Canon has registered two unreleased lenses with certification agencies

[neuroanatomist]

"Fast as" doesn't mean instant abandonment. However, as soon as it was clear the RF line was succeeded, they did a mass announcement of newly discontinued lenses.

Canon stated:

“Canon has around 80 lens options for creators to choose from – only 22 of which are RF at this time. Over the past two years, we’ve been focused on building out our range of RF lenses to expand the creative possibilities of our R-System consumers, however our commitment to supporting our EF lens range is unwavering. It’s true, Canon has recently discontinued select EF lenses in our range, however this is a process of series optimization, not an indication of us abandoning EF lenses. Lenses that have been recently discontinued are lenses that have multiple versions available; comprise technology that’s been superseded by other available options; or, are low volume lenses. There are still many options for creators to choose from in our EF range, while our RF range continues to expand.”

Which doesn't mean there won't be a sufficient amount of years to support the products that people bought, but it's clear they wont be producing more EF lenses or release new bodies.

EF lenses are still being produced.

They will drop the EF-M mount as fast as the EF mount, meaning still years of overlap and sufficient product support but clear sign of transitioning.

They haven’t dropped either mount.

 

[PhotoGenerous]

I looked into this a while back. The RP (132 x 85 x 70) is about as small as you can go with a viewfinder. The RP has similar margins (space above, below, left, and right) around the lens as the M6 (119.6 x 70 x 49.2) does. Most of my EF lenses overwhelm the M6. They could shave a bit off the top if they eliminate the viewfinder, but the width is necessary for a grip to hold the body with an attached lens and have some form of lens release mechanism.

The EOS M50 (116 x 88.1 x 58.7) is actually a bit larger than the M6. The M100/200 (108 x 67 x 35) are slightly smaller with very small margins around the mount. I doubt an R mount body can go that small.

The RP and M50 are two bodies that I don't have to really understand what those dimensions mean in my hand.

For sure they would remove the EVF if trying for smallest possible body. But I know nothing about camera internals. Would going with the APS-C sensor size make any difference despite the actual mount still being RF?

(As for EF lenses on the M6, I know what you mean. The 135mm 2.8 softfocus lens actually feels really great on the EF-M mount and is pretty much the exact width as the adapter, but it's too long of a focal length to be everyday usable for me. However, I just picked up the EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 for my M6II and it's a beautiful fit in terms of size and weight and with a great focal range and speed.)

 

[PhotoGenerous]

Canon stated:

“Canon has around 80 lens options for creators to choose from – only 22 of which are RF at this time. Over the past two years, we’ve been focused on building out our range of RF lenses to expand the creative possibilities of our R-System consumers, however our commitment to supporting our EF lens range is unwavering. It’s true, Canon has recently discontinued select EF lenses in our range, however this is a process of series optimization, not an indication of us abandoning EF lenses. Lenses that have been recently discontinued are lenses that have multiple versions available; comprise technology that’s been superseded by other available options; or, are low volume lenses. There are still many options for creators to choose from in our EF range, while our RF range continues to expand.”


EF lenses are still being produced.


They haven’t dropped either mount.

Poor word choice again. There was a mass discontinuation of EF lenses, but not a total discontinuation. EF lenses are still being manufactuered/produced. However, new EF lenses are not going to be developed (produced as I was thinking, but wasn't a specific enough term). And there will be no 5DV, 7DIII, EF Rebel, etc.

As for Canon's quote. That doesn't really change what I said either way. But to address it, while Canon's statement is mostly a series of factual statements, "There are still many options for creators to choose from in our EF range, while our RF range continues to expand" is the main takeaway. Meaning, what you see is what you get with EF now. We'll still sell it if you're buying it, but only expect more RF from this point on.

If Canon can make something small enough with an RF mount to appeal to the EF-M consumer base, I expect the same of the EF-M mount. They will continue to sell current models as long as people are buying it, but it will be phased in a similar manner. There might be one more body in this coming Year of the Camera Body while they're still not sure if they can pull it off, but if there is an RF body in this coming Year of the Camera Body that will push how small they can go and test the waters now that they have nearly a full line up of smaller, non-L RF primes and a perfect APS-C kit general zoom lens in the roadmap, then I think that's the sign that EF-M has reached its end stages.

 

[ashmadux]

I'm putting money on these things costing about two grand each.

The R6 is almost 3 Grand with tax (us), what's another 4 grand for lenses

 

[[email protected]]

I can’t speak for Russia, but in the US the Consumer Product Safety Commission states, “Any material changes, such as changing the paint, metal, fabrics, or other items used to manufacture a product or changing the product's design or manufacturing process, for example, could render the product noncompliant. In that situation, you should retest for compliance to those rules affected by the material change. You may also need to update your GCC.”

So a small change in the manufacturing process for an old lens, e.g., a new paint formula, may necessitate a re-certification.

We see this happen on the Russian and some other international regulator sites. Singapore comes to mind. You'll see some strangely-old lens newly-registered. I've always assumed that it was because that lens happened to have not been released in that country for some reason previously, but I'm not sure. All I can tell you is that it's more normal than many assume. And, yes, we've seen product codes mixed in with older lenses before within a single registration entry. Sometimes rumor sites even get ahead of themselves and wrongly assume that because it's a product number and not a lens name, it's a new lens. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

The particular database that this Russian registration appeared in focuses primarily on devices that emit or detect RF (not that RF) transmissions. The Russians are really quite attentive when it comes to that sort of thing. A random factoid from someone who's been watching these for a while: Canon lenses are registered by different entities. Sometimes it's Canon, and sometimes it's an importer, and sometimes it appears to be some sort of registration service or law firm. I've always wondered at the inconsistency.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The particular database that this Russian registration appeared in focuses primarily on devices that emit or detect RF (not that RF) transmissions.

So the EF 100mm Macro emits or detects radio frequency transmissions?

 

[koenkooi]

So the EF 100mm Macro emits or detects radio frequency transmissions?

It has modern electronics, which virtually always emit RF. The certification is there to ensure the emissions outside the product are low enough and/or outside protected bands (e.g. GPS, GSM, etc).

I don't know if the USM motors need hi-speed signals to drive them, but the EF pins have a relatively high frequency protocol going over them.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It has modern electronics, which virtually always emit RF. The certification is there to ensure the emissions outside the product are low enough and/or outside protected bands (e.g. GPS, GSM, etc).

I don't know if the USM motors need hi-speed signals to drive them, but the EF pins have a relatively high frequency protocol going over them.

Agree that lenses need electronic certification. @[email protected] stated that there aren’t new lenses being registered.

Sometimes rumor sites even get ahead of themselves and wrongly assume that because it's a product number and not a lens name, it's a new lens. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

The fact that these are new SKUs suggests they are, in fact, new lenses.