Canon confirms discontinuation of EF and EF-S lenses

[Michael Clark]

The Canon 50mm 1.2 and 85 mm 1.2 RF lenses for instance are also sharp AF and I don't see anything wrong with them. And on the one lens where Canon gave in and added the option to sacrifice sharpness to alter the bokeh, I've not really seen any praise of that feature - I'm talking about the SA control of the RF 100 mm 2.8 L macro of course.

SA control doesn't "give up sharpness to alter the bokeh". It uses apodization to smooth out-of-focus areas without any reduction in acutance of in focus areas.

 

[Michael Clark]

So, a non-denial denial that actually confirms that they are dumping 70 lenses?

I still find the most interesting thing about this list are the lenses that are being dropped that have no RF replacement on this site's Canon Lens Roadmap. Reading tea leaves, yes, but I'm not sure anyone should be holding their breath for a lens that has been discontinued and is not listed as having an RF replacement coming down the road.

I'm sure there's a better article somewhere else concerning a Canon press release, but tech radar also says that any release of an "R7" means death for the EOS M system. That same article also thinks simple EF-M to RF adapters are physically possible:

"We would not be surprised to see existing M-mount lenses altered to suit this change, and a (hopefully low-cost and low profile) adapter to let EOS M camera owners upgrade without too many headaches."

 

[Michael Clark]

The DSLR lives on! Not.

My DSLRs and EF lenses are still doing quite well, thank you.

Equating the end of developing successor models to the death of a product is like equating having their last child to the death of the parents.

When Canon officially discontinues a product is like when those parents retire. They're still not dead, though. They get Social Security and Medicare for years after retirement. They still take trips, go to parties, buy groceries, and complain about rising prices.

When Canon stops service and support for models discontinued years earlier is when those cameras truly begin to die. Even then, they die one body or lens at a time.

 

[roby17269]

It's eroding for sure, but so is the pro market. In the U.S. there are barely 30% as many full-time photojournalists (who do primarily stills imaging for print or web - these days most TV stations call their field video camera operators PJs but we're not talking about those folks) working for news organizations as there were only 10 years ago.

All groups are shrinking apart from mobile phone users and maybe v/bloggers... but my point was that the "gear heads" are probably shrinking slower than other groups and, more importantly, especially for manufacturers that are constrained by supply chain issues, they are one of the few remaining groups willing to spend non-trivial amounts of money for their professions / hobbies

It's also eroding at different rates in different cultures. I'd venture to say that in Asia, and particularly in Japan, you'd see more than one dedicated camera at a child's birthday party with 30 children present.

Sure. As I said, I do not consider that particular episode proof of anything. For what it is worth, I've been to other bdays and it's either just me or me and another dad who is himself another gear head ... but it is the same group of people so again no real statistical proof. I'm based near NY in the USA which is still an important market.

 

[stevelee]

The humble EF 85mm f/1.8 does better flat document reproduction work (i.e. test chart reproduction) than the EF 85mm f/1.2 L. It wipes the floor with the more expensive lens for that use case. But it doesn't produce near the same out of focus areas that the 85 L does.

The RF 85mm f/1.2L is sharper than the EF 85mm f/1.8 on the edges of the frame when imaging a flat test chart, yet still manages to render out of focus areas fairly nicely. But it still doesn't hold a candle to the older EF 85mm f/1.2 L II with how it renders out of focus backgrounds.

OK, so people buy the f/1.2 to make backgrounds blurrier and to make the corners sharp. Hmmmm.

 

[roby17269]

What were the ten top selling cameras in Japan last month?

Low end APS-C DSLRs and EOS M bodies, with one or two compact APS-C Sony bodies also thrown in. Your sense may be misinformed.

Maybe I am indeed a negative nelly, or maybe Japan does not accurately represent the world.
At the risk of repeating myself, Micro 4/3rd users often mentioned the fact that Olympus was doing well in Japan, but that was not enough to keep Olympus in the market. Obviously Canon is in a different position compared to Olympus.

Canon may very well have plans to keep DSLRs and / or M alive. But I guess my view is what I have explained and I will need something concrete, such as the introduction of new cameras / lenses to change my mind.

Note that I am not saying that Canon has to change my mind

 

[asingleredcactus@h]

Canon probably won't discontinue EF mount. And while I do think RF everything is better, it's iterative you know? There's nothing stopping them from making EF just as good or better in the next go around. Of course, the big thing 99% of people won't care about is that EF lenses still work great on EF film cameras. Film is pretty much dead as a doornail but it's possible we haven't seen the last of film. If you're a purist who hates the idea of having algorithms modify your images, film is the only way to go.

 

[Ozarker]

You may have grown up, but you still wish you had that EF 135mm f/2 L which you sold back, don't 'cha?

I bought another.

