Here are some rumoured RF-S lenses that may be coming in the near future.

[koenkooi]

Plastic mount.... because it costs extra 10 cents to make metal mount like the EF-M

Avid readers of the lensrentals.com teardowns know that metal mounts are usually screwed into plastic inside the lens, so on relatively light lenses it's window dressing to make it look more expensive and sturdy.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Avid readers of the lensrentals.com teardowns know that metal mounts are usually screwed into plastic inside the lens, so on relatively light lenses it's window dressing to make it look more expensive and sturdy.

Metal mount just has a more quality feel and those thin plastic threads can break off. Ive seen few lenses with broken plastic mount

 

[Bob Howland]

I just wish that Sigma would figure out the R-mount protocols. I have 16mm and 30mm M-mount lenses that I'd like for Sigma to change the mounts. It may be too expensive though.

 

[Daner]

I enjoyed the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 on my 1000D, 70D, and 7D2, but I hope that Canon updates the IQ for the RF-S 16-55 f/2.8 as I don't think that it will be sharp enough across the whole frame to support the resolution of the R7.
Of course, I would love it if Canon would also offer an RF-S 50-100 at f/2.8 (or larger if possible) but to be honest I'll probably just slap my RF 70-200 f/2.8 on the R7 and put my RF 24-105 f/4 on my R6 for an f/4 equivalent dual-body setup that covers my needs from 24-320mm

 

[blackcoffee17]

I enjoyed the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 on my 1000D, 70D, and 7D2, but I hope that Canon updates the IQ for the RF-S 16-55 f/2.8 as I don't think that it will be sharp enough across the whole frame to support the resolution of the R7.
Of course, I would love it if Canon would also offer an RF-S 50-100 in a wide-aperture, as Sigma does for EF-S, but to be honest I'll probably just slap my RF 70-200 f/2.8 on the R7 and put my RF 24-105 f/4 on my R6 for an f/4 equivalent dual-body setup that covers my needs from 24-320mm

DPReview already tested the 17-55 and was not sharp enough for the M6 II. None of the EF-M lenses were, except the 32mm.

 

[bseitz234]

RF-S 16-55 f/2.8
RF-S 22 f/2
RF-S 32mm f/1.4

If they had announced those at the same time as the R7 I would’ve preordered everything on day 1… as it is, I just haven’t felt that compelled by anything. *shrug*

 

[vangelismm]

DPReview already tested the 17-55 and was not sharp enough for the M6 II. None of the EF-M lenses were, except the 32mm.

There is an article with this content there?

 

[blackcoffee17]

There is an article with this content there?

Check the M6 Mark II review.

 

[Bob Howland]

Check the M6 Mark II review.

Whose review? I looked a the DPReview review and didn't see it. Also, I have the Sigma 16mm and 30mm primes and they seem pretty good. (However, using them reminded me why I like zooms.)

 

[josephandrews222]

DPReview already tested the 17-55 and was not sharp enough for the M6 II. None of the EF-M lenses were, except the 32mm.

I very much enjoy reading DPReview.

I very much enjoy perusing all (most?) of the camera-and-lens oriented websites that enable pixel-peeping.

In addition to looking all over the web for examples, I also enjoy viewing images acquired by yours truly and family members using EF-M devices...literally thousands of images.

The EF-M 22mm pancake can deliver superb images.

The EF-M 11-22mm wide-angle can also deliver superb images.

In a pinch, the EF-M 18-150mm zoom also works well (not as well as the two mentioned previously) but the maxim 'the best camera-and-lens rig is the one in your hands' takes on new meaning when considering the mass-and-volume characteristics of any of the Ms, when mated to the 18-150.

So your quote of DPReview regarding the performance of the EF-M lens/M6 Mk II combo...is...(insert bad word here).

I could go on-and-on...I own the 17-55 2.8, too! My copy also delivers decent images until you get to the 50-55 range...when connected to a Rebel XT, a 40D as well as three different EF-M bodies.

