Canon confirms discontinuation of EF and EF-S lenses

[AJ]

Canon's apparent abandonment of the EF mount is in my view premature.

I wonder if the gobal chip shortage forced Canon's hand. I wonder if, with limited resources, they decided to can EF and put their efforts towards RF. RF lenses have been in short supply, showing the demand is there for more production. The RF lenses are more expensive and I would think profit margins are higher. To me, in this context, canning EF seems like a sensible move on Canon's part.
Now, will we see RF lens shortages alleviated because of this?

 

[SilverBox]

The end is nigh! R3pent!

 

[entoman]

I'm a full time professional photographer. Canon's apparent abandonment of the EF mount is in my view premature.
I always been an early adopter, and was one of the first to jump on the EF system from the FD mount over 3 decades ago.

Problem is that for my work, mirrorless is not ready yet. My workhorse is the 5D Mk4. I have the R5 and hate it. Cannot stand it. It is too small, it eats batteries like chocolate cake and it simply doesn't give me any advantages over the 5D Mk4 in my line of work. The R5 will be a great travel camera though.

Lenses are also lacking. I much much prefer the 100EF macro over the RF100 macro. Again it has features that are superfluous for my needs, while making it unnecessarily heavy, and expensive, while distance between front lens and subject as close focus distance is worse on the new lens.

I just bought the RF 14-35mm L. It has shocking barrel distortion. I read that DPP will correct this, but DPP will not install on MacOS for a reason, and is a common issue I found out.

I have 5DMkiv and R5. Nowadays my photography is purely for my own pleasure, but I'm often shooting in tough environments, and many of my photographs are unrepeatable. There's no second chance, so above all I need dependability. Yes, the R5 freezes occasionally and chews batteries, but otherwise is fine, and offers me advantages in certain situations. I keep the 5DMkiv because I know that it's utterly dependable, and I can absolutely understand anyone who prefers DSLRs and doesn't want the expense (and the learning curve) of switching to mirrorless.

I also agree about the 100mm macros - the EF version is more than sharp enough for the R5 sensor, and I rarely need to go closer than 1:2. The aspherical aberration control on the RF version may be of value to portrait or wedding photographers, but it's wasted on me.

But although I will continue to buy certain EF lenses that I prefer over the RF versions, I'm not at all bothered about what you call their "premature" abandonment. Sure, quite a few of the lenses have been discontinued, but there are tens of thousands of them available in pristine condition on the secondhand market. I bought my TS-E 24mm and my 180mm macro secondhand, and any others that I want will be available secondhand for many years to come. Why buy new, when there are so many mint secondhand lenses available?

 

[Blue Zurich]

Lens mount changes in the camera world historically have never been as smooth and consumer friendly as the switch from EF to RF. Who else makes a compatible 1st party mount when launching a new line? The ease at which we have been able to quickly or slowly or ease into the RF system has been phenomenal. Furthermore, no one is forcing anyone to switch, adapt or change anything. People just like to bitch, let's be honest about that. It's the entire premise of the web.

 

[entoman]

The discontinuation of the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM is also strange as it is used as small system when doing macro - especially underwater - as the EF100mm/2.8L and full frame body make it a significantly larger system.
Of course, you can use either of the EF100mm macro lenses on APS-c bodies if you wish.

The EF-S 60mm macro was a superb optic, and very compact.

I personally know about 40 macro photographers, all of who shoot on APS-C, and all of them use 90, 100, 105 or 180mm lenses. That's only a small sample of course, but I'd guess that most macro photographers prefer a longer working distance. Why? Because small living subjects may be nervous and difficult to approach. And static subjects in the studio can be difficult to illuminate, without casting a shadow over them.

What I'm leading to, is that there is a lot of demand for longer focal lengths, but probably far less demand for a 60mm, and I think that's the simple explanation of why the lens is no longer produced. Another reason for its relative lack of popularity, is that it can't be used on FF bodies, and many APS-C users may be pondering whether to "upgrade" to FF.

 

[Skux]

How is the 85mm f1.8 still in production lol

 

[Richard CR]

I'm a full time professional photographer. Canon's apparent abandonment of the EF mount is in my view premature.

I talked a bit about this in the article. I personally don't feel it's just them wanting to toast the EF lens catalog but there are no factors in play.

 

[roby17269]

Canon stated the M50 was the top selling mirrorless camera in the US market (for the year 2020) in 2021, and has made mention of the M50 and EOS-M numerous times in the financials.

