Back in the days, I tried to use the 10-18 on an EOS M2 for a while, before giving up and going for the 11-22 because it was too unwieldy. And if you try to argue that size is irrelevant, I'd counter that you might as well choose full frame in that case.

As for 15-30 and 16, they're both too long to be relevant to a discussion about UWA lenses, although I do agree that they look pretty compelling if what you want is a good 24-48mm or 26mm equivalent lens. Based on the sample shots I've seen, I'd take the 15-30 on APS-C any day over the 18-45, even with the uncomfortably short long end.

I don't disagree, but my point is that claiming there are no wide angle options for the R50 is simply wrong. The comment to which I replied stated, 'wide angle', not 'ultrawide angle'. The 15-30 and 16/2.8 both qualify as wide angle lenses on APS-C, i.e. an AoV equivalent to between 24mm and 35mm on FF (as do the 14-35/4L and 15-35/2.8L, though didn't mention them in the context of the R50).

The M11-22 is a great little lens, my most-used on M bodies. If Canon does a straight port of the optics to RF-S as they did with the M18-150, that would be a very good UWA option.

 

[ghalib737]

A UWA RF-S zoom lens is needed yesterday.
It should have been launched before the R50.
There is less of an immediate need for RF-S prime lenses.
The RF 16 f/2.8 and RF 50 f/1.8 already have RF-S prices.
On the other hand, 22 mm and 32 mm would be nice to have

Nope. I think we need that 15-85mm F2.8-4 as a kit lens as well. Also, the Sigma trio (16-30-56mm F1.4) can make Canon R10 unbeatable for any mid-level content creators. But canon is not listening to us.

 

[koenkooi]

Nope. I think we need that 15-85mm F2.8-4 as a kit lens as well. Also, the Sigma trio (16-30-56mm F1.4) can make Canon R10 unbeatable for any mid-level content creators. But canon is not listening to us.

Sigma not making lenses is a Sigma issue.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But canon is not listening to us.

Canon listens to ‘us’ – the market. They don’t listen to you.

Why do people persist in the hubris that their personal wants represent the market as a whole?

 

[fasterquieter]

I want something fairly wide, fast and small. A 22mm F/2 for example. I\'d happily sacrifice some quality to have it as small as possible.

 

[AJ]

the APS-C offerings remain limited (EF-S 17-55/2.8, EF-M 32/1.4) because the real goal is to push them to FF.

I agree with you, and it is too bad it has to be that way.
I'm an APS-C fan. I like the format. The bodies and lenses are small, yet deliver great IQ. IQ that's good enough for my purposes, anyways (4k screen, 13"x19" prints). Yes I do have full-frame RF gear as well. I felt the push and bought. But for travel, especially to dodgy countries, I like under-the-radar APS-C. I also like shooting macro and telephoto with APSC.
In any case, a 11-22/4-5.6 doesn't sound very sexy and exciting, but I bet it'll be a lens that quietly delivers again and again.
And, let's hope one of those 15-70 patents sees the light of day.

 

[Andreasb]

The EF-M 11-22mm was my favorite travel companion when I was an M user. I still think the greatest weakness of the EF-M and now the EF-S lens lineup was a good quality, fast standard zoom lens. Once we get the 11-22 ported over, I would love to see an f/2.8-4 zoom that we've seen teased for years.

Agreee! I would love to see the 15-85 F2.8-F4 design that was reported patented a little while ago, and a 50-150 F2.8 for good measure!

 

[Chaitanya]

Not sure I'd characterize it that way. Given that APS-C bodies outsell FF bodies by ~4:1, it's a market segment very much wanted. For the big three (Canon, Sony, Nikon), APS-C comprises the entry-level segment and the intent is inexpensive bodies and lenses aimed at people who may buy an ILC with the kit lens(es) and that's all. So the segment gets the effort warranted to meet the need – modest bodies, nothing really fancy in terms of lenses. Of course, there is a small fraction of people who will expand their system...for those people, the APS-C offerings remain limited (EF-S 17-55/2.8, EF-M 32/1.4) because the real goal is to push them to FF.

Fuji has taken a different approach, building a high end (relatively) APS-C system. But they've remained a niche player, which is really down to the segment and not their system. Note that they've also added MF to try and capture that higher end in a way that does not force them to compete with the big three.