I very much look forward to seeing images from the 18-150 RF-S lens and comparing them those obtained using the 18-150 EF-M lens...presumably Canon will 'up their game' since the sensor in the R7 sure as hell looks to be a close analogue to the sensor found in both the 90D and the M6 Mk II!

My two cents.

 

[josephandrews222]

Whose review? I looked a the DPReview review and didn't see it. Also, I have the Sigma 16mm and 30mm primes and they seem pretty good. (However, using them reminded me why I like zooms.)

The poster here is correct, Bob. I saw the review mentioning that. To be honest, it may not have been DPReview but the poster is correct--somebody somewhere with some credibility has made that claim.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I don't see any reason why an owner of an 850D / 90D / R10 would see an ultra wide less any less useful than an 5D / R5 owner.

Absolutely! I couldn’t agree more.

I was trying to be brief in my original posting, so perhaps my intent was unclear. I wasn’t trying to throw shade on anybody’s needs or uses.

Choosing a camera is an optimization process, a compromise, if you will. You try to find the one that best satisfies your needs and constraints. Usually there’s no one camera that’s perfect for every consideration, so you have to prioritize and make tradeoffs.

If you’re looking for a jack-of-all-trades camera, any modern camera, FF or crop, can do it. I’m sure Canon will migrate the EF-M 11-22 to RF-S before too long (not sure about 11-55).

But my point was that if you are primarily interested in ultrawide fields, FF might be a better choice. A 10 or 11 mm lens on crop is like a 16-18mm lens on FF. Very wide, for sure, but not like a 12, 10, or even 8 mm on a FF. If you’re happy with 10-11 mm on crop, that’s all that matters.

Of course there are always other considerations, size, budget, other features... It’s not a simple formula, and everybody’s priorities are different.

 

[jordanisaak]

Looks exactly like the ef-m 22/2 but with RF mount.

Same as the released 18-150 seems to be exactly the same as the ef-m lens. Just another mount and some minor changes to the exterior. 18-45 seems to be a bit different though. 15-45 would have the lens stick a bit out from the mount if they just adapted it. I guess that's why it's 18 and not 15 at the wide end like the ef-m lens.

If they release the 22 and a small m-sized body without evf I will get one immedietly. My favorite light travel and long hike combo. The 32/1.4 I would get as well, another amazing m lens.

Bryan from the-digital-picture mentioned that the 18-150 was indeed the same optical formula as the EF-M lens. Between that and the specifications being almost identical (RF-S version lists a slightly shorter MFD?), I'm convinced it is the same lens in a different housing.

Before this launch I had said several times that I didn't think Canon would just rebody EF-M lenses and call it a day, but the past few days have proven me completely wrong on that front. Now I would not be surprised if they used that strategy to quickly fill in their APS-C lineup. Good news for RF-S adopters, I suppose, but for current EF-M users it's not that attractive a sales pitch. I'm not going tto switch to RF-S just to rebuy all the lenses I already have. Maybe if I shot wildlife, action, or sports I would find the RF7 or RF10 attractive enough to jump over, but I don't (or else I wouldn't have chosen M in the first place).

For EF-M users I think the best possibility going forward is that Canon chooses to make future APS-C lenses available for both of their mirrorless mounts. Unfortunately, I think Canon's desire to push consumers into RF will mean that doesn't happen.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

Whose review? I looked a the DPReview review and didn't see it. Also, I have the Sigma 16mm and 30mm primes and they seem pretty good. (However, using them reminded me why I like zooms.)

I remember the comment too, but it must have been in the 90D preview/review video (or maybe a combined preview of 90D and M6 II ?)

 

[vangelismm]

Some people seem to think a lens should be ‘certified’ for a certain number of pixels or something. That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of it works.

More Ultra High-Resolution MTF Experiments

GEEK ALERT!! Let’s be absolutely clear; this is not a practical or useful article. It won’t help your photography or cinematography become better. It won’t help you choose equipment any time in the next couple of years. It won’t provide any fodder for your next Forum War. It’s just a geek...

www.lensrentals.com

Resolution = lens resolution x sensor resolution.