Canon is going to focus everything they got on the RF mount, for the time being, we're talking about the survival of the imaging department as a whole is riding on the RF mount. Every technical asset is going to be working 100% on the RF. Not because they want to EOS-M to die, simply because it's a mature system and they can let it ride for a while while they work on RF. This is basically the same thing Sony did.

However, in 2021 Canon stated this to one publication;
The M series is here to stay. The M series is an important part of our system, the reason being there’s no one camera that’s suitable for everyone, and it’s great to have different cameras at different sizes for different types of usage.

Agree that Canon will be focusing 100% on RF mount for the foreseeable future. But how long before neglect becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy on the fate of the M mount? I'd also disagree with the people that call the M mount a mature system. I think that even in its limited scope it is missing some pieces and at the very least some updates.

And Sony has been saying pretty much the same words on the A mount for a few years and we all know what has happened with that. Not saying that Canon and Sony behave the same way, but I personally wouldn't put much stock in this type of no-commitment announcements. I am sure they want to protect the sales of M cameras and lenses as long as possible without any actual investment in the mount.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I am sure they want to protect the sales of M cameras and lenses as long as possible without any actual investment in the mount.

The M50 II came out after the R5 and R6.

 

[joseph ferraro]

The EF-S 60mm macro was a superb optic, and very compact.

I personally know about 40 macro photographers, all of who shoot on APS-C, and all of them use 90, 100, 105 or 180mm lenses. That's only a small sample of course, but I'd guess that most macro photographers prefer a longer working distance. Why? Because small living subjects may be nervous and difficult to approach. And static subjects in the studio can be difficult to illuminate, without casting a shadow over them.

What I'm leading to, is that there is a lot of demand for longer focal lengths, but probably far less demand for a 60mm, and I think that's the simple explanation of why the lens is no longer produced. Another reason for its relative lack of popularity, is that it can't be used on FF bodies, and many APS-C users may be pondering whether to "upgrade" to FF.

Macro photographer (live insitu) here that uses the mpe-65 on FF m4 and now a r5 for about 90-95% of my field work since with the subjects I photograph I need 2-4x, and I am an odd one that loves a close working distance since it allows my diffusion setup to be compact.

Looking at the discontinued lenses, I have only been afraid of Canon discontinuing that lens since it pairs so beautifully with the mt24/26ex flashes. I admit that this only pertains to a small percentage of photographers using a setup like mine in the macro world. I can say though, the mpe65 paired with the r5, once I got used to the evf, is a dream in the field. The only lockups I have experienced on the r5 so far with with a kenko 1.4x tc with my sigma 70-200 lens. It hated that combo. take the tc off and it was happy as can be, but I don't shoot that much with that lens on the r5 since I can use the tc and the sigma on my m4 with no problem.

would I love a 180mm 1:1 macro lens for the rf mount line, yes, yes I would as well. for now I use my sigma 180 macro on the m4 or adapted to the r5.

 

[roby17269]

The M50 II came out after the R5 and R6.

True, although we don't know when the plan to update the M50 to the M50 mkII actually started, and, in terms of investment in the M system, the last real investments imho have been in 2019 (M6 mkII and M200) and 2018 (32mm and etc.)

To be clear, I do not wish the M mount to wither away, but I do think that it will, in fact, decline, regardless of our or Canon's wishes, unless Canon does something material about that, and I also think that the likelihood of Canon doing something material about that is low.

 

[esglord]

Zeiss Milvus

fair enough, just to be clear, I'm not saying there are no good alternatives. It just seems odd that they would discontinue a good, albeit old, lens design without a replacement coming imminently. If it weren't profitable enough, they could have maybe just raised the price, but to the other poster's point, maybe the market for it is simply non-existent. At this point, I'm sitting back and waiting to see what canon and third-parties come out with for the rf mount the next year or so before buying any more lenses. More good stuff coming, I hope

 

[neuroanatomist]

True, although we don't know when the plan to update the M50 to the M50 mkII actually started, and, in terms of investment in the M system, the last real investments imho have been in 2019 (M6 mkII and M200) and 2018 (32mm and etc.)

The M50 came out around the time the EOS R launched. Given past comments from Canon, that probably means planning for the successor started before that and development work started soon after. So, essentially in parallel with the R5/R6.

