EOS R7 fantastic Camera! I would wish an RF-s 17-55 f2.8 (or better "L")

[photofrankdzi]

EOS R7 fantastic Camera!
For me, (long - time Canon user, and entusiast photo fan) the R7 is the best Camera I owned.
She is so very good enough for me (im not a proffessional Photografer), that i have no interrest in full-frame Cameras with the matching big, heavy and expensive lenses.
BUT I really wish some few "quality - matching" lenses for EF-s.
Even for my EOS-M mark II there was more: EF-s for example 32 f 1,4 but not more. And because there was no Mark II M5 announced, I changed to R7.
I hope, that was not the next misstake.
THE R7 deserves MORE good Lenses.
I would need most: RF-s 17-55 f2.8 ,or better RF-s 17-55 f2.8 L

 

[davidespinosa]

@photofrankdzi

You could use an EF-S lens on an adapter.
Is there an EF-S lens that would work for you ?

17-55 on APS-C is equivalent to 27-88 on 35mm.
You could switch to the R8 and RF 24-70/2.8L.

 

[Deleted member 393686]

I agree: More good RF-s lenses! I own an R10, sold my 70D, but kept the lenses. The EF and EF-s lenses work fine with an adapter. But I am hoping for a new 11-22.

 

[photofrankdzi]

@photofrankdzi

You could use an EF-S lens on an adapter.
Is there an EF-S lens that would work for you ?

17-55 on APS-C is equivalent to 27-88 on 35mm.
You could switch to the R8 and RF 24-70/2.8L.

quite good idea. I use 17-55 f2.8 on an adaptor! BUT I think the R7 has a right on Lenses dedicated for her! the RF-Lenses build a more harmonic Couple with the R - Cameras than something with adaptor to connect. The 17-55 f2,8 EF-S is a verry good (and good selling) Lens for APS-C - Cameras --- and it would be a perfect Couple if there were no need for the adaptor. The R7 is not a Beginners - Camera - but I think for entusiasts, who don't want make body workout, carrying camera plus lenses. an RF-s Version of the 17-55 f2,8 most likely "L" - Version would be a dream - I might think - not only for me.
p.s.: the length of 17-55 f2,8 is 110,6 mm (including adaptor: 134,6 !!!
and the length of RF 24-70 f2,8 is 125,7 (not much better) and costs 2500 Euro.
and I don't want an R8, which is less good at many aspects compared to R7 (Beginners Akku LP-E17, No IBIS: in Camera picture stabilisation, ...)

 

[AJ]

How about a 15-70/2.8? Maybe this is possible with the RF mount.

 

[JTM-77]

@photofrankdzi

You could use an EF-S lens on an adapter.
Is there an EF-S lens that would work for you ?

17-55 on APS-C is equivalent to 27-88 on 35mm.
You could switch to the R8 and RF 24-70/2.8L.

The RF 24-70 f2.8 is still a $3000+ lens that is way out of budget! and does not go that well with a APS-C body.

 

[Doormat]

For me, it’s like canon history repeating itself all over again.

Totally agree that canon never pushed the boat out properly with the ef-s line. I bought and still have all canon ef-s lenses. There were some gems. But canon should offer a better range of primes and faster zooms.

However, owning both ff and aps-c and seeing the merits of both.

Given the amazing advances in sensor technology, the creative use of AI, the latest powerful Digic processors, the surreal AF systems and of course we cannot omit advancements made in lens technology. Blisteringly fast AF speeds, lens coatings, IS etc etc.

Canon stepped away from EF and EF-S R&D, they learnt much with the EOS M line. The M6ii was ground breaking.

All this amazing advancements should have been funnelled into a new mirrorless system based on the obsolete aps-H sensor…imagine that!!

Forget the crop and full frame, forget running two separate lens line ups.

Instead given the absolutely immense knowledge canon has gained from the first inception of the EOS line back in the 80’s. Canon should have taken the bold step of unleashing a new sensor size based on the aps-H, that would give superb IQ, offer smaller, lighter bodies, faster lenses.
Ah yes, your bokeh?? I hear you cry. With only one sensor they could have invested massively in lens technology to deliver smaller, faster optics be it primes or zooms.

We have seen how other manufacturers have developed the smaller sensor and succeeded. Canon with its level of expertise could have dominated over them.