 

[Ozarker]

My DSLRs and EF lenses are still doing quite well, thank you.

Equating the end of developing successor models to the death of a product is like equating having their last child to the death of the parents.

When Canon officially discontinues a product is like when those parents retire. They're still not dead, though. They get Social Security and Medicare for years after retirement. They still take trips, go to parties, buy groceries, and complain about rising prices.

When Canon stops service and support for models discontinued years earlier is when those cameras truly begin to die. Even then, they die one body or lens at a time.

Yeah, well, your DSLR gear ain't living creatures. If course they are fine. Mine too. That ain't the point, Hoss. DSLR camera production is dead, or taking last gasps.

I have an old Ford F-150. Decades and decades old. I can still get parts. I can still drive it. However, that particular model is dead. Just had it at the dealership for a repair last week. It's still a dead product. Soon, ICE's will be dead too, with major manufacturers pledging to go all electric.

The DSLR is dead. It has an heir, but it is dead.

 

[Joules]

My comment said nothing about 35mm lenses. Sensible use cases of 35mm lenses certainly make full field acutance a more important consideration for comparing 35mm lenses than sensible use cases of 135mm lenses make edge acutance a consideration when evaluating 135mm lenses.

Unless you want to be the best 135mm brick wall photographer in the world, I guess...

Perhaps my comment on the 35mm 1.4 Art should have been directed at one of the subsequent posts which mentioned (the real) focusing issues of the lens.

Anyways, my issue was specifically with your comment about people who cherish the Sigma 135mm 1.8 being uninformed and the lens producing nasty results. I am curious what justifies this strong lenses, as any comparision I have found so does not make it apparrent to my eyes what the issue with the Sigma lens is.

Here, the Canon is on the left, the sigma on the right. I don't see anything noteworthy about the transition.

Source: https://jolsonweddings.com/education/sigma-135mm-art-lens-review

Here is a more complex scene, and while minor differences in the background blur's character, I fail to notice the nastines.

Source:

There don't seem to be that many direct comparisons between these lenses in particular, or at least I could not find them. So since you seem to have a much better source for detecting the differences that justify your choice of words, I would appreciate it if you could share that or at least point out what I am missing in the images above if they already demonstrate your issue with the Sigma lens.

The humble EF 85mm f/1.8 does better flat document reproduction work (i.e. test chart reproduction) than the EF 85mm f/1.2 L. It wipes the floor with the more expensive lens for that use case. But it doesn't produce near the same out of focus areas that the 85 L does.

The RF 85mm f/1.2L is sharper than the EF 85mm f/1.8 on the edges of the frame when imaging a flat test chart, yet still manages to render out of focus areas fairly nicely. But it still doesn't hold a candle to the older EF 85mm f/1.2 L II with how it renders out of focus backgrounds.

Same thing here. This video contains a few side by side comparisons between Canons 85 mm 1.2 lenses and I don't see what is supposed to give the older lens an advantage.

SA control doesn't "give up sharpness to alter the bokeh". It uses apodization to smooth out-of-focus areas without any reduction in acutance of in focus areas.

I'm confused. The SA stands for spherical abberation control - I though apodization was a different mechanism. Am I wrong?

In any case, the SA slider does definitvely affect sharpness. Just look at the official trailer video:

Clearly the image is much sharper when the slider is set to 0, although the background is more fuzzy at the one extreme and more "bubble like" at the other. I thought you attributed the supposed degradation in background blur quality to excessive correction of spherical abberation and therefore this effect that Canon added to the RF 100 mm 2.8 macro was related to the topic. After all, Canon claims it is spherical abberation at play here (Further info on that, although in German: https://www.canon-eos-r-forum.de/topic/36-rf-100mm-f28-l-macro-is-usm-mehr-infos-zu-sa-control/)

 

[Blue Zurich]

Canon probably won't discontinue EF mount. And while I do think RF everything is better, it's iterative you know? There's nothing stopping them from making EF just as good or better in the next go around. Of course, the big thing 99% of people won't care about is that EF lenses still work great on EF film cameras. Film is pretty much dead as a doornail but it's possible we haven't seen the last of film. If you're a purist who hates the idea of having algorithms modify your images, film is the only way to go.

Film is too tough for most shooters these days regardless of darkroom availability and tools. It requires dedication, trial and error and actual thinking. Todays cameras are too easy and thats exactly how many want them to be. Occasionally I do as well. . No judgement here. Shooting and processing both gives me a level of satisfaction just digital could never provide. YMMV, oh and by no means do I want this to segue into a film debate, too many of those here getting nasty in the past.

 

[Sporgon]

If you're a purist who hates the idea of having algorithms modify your images, film is the only way to go.

I’d have added ‘reversal / slide’ film there and viewed on a light box. Negative film output can be modified nearly as much as digital , as I’m sure you know.