I don’t understand how releasing two cameras in a year constitutes ‘a real investment’ and releasing one camera in a year does not. Does that mean that since only one R series camera came out in 2021, Canon did not really invest in the system? Of course not.

To be clear, I do not wish the M mount to wither away, but I do think that it will, in fact, decline, regardless of our or Canon's wishes, unless Canon does something material about that, and I also think that the likelihood of Canon doing something material about that is low.

Are you aware that in most months, the M50 (original) is among the top 10 best-selling ILCs in Japan? The M50 II is always there, but the M50 continues to sell very well.

As posted by one of our new hosts earlier in this thread, Canon explicitly stated, “The M series is here to stay.“ That certainly doesn’t sound at all like the picture you are painting, and I will go out on a limb here and suggest that Canon knows more about their future strategy than you (it was a very thick limb).

 

[Richard CR]

Agree that Canon will be focusing 100% on RF mount for the foreseeable future. But how long before neglect becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy on the fate of the M mount?

A few years ago I wrote an article that as rumor sites go, we have a responsibility not to create scenarios such as what you are describing.

But the same can be said about any mount or any camera system. No matter the company.

I'd also disagree with the people that call the M mount a mature system. I think that even in its limited scope it is missing some pieces and at the very least some updates.

It's a mature system for its intended market. The highest level it is supposed to get even as far as Canon's literature is sitting around the 90D level.
Does it? The M6 Mark II is a great little camera, and until the R5 and R6 came out was Canon's highest performing mirrorless camera. The pieces that you suggest are missing are more prosumer than Canon wants to make of this camera.

And Sony has been saying pretty much the same words on the A mount for a few years and we all know what has happened with that. Not saying that Canon and Sony behave the same way, but I personally wouldn't put much stock in this type of no-commitment announcements. I am sure they want to protect the sales of M cameras and lenses as long as possible without any actual investment in the mount.

Sony's last A mount camera was 2016, their last A mount lens was 2015. This isn't what we are talking about here.

Canon doesn't protect sales. that's a internet myth. Canon will happily sell you any camera they sell, as long as you purchase Canon. They have made this clear over the years. They know that some markets, EOS-M sells well, in some markets, it doesn't. When you dominate the camera market, you make sure you can sell cameras into any market available.

 

[roby17269]

The M50 came out around the time the EOS R launched. Given past comments from Canon, that probably means planning for the successor started before that and development work started soon after. So, essentially in parallel with the R5/R6.

Fair enough

I don’t understand how releasing two cameras in a year constitutes ‘a real investment’ and releasing one camera in a year does not. Does that mean that since only one R series camera came out in 2021, Canon did not really invest in the system? Of course not.

Simply because the M50 mkII was a very light refresh, most of it software rather than hardware. I would not think that the M50 mkII warranted anywhere near the same investment than the one required by the R3, nor that the M50 mkII is as significant as the R3 for their respective mounts. And I do not believe anyone here is doubting Canon's commitment to the RF mount.

Are you aware that in most months, the M50 (original) is among the top 10 best-selling ILCs in Japan? The M50 II is always there, but the M50 continues to sell very well.

Sure that gets repeated many times. Also Olympus users repeated the same mantra. I am not disputing that particular fact, I just don't think it should be taken as definitive proof of the future viability of the M mount.

As posted by one of our new hosts earlier in this thread, Canon explicitly stated, “The M series is here to stay.“ That certainly doesn’t sound at all like the picture you are painting, and I will go out on a limb here and suggest that Canon knows more about their future strategy than you (it was a very thick limb).

Well, I'd argue Canon knows more about their future strategies than all of us here put together, our host included. We are just speculating, all of us.
I happen to be quite jaded about that type of announcements, given recent events with other companies (Sony about the A mount).

Look, you may very well be right about me being pessimistic about the M mount. And, while I am not target market for it, I'd be happy for it to keep on being developed, although they'd have a much bigger chance to sell me a crop camera if it was RF. I already have 2 incompatible systems (not counting the GoPro ) and I wouldn't want a 3rd one. I just think that it is unlikely that Canon will develop the M mount any further, especially if they will introduce RF crop cameras.

 

[melgross]

The M50 came out around the time the EOS R launched. Given past comments from Canon, that probably means planning for the successor started before that and development work started soon after. So, essentially in parallel with the R5/R6.

I don’t understand how releasing two cameras in a year constitutes ‘a real investment’ and releasing one camera in a year does not. Does that mean that since only one R series camera came out in 2021, Canon did not really invest in the system? Of course not.