But alas, let’s forget this dream.
We have two systems (yawn Zzzzz) consumer vs pro (yawn) Zzzzz) a budget friendly aps-c ( Yawn Zzzzzz) and a expensive FF ( yawn Zzzzz) Each line never fully offering what we want, everything compromised to make you want more.

I’ll get off my soapbox

 

[scyrene]

We have seen how other manufacturers have developed the smaller sensor and succeeded. Canon with its level of expertise could have dominated over them.

But alas, let’s forget this dream.
We have two systems (yawn Zzzzz) consumer vs pro (yawn) Zzzzz) a budget friendly aps-c ( Yawn Zzzzzz) and a expensive FF ( yawn Zzzzz) Each line never fully offering what we want, everything compromised to make you want more.

They already dominate. And if that "boring" approach is what works, they'd be silly not to continue with it. Everything is a compromise.

 

[koenkooi]

[…] We have seen how other manufacturers have developed the smaller sensor and succeeded. Canon with its level of expertise could have dominated over them.[…]

Nikon abandoned their J series crop line and puts even less effort than Canon into their Z crop variants. Olympus got rid of their crop business. Panasonic focusing on full frame. Sony is technically still making crop bodies, but artificially limiting those even more than people say Canon does.
That just leaves Fuji, which sells only one X series body for every 5 EOS M bodies sold.

I don’t know what goals the companies set, so I can’t say if they succeeded or not, but what is your definition for ‘dominating’?
Is it sales or features?
For features, I agree that Canon didn’t implement features that existed in other cameras, like user defined focus limits, focus shift, in camera focus compositing, star tracking and other things. That is improving at a glacial speed, but other vendors are still ahead when it comes to features.

 

[AlanF]

They already dominate. And if that "boring" approach is what works, they'd be silly not to continue with it. Everything is a compromise.

Absolutely right - everything is a compromise, and that includes price. If there was camera that have every spec on it that everyone wanted, then the most of us would be priced out of the market.

 

[Czardoom]

For me, it’s like canon history repeating itself all over again.

Totally agree that canon never pushed the boat out properly with the ef-s line. I bought and still have all canon ef-s lenses. There were some gems. But canon should offer a better range of primes and faster zooms.

Canon understood that the target consumer for APS-C crop cameras wanted an inexpensive and simple system. They, for the most part, would prefer zooms over primes and inexpensive (thus slower) lenses. Those wanting primes and faster zooms could, and still can, buy FF lenses. Canon is not stupid enough to duplicate in two lens lineups what already exists in one.

However, owning both ff and aps-c and seeing the merits of both.

Given the amazing advances in sensor technology, the creative use of AI, the latest powerful Digic processors, the surreal AF systems and of course we cannot omit advancements made in lens technology. Blisteringly fast AF speeds, lens coatings, IS etc etc.

Canon stepped away from EF and EF-S R&D, they learnt much with the EOS M line. The M6ii was ground breaking.

All this amazing advancements should have been funnelled into a new mirrorless system based on the obsolete aps-H sensor…imagine that!!

Forget the crop and full frame, forget running two separate lens line ups.

Instead given the absolutely immense knowledge canon has gained from the first inception of the EOS line back in the 80’s. Canon should have taken the bold step of unleashing a new sensor size based on the aps-H, that would give superb IQ, offer smaller, lighter bodies, faster lenses.
Ah yes, your bokeh?? I hear you cry. With only one sensor they could have invested massively in lens technology to deliver smaller, faster optics be it primes or zooms.

Hmmm...APS-H. A sensor size that was abandoned because it has slightly lower IQ than FF and does not give much reach advantage over APS-C. Thus, photographers wanting the IQ of FF would all go to Sony or Nikon and those wanting the reach advantage of APS-C crop factor would go elsewhere as well. Not to mention the confusion of what focal length the lenses "actually" are in terms of equivalence. In other words - not superb IQ, not really smaller, lighter bodies or faster lenses. Yes, a fine strategy for company suicide!

We have seen how other manufacturers have developed the smaller sensor and succeeded. Canon with its level of expertise could have dominated over them.