Increase sensor MP will always increase the overall resolution does not matter the lens used, and vice versa.
Maybe the increase will be barely noticeable but will.

 

[Skux]

Finally it looks like they're putting some effort in. A 16-55mm f/2.8 is the fast standard zoom the RF-S system deserves.

 

[Sharlin]

As I see it, wide APS-C lenses are conveniences for occasional use.

If you regularly need ultrawide FOVs, or very shallow DOF, FF is a better choice for you.

On the contrary! Unlike with long telephoto lenses where you get diminishing returns from a smaller image circle, ultrawides are where a smaller sensor actually shines when it comes to affordability. For a long time, APS-C was the only way for a Canon user to shoot ultrawide at any reasonable price; Canon doesn't even have any non-L EF ultrawides! To most people it makes zero sense to spend 3x to 5x the money just to be able to shoot at <16mm equivalent focal lengths. Now, in the DSLR world ultrawides were always a bit tricky, optically, due to the long flange distance, and mirrorless does change that equation somewhat. Specifically, it's now possible to design a non-retrofocal FF ~16mm lens, and that's a fact that the RF 16mm f/2.8 exploits. But we'll have to see whether there will be an affordable FF ultrawide zoom at some point.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Avid readers of the lensrentals.com teardowns know that metal mounts are usually screwed into plastic inside the lens, so on relatively light lenses it's window dressing to make it look more expensive and sturdy.

While I agree that the metal mount being screwed into a plastic lens frame doesn't make the lens more sturdy overall, I think it's more than just window dressing. Lens mount tolerances are tight for a reason – a change in orientation (except for rotation) will tilt the image circle projected onto the sensor. Camera mounts are metal, and metal-plastic contacts wear faster than metal-metal contacts.

What the metal mount means is more durability in terms of number of mount/unmount cycles than a plastic mount. Now, many users of entry-level cameras have just the one kit lens, meaning it is probably never unmounted so wear will never be an issue. Even with two-lens kits, changes won't be that frequent. But for avid enthusiasts with a collection of lenses, changes will be more frequent and that means plastic mounts won't be as durable.

Avid readers of lensrentals.com teardowns are probably also members of that minority of Canon users having a collection of lenses and changing them frequently.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

On the contrary! Unlike with long telephoto lenses where you get diminishing returns from a smaller image circle, ultrawides are where a smaller sensor actually shines when it comes to affordability. For a long time, APS-C was the only way for a Canon user to shoot ultrawide at any reasonable price; Canon doesn't even have any non-L EF ultrawides! To most people it makes zero sense to spend 3x to 5x the money just to be able to shoot at <16mm equivalent focal lengths. Now, in the DSLR world ultrawides were always a bit tricky, optically, due to the long flange distance, and mirrorless does change that equation somewhat. Specifically, it's now possible to design a non-retrofocal FF ~16mm lens, and that's a fact that the RF 16mm f/2.8 exploits. But we'll have to see whether there will be an affordable FF ultrawide zoom at some point.

Agree. But per my follow-up post, it’s a compromise. We optimize our choices for the parameters that are important to us, and budget is generally one of those parameters for most of us.

 

[Bob Howland]

More Ultra High-Resolution MTF Experiments

GEEK ALERT!! Let’s be absolutely clear; this is not a practical or useful article. It won’t help your photography or cinematography become better. It won’t help you choose equipment any time in the next couple of years. It won’t provide any fodder for your next Forum War. It’s just a geek...

www.lensrentals.com

Resolution = lens resolution x sensor resolution.

Increase sensor MP will always increase the overall resolution does not matter the lens used, and vice versa.
Maybe the increase will be barely noticeable but will.

Thanks. That's what I remember. It's really a matter of "system balance". About a decade ago, I bought an EF 300 f/2.8 L IS to use with a 10MP 40D. I had been using an EF 100-400 L IS which gave (and still gives) pretty good images. The difference was spectacular, even with 1.4X and 2X converters. But at dusty racetracks, the lens was a pain to use. I'm waiting to see how both lenses work with an R7.