Fuji certainly is an excpetion but in general there is a neglect in terms of providing high quality lenses for crop bodies(from both Canon and to lesser degree Sony). Canon certainly negelected their crop system(though they did offer 24, 35 and 60mm primes and excellent 10-18mm zoom which were exceptions to that rule) in past and even now with RF-S it seems like the only engineering effort is remounting EF-M lenses to RF-S. Sony to a lesser degree is following similar tragectory to EF-S system(though they do have decent back catalogue of crop lenses and 3rd parties fill in niches while their crop bodies are crap at best) is spending most of its resources on FF system similar to Canon. Nikon for F mount offered a much decent lens selection in terms of ultra wide zooms, fast high quality wide zoom, macro and even a fast primes which users of crop bodies needing good glass(atleast with DSLR system there were 3rd party options which fullfilled those requirements).

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Fuji certainly is an excpetion but in general there is a neglect in terms of providing high quality lenses for crop bodies

I am really not sure how much of a difference it makes.
Many of the Fuji APS-C lenses are no smaller, lighter, and cheaper than Canon full-frame lenses.
Canon definitely needs more RF-S lenses but I do not think they need very many.

 

[TonyB_FL]

I am really not sure how much of a difference it makes.
Many of the Fuji APS-C lenses are no smaller, lighter, and cheaper than Canon full-frame lenses.
Canon definitely needs more RF-S lenses but I do not think they need very many.

That's not entirely accurate. Fuji's 56mm f/1.2 (85mm equivalent) is significantly lighter, smaller and less expensive than a Canon RF 85mm f/1.2. There are a few in the Fuji system that are comparable to the full frame counterpart but the majority of Fuji's lenses are lighter, smaller and less expensive.

 

[Deleted member 393686]

Too bad Canon keeps us waiting and blocking Tamron for RF.​

11-20mm F/2.8 Di III-A RXD (Model B060)​

TAMRON announces compact, lightweight F2.8 ultra wide-angle zoom lens for FUJIFILM X-mount APS-C mirrorless cameras​

 

[koenkooi]

Too bad Canon keeps us waiting and blocking Tamron for RF.[...]​

What is Canon actively or passively doing to block Tamron?

 

[neuroanatomist]

What is Canon actively or passively doing to block Tamron?

Blocking them. Duh. Everyone knows it. The internet says so. The internet is never wrong, especially when it uses big, bold text!

 

[Deleted member 393686]

What is Canon actively or passively doing to block Tamron?

Most third party manufacturers don't have permission to use the RF system fully, e.g. the AF function. Some EF lenses work OK with an adapter, but no new ones designed for RF.

 

[koenkooi]

Most third party manufacturers don't have permission to use the RF system fully, e.g. the AF function. Some EF lenses work OK with an adapter, but no new ones designed for RF.

Do they actually need permission? AFAIK no 3rd party lens maker ever had anything resembling official 'permission' to make EF lenses, including Zeiss, so what changed for RF?

Do you have a statement from Tamron about this?

 

[Czardoom]

Most third party manufacturers don't have permission to use the RF system fully, e.g. the AF function. Some EF lenses work OK with an adapter, but no new ones designed for RF.

Canon recently licensed an agreement with Meike to make the 1st 3rd party AF lens for RF, the Meike 85mm f1.4.
Canon threatened legal action against Viltrox (and possibly Samyang) lens makers for patent infringement, thus stopping their production of AF lenses.
Despite the numerous internet websites and YouTubers stating it as fact that Canon is blocking all 3rd party lens makers, at no time did Canon ever release a statement to that effect, and, recently stated that they are open to negotiate license agreements with 3rd party lens makers.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What we know:

• Canon told one minor manufacturer that made an autofocus RF lens (Viltrox) to stop infringing on their IP
• Samyang/Rokinon made and sold AF lenses for the RF mount, those do not seem to be available anymore
• Meike reportedly announced an AF lens for the RF mount, but at this point it seems to be vaporware
• Canon has licensed the RF mount to Red, who produces cameras compatible with RF lenses
• Canon has stated, "It is true that we are approached by many third-party manufacturers. We hear their requests. However, we have no direction or policy as such on this subject. Naturally, I cannot share more details with you, but what I can say is that if it aligns with our strategy, we will take the necessary measures on a case-by-case basis." (translated)

What some of us believe:

Canon blocks 3rd party RF lenses*​

Well, that's the internet for you.

*And apparently the photography world is in an uproar about this and it spells certain d00m for Canon

 

[Deleted member 393686]

Do they actually need permission? AFAIK no 3rd party lens maker ever had anything resembling official 'permission' to make EF lenses, including Zeiss, so what changed for RF?

Do you have a statement from Tamron about this?

It all comes down to patents. I have received a mail from Irix about it.