Are you aware that in most months, the M50 (original) is among the top 10 best-selling ILCs in Japan? The M50 II is always there, but the M50 continues to sell very well.

As posted by one of our new hosts earlier in this thread, Canon explicitly stated, “The M series is here to stay.“ That certainly doesn’t sound at all like the picture you are painting, and I will go out on a limb here and suggest that Canon knows more about their future strategy than you (it was a very thick limb).

Agreed. After all, Canon has the sales numbers of everywhere their products are sold. They also know the break even point of production, and they have estimates as to where sales are going depending on any number of factors. They certainly take mirrorless into account and see how lens sales are doing there, as well as bodies. They have their own economists doing the evaluations.

 

[roby17269]

A few years ago I wrote an article that as rumor sites go, we have a responsibility not to create scenarios such as what you are describing.

But the same can be said about any mount or any camera system. No matter the company.

True

It's a mature system for its intended market. The highest level it is supposed to get even as far as Canon's literature is sitting around the 90D level.
Does it? The M6 Mark II is a great little camera, and until the R5 and R6 came out was Canon's highest performing mirrorless camera. The pieces that you suggest are missing are more prosumer than Canon wants to make of this camera.

Maybe - I'd argue though that prosumers are becoming a much more important market than they were years ago

Sony's last A mount camera was 2016, their last A mount lens was 2015. This isn't what we are talking about here.

My point was that Sony released similarly worded messages but, in the end, the A mount died regardless of all the vocal support.
They wrote this:
"Having options is really important, especially for high-end amateurs and professionals. If we just had the same cameras and lenses [as our competitors] the results would be the same. Some people want A-mount, some want E-mount, and depending on the situation, some customers might want both. Having that variety of bodies and lenses is key.
We need both A mount and E mount. Some people thought that Sony was only developing the E mount, until we introduced the a99 II. You’ve seen it, it’s a serious camera. There is a huge number of lenses for A mount, from Sony and Minolta, and we want to maintain a good relationship with those customers by providing great A mount bodies with no compromises compared to the E mount system. But we can start capturing new customers with the E mount. We need both."
But the only thing they introduced after that were adaptors to mount A lenses on E cameras.

Canon doesn't protect sales. that's a internet myth. Canon will happily sell you any camera they sell, as long as you purchase Canon. They have made this clear over the years. They know that some markets, EOS-M sells well, in some markets, it doesn't. When you dominate the camera market, you make sure you can sell cameras into any market available.

I am sure Canon prefers to sell more RF cameras than DSLR or M cameras.

 

[David - Sydney]

The EF-S 60mm macro was a superb optic, and very compact.

I personally know about 40 macro photographers, all of who shoot on APS-C, and all of them use 90, 100, 105 or 180mm lenses. That's only a small sample of course, but I'd guess that most macro photographers prefer a longer working distance. Why? Because small living subjects may be nervous and difficult to approach. And static subjects in the studio can be difficult to illuminate, without casting a shadow over them.

What I'm leading to, is that there is a lot of demand for longer focal lengths, but probably far less demand for a 60mm, and I think that's the simple explanation of why the lens is no longer produced. Another reason for its relative lack of popularity, is that it can't be used on FF bodies, and many APS-C users may be pondering whether to "upgrade" to FF.

Yes, working distance is a key advantage for in the field macro although ring lights should minimise any flash shadowing at closer distances.
I'm not saying that the EF-S 60mm macro was a big seller but it is fairly unique in being a very small/light macro combination. Getting my R5/100mm macro setup close to subjects underwater is like driving a bus given its size. Using point/shoot TG series or Canon G series can be easier to get good macro shots given the very small sensor and "macro" mode.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I am sure Canon prefers to sell more RF cameras than DSLR or M cameras.

No doubt the margins are higher. But for now, unit sales of M and DSLR bodies are much higher. Until there are RF bodies in the price range of entry level M’s and DSLRs, that’s not likely to change.

 

[sanj]

DSLRs comprise 40% of ILC sales. Canon holds the majority of that. Remember when the consumer DSLR would be dead in 5 years? I think that was 2013.

Soon is relative.

Impending

No doubt the margins are higher. But for now, unit sales of M and DSLR bodies are much higher. Until there are RF bodies in the price range of entry level M’s and DSLRs, that’s not likely to change.

Standby