You'd hope if an 'entry-level' (probably still very expensive) EOS R is coming this year that some reasonably priced, smaller f1.8 primes would also be coming. Who knows. It's a bit odd there's no news on a pro level EOS R considering the lenses mentioned (and those already available) are of top quality pro L grade. Looks like Canon want to release the 'workhorse' lenses first. I guess they're trying to entice the pro DSLR user over. They'd better get releasing a more professional EOS R if they want that to happen.
As many as 7 new RF lenses coming in 2019 [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
1. EF 50mm f/1.4L USM - every other manufacturer has an equivalent
2. EF 50mm f/<=2.0 IS USM - same upgrade as the 24-28-35mm upgrade
3. EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
Thanks. As I suspected, someone was reading far more into a general statement from a single Canon executive than was ever intended.
Brand visibility is clearly relevant to sales, but Canon already has that visibility. I don't think the vast majority of customers know the specifics (whether mirrorless or not for instance), nor care precisely what bodies pros are using at big events. The contention was that the introduction of a high-end R-series body will give sales a big boost, indeed that it is required for significant sales of the RF system - I simply don't think that is the case (though obviously the more bodies available, the more people will buy them, as they will suit more people's desires). Either way, a high-end model will be released at some point in the next year or two, as will other RF and EF bodies - the former will gain some ground because it's starting from a lower base, but the two systems will coexist for a long time to come.
I meant a publicly-accessible roadmap. Canon doesn't work that way, apparently - they obviously have internal plans.
But I honestly don't understand your position. They aren't going to abandon EF! Even if they never make another EF lens, which I'd be very surprised by, they will continue to support existing ones for many years. Beyond that the bottom line is: there are no guarantees. When you buy stuff, you don't know what will happen - but Canon are the biggest player in this market so they are unlikely to go bust and leave you with gear that can't be serviced, and the resale values hold up well, so I don't see why it's such a big deal. I still say the situation is essentially the same now as it was a year ago - all lenses have deficiencies. Some will be replaced, some may never be, we don't know which. You have to buy what suits you best at the time. You'll probably want a new body at some point, if you go with an R-series, they'll take your existing glass. If the new lenses you want are RF then you'll have to buy an R-series if you want to use them (this is the only difference). But by then there will be a choice of bodies and one will likely meet most of your needs (but no body is perfect, regardless of mount or manufacturer). *Shrug*
As others have intimated, the FD-EF transition isn't a perfect parallel for EF-RF, for various reasons. There's no reason the future should mirror the past. You might be right, but it's not certain.
I suppose I should have been clearer. There are gaps - there are always gaps. But EF is the most complete range of lenses that exists (especially including third party options - and your 50mm desire would be covered by that, for instance). I'd have liked to see a Canon 180 or 200mm f/2.8 IS macro lens but I wouldn't have made purchasing decisions based on my hopes or rumours (or even a roadmap if it existed). I'd have gone with the best option available at the time - in this case a third party makes the lens I want. I don't see that the introduction of the R-series makes any difference (but if I'm missing a point, I apologise).
Generally, I agree with your statement. But, I do feel that we are entering in some new territory here and it might be advantageous for Canon to provide a bit more information about their future plans. Despite what many people claim, this is not at all like the FD to EF conversion. That was a major technological change and anyone with half a brain knew that they had to adopt a system that would accommodate autofocusing.
While the new mirrorless mount may have some advantages for designing lenses, it simply isn't the same kind of revolutionary change. The EF, EF-S, EF-M and RF systems could very well happily co-exist for decades.
So, I agree that there is no need for panicked hand-wringing, but I can also see why people might be concerned about making major purchase decisions until the path becomes a bit more clear. I'm not sure that Canon knows what direction they will be moving in the future, but I can see how a bit of transparency on their part might be a smart business move.
I am not rubbishing the Sony at all - your photos show its capabilities. I was pointing out the (IMO) misinterpretation that Springle put on other peoples' camera choices.