But alas, let’s forget this dream.
We have two systems (yawn Zzzzz) consumer vs pro (yawn) Zzzzz) a budget friendly aps-c ( Yawn Zzzzzz) and a expensive FF ( yawn Zzzzz) Each line never fully offering what we want, everything compromised to make you want more.

I’ll get off my soapbox

Please do. For many of us, we are getting Cameras and lenses that far exceeded any expectations we may have had 10 years ago or more. If you feel that things are being compromised because they are not using the APS-H sensor, well, I feel sorry for you.

 

[Doormat]

Of all the lenses I own (own a lot) the 17-55 is by far the one that always leaves me underwhelmed. It’s big, heavy and only has a short zoom range, but worse is that no matter which body I use it on, the files are always meh!! So I usually end up putting it back and reverting back to the 18-55 is stm
Small, light and crazy good IS.

I really want to like it, but it never delivers anything that justifies hauling it’s bulk around all day.

Maybe I got a bad copy ??

 

[neuroanatomist]

Of all the lenses I own (own a lot) the 17-55 is by far the one that always leaves me underwhelmed. It’s big, heavy and only has a short zoom range, but worse is that no matter which body I use it on, the files are always meh!! So I usually end up putting it back and reverting back to the 18-55 is stm
Small, light and crazy good IS.

I really want to like it, but it never delivers anything that justifies hauling it’s bulk around all day.

Maybe I got a bad copy ??

Possibly. Mine was great, but limited by the 18 MP APS-C sensor.

 

[photofrankdzi]

Of all the lenses I own (own a lot) the 17-55 is by far the one that always leaves me underwhelmed. It’s big, heavy and only has a short zoom range, but worse is that no matter which body I use it on, the files are always meh!! So I usually end up putting it back and reverting back to the 18-55 is stm

Small, light and crazy good IS.



I really want to like it, but it never delivers anything that justifies hauling it’s bulk around all day.



Maybe I got a bad copy ??



this may be:

I still have one, that I bought via Ebay and which I like very much. Most times It produces Photos on my R7 that satisfy my wishes completely.

BUT this one is the better one!

Short time before I got this, because I could not stop the Ebay-Auction, I bought another one second hand in very good condition from very good local foto-shop-dealer. So I had the Chance to compare: and the Ebay-one (lower serial-nr.) was visibly better.

And I luckily could give back the shop-exemplar.

I'm not a test-specialist but I try to do my best: Cam on tripod, good adjusted vertically and horizontally, pdf-file printed on laserprinter an fixed on an even wooden board.

another of my tests supprised me too:

I have an EF 50 f1.8 stm and an

RF 50 f1.8 for comparing:

My Test (I am engaged Photo-Hobbyist)

produces difficulties:

The EF is sharper than the RF.

And I hoped the new, smaller, specially designed for mirrorless, would make me more happy.

Dear CANON - people

I still would like to stay with You.

I think, I can imagin, other companies don't do better everything.

But please try, not to decide too many things against my wishes.

some times it might be better to separate!

 

[Doormat]

I’ve found the exact opposite
My RF50/1.8 is noticeably sharper than my EF50/1.8 stm
I tried both on my RP
Infact I can’t fault the RF50/1.8 small, light and sharp.
What’s not to love.

 

[blackcoffee17]

@photofrankdzi

You could use an EF-S lens on an adapter.
Is there an EF-S lens that would work for you ?

17-55 on APS-C is equivalent to 27-88 on 35mm.
You could switch to the R8 and RF 24-70/2.8L.

R8 is not a match for the R7 in many ways. The R6 would be but much more expensive, double the price.

 

[blackcoffee17]

How about a 15-70/2.8? Maybe this is possible with the RF mount.

Possible but not for Canon. They only want to design 18-XX F6.3 type of plastic zooms for RF-S.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Of all the lenses I own (own a lot) the 17-55 is by far the one that always leaves me underwhelmed. It’s big, heavy and only has a short zoom range, but worse is that no matter which body I use it on, the files are always meh!! So I usually end up putting it back and reverting back to the 18-55 is stm
Small, light and crazy good IS.

I really want to like it, but it never delivers anything that justifies hauling it’s bulk around all day.

Maybe I got a bad copy ??

I think DPReview tested the 17-55 on the M6 II and the samples indeed look meh - quite soft and without details on the 32mp sensor. Plus the lens with the EF adaptor is quite a brick.