I take my MFT gear out with me more than my Canon gear, but that is because it is more portable and therefore more appropriate for 'casual carrying' not because it is better image quality. Occasions I 'need' the Canon gear are a small number of the shots I take but on those occasions MFT cannot replace it.
Let’s put the horse back in front of the cart. What do I mean? There is an argument put forward that because Canon will release seven new RF lenses this year, that that is an indicator that EF is dead. In reality, producing EF lenses is not a big deal; just because Canon is focusing this year on producing RF lenses does not indicate that EF is dead.
What does it take to produce a lens? An optical formula, glass, motor and casing. Is there any difference between EF and RF in the above? No. The only difference is that RF is a superset of communication protocol of the EF and the physical size difference of the mount.
Therefore, the constraint on producing different system lenses (EF, EF-S, RF, MF) is the design and production capacity of Canon, and the capacity of the distribution channel to stock all the lenses. So, as long as there is demand, Canon will likely keep producing and selling EF lenses.
What does it take to produce a lens? An optical formula, glass, motor and casing. Is there any difference between EF and RF in the above? No. The only difference is that RF is a superset of communication protocol of the EF and the physical size difference of the mount.
Therefore, the constraint on producing different system lenses (EF, EF-S, RF, MF) is the design and production capacity of Canon, and the capacity of the distribution channel to stock all the lenses. So, as long as there is demand, Canon will likely keep producing and selling EF lenses.
Mike
You were not rubbishing the Sony RX10IV, it was bhf3737 who let loose a diatribe against it, and I was objecting to that. These other cameras do fill a genuine lacuna and we should appreciate that. I just wish canon would do a better job at bridge cameras. I bought the G3 X and it just didn't cut it for me whereas the Sony works remarkably well.
Yes,
One of the cameras at work is an Oly. It is by far the preferred camera to use by most of us, and that is mostly because it fits into a tool bag. Sometime portability counts above all else
This is why I wonder how long it will be until we see a small kit lens for the R. Perhaps a 24-70 F6.3.
Last edited:
I generally agree, but I will point out that at the advent of autofocus lenses there were many who felt than manual focus was faster and more accurate, and some (like me) that simply couldn’t afford AF lenses. Similarly, there were many who claimed that digital would never best film. Looking back, it’s obvious that AF and digital are game-changing innovations that improved photography, but at the time those beliefs were far from universal. Having said that, I agree that there’s really nothing game-changing about a shorter flange focal distance or removing the mirror from a DSLR.
I was pointing holes, though the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 Di VC USD is on my wish list.
Which raises the question - why didn't you buy the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro lens?
Off topic, but I often wonder if I really get better results with autofocus than I did in the old days, when focusing screens were designed for manual lenses and grainy Tri-X pushed to 1600 meant the image was never going to be razor sharp anyway. Probably the biggest thing I notice these days though is how the position of autofocus points influences composition. Instead of composing the image for the entire frame, I find myself backing into the composition based on where the autofocus points happen to be.
I think we'll see during the next 2, 3 years where Canon is going. Maybe you're right. Looks like Canon tries to expand their R lens selection faster than the M system in the past. In fact, they need to be fast to catch up with Sony's now mature ML FF system. Would be good news for us Canon users...
But that's the problem. If the production capacity to make the RF 28-70, for example, is currently occupied by the EF 24-70 then who loses? Unless Canon builds-out more capacity they're going to have to make decisions for the Japanese-produced lenses at least.
Not really. Canon produced 130 million EF lenses in 30 years, an average of more than 4 million a year. If you assume that the half of the production was in the last 10 years, that would be 6.5 million lenses per year. Furthermore, with the decline in sales of ILC cameras, there would be an overcapacity in production capacity.
Canon being the leader in ILC cameras by a wide margin and having been in business for more than 30 years would certainly not have such a problem.
There are 80+ lenses currently in production, so obviously prioritization is an issue they deal with routinely and have done so for decades. Adding a few RF lenses into the mix should not present a major problem for them.
