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

[Exploreshootshare]

I’d love canon to bring the EFs 10-18mm to a new RF version. A fast wide angle prime would nice, too.

 

[gregedwards69]

I think that you mean "replicated" or "duplicated" rather than replaced
Canon has just changed the mount for the RFs lenses which makes commercial sense
The only real data that we have seen from Canon about the M system is the discontinuation of the M6ii in Australia

I stand corrected. Replicated or duplicated are far better terms.

 

[pzyber]

But the RF mount flange distance is 2mm bigger, so all the EF-M lenses would need some optical adjustments / changes. Not enough to just change the mount.

Nah only needs a change if the rear lens is far back and within those two mm. Hence why they probably changed the 15-45 to 18-45 since the rear element on the 15-45 is far in the rear of the lens while the 18-150 don't have that problem. To make an 15-45 with 20mm flange distance would most likely result in a bigger lens.

 

[Jasonmc89]

One thing I would love to see is weather sealing on the RF-S 16-55mm f/2.8 IS USM!

I know it’s unlikely being a crop lens, but if it’s canons “premium” rf-s standard lens then a bit of sealing would be reaaaallly appreciated, Canon!!

 

[Dragon]

Personally I don't consider a $500 lens "inexpensive". Maybe compared to other RF lenses, but my reference is the $125 EF-S 24mm f/2.8.

The ef-s 35mm macro that was referred to wasn't that much cheaper.

 

[jordanisaak]

Nah only needs a change if the rear lens is far back and within those two mm. Hence why they probably changed the 15-45 to 18-45 since the rear element on the 15-45 is far in the rear of the lens while the 18-150 don't have that problem. To make an 15-45 with 20mm flange distance would most likely result in a bigger lens.

The RF-S 18-45mm is a completely different optical design from the EF-M 15-45mm. 7 lenses in 7 groups for the RF-S 18-45mm, 10 lenses in 9 groups for the EF-M 15-45mm.

 

[davidcl0nel]

You can't adapt directly a EFM-lens to RF, but how much you have to change in development to rearrange it to the "new" specification? The backlens(es) only a bit? I have no idea.

The EFM 22mm is a nice pancake, this on RFS would be nice with an R10 - or even smaller camera.
I think there will be a R100 or even a R1000 "soon", which maybe a lot smaller and more cubish like the old M1-camera (or the post versions) some without grip"bulge". This would be a nice backup camera with 350gr or so.

 

[pzyber]

The RF-S 18-45mm is a completely different optical design from the EF-M 15-45mm. 7 lenses in 7 groups for the RF-S 18-45mm, 10 lenses in 9 groups for the EF-M 15-45mm.

I never said the 18-45 had the same lens design.

 

[Dragon]

Canon seems to be happy to cancel high ISO improvements of new cameras with slower and slower lenses. The EF-S 55-250 5.6 is already very light and compact, what's the point of 7.1? To save extra 10 grams?

you can carry an entire EF-M kit with all the lenses in one small bag. For some situations, size matters.

 

[Dragon]

I stand corrected. Replicated or duplicated are far better terms.

Good to also remember that replicating the same optical formula doesn't necessarily mean replicating all the mechanics of the lens. For example, the IS units in the M zooms have been determined to be quite sensitive to shutter shock, so it is possible that these new lenses will see a different IS mechanism given that the high-speed shutters in both the R7 and R10 will likely generate at least as much shock as the M6 II (which has SS problems with most off the M zooms). Only time will tell, but worth watching to see if there are subtle changes after years of experience with the M lenses. It is a perfect upgrade opportunity and hard to believe Canon won't take it.

 

[Fernvndo]

Canon do it!!! would love to see some RF UWA, like the 10-24 FF on the roadmap. If Canon would also release a 7-15 for aps-c that would be great. No one has a more UWA lens in aps-c than Fuji (8-16) and so it's a chance to lead the segment.

 

[jordanisaak]

I never said the 18-45 had the same lens design.

Got it. I misunderstood and thought you were implying that they modified the EF-M design slightly to accommodate the mount change, with the result that 18mm was the new wide limit.

Looking at the 15-45mm, the back element is somewhat far back, but I think the optics would physically fit on RF with a housing change. I suspect the main reason for the new design was cost. 7 elements is very low, even for an entry kit zoom.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

The ef-s 35mm macro that was referred to wasn't that much cheaper.

My bad. I didn’t see the context of the original statement.

 

[Skux]

Apart from a macro lens I don't think Canon will expand RF-S much more. Even EF-S had a rather paltry selection once you take out revised versions.

We have:
- kit lens (18-45mm) - announced
- kit telephoto zoom (18-150mm) - announced
- fast standard zoom (16-55mm)
- wide zoom (10-18mm or whatever it ends up being)
- telephoto zoom (55-200mm)
- 35mm equivalent prime (22mm)
- 50mm equivalent prime (32mm)

Full frame compact RF glass like the 16mm and 50mm can fill in the gaps without being too expensive.

 

[koenkooi]

Good to also remember that replicating the same optical formula doesn't necessarily mean replicating all the mechanics of the lens. For example, the IS units in the M zooms have been determined to be quite sensitive to shutter shock, so it is possible that these new lenses will see a different IS mechanism given that the high-speed shutters in both the R7 and R10 will likely generate at least as much shock as the M6 II (which has SS problems with most off the M zooms). Only time will tell, but worth watching to see if there are subtle changes after years of experience with the M lenses. It is a perfect upgrade opportunity and hard to believe Canon won't take it.

The M6II only has a fully mechanical
mode, it lacks an EFCS for the shutter. The shutter closing and opening before each picture is what makes the shutter shock on the M6II so severe, compared to other M cameras.

 

[Dragon]

The M6II only has a fully mechanical
mode, it lacks an EFCS for the shutter. The shutter closing and opening before each picture is what makes the shutter shock on the M6II so severe, compared to other M cameras.

I know that (I have an M6 II), but the R7 and R10 also have a full mech shutter option which would be nice to be able to use with the standard lenses. sometimes a full mech shutter is desirable.

 

[gregedwards69]

You can't adapt directly a EFM-lens to RF, but how much you have to change in development to rearrange it to the "new" specification? The backlens(es) only a bit? I have no idea.

The EFM 22mm is a nice pancake, this on RFS would be nice with an R10 - or even smaller camera.
I think there will be a R100 or even a R1000 "soon", which maybe a lot smaller and more cubish like the old M1-camera (or the post versions) some without grip"bulge". This would be a nice backup camera with 350gr or so.

I've been considering picking up an original M (aka M1) to pair with my EF-M 22mm. I hear wonderful things about its colour rendition that was lost in later M bodies - I understand this may be due to it having more in common with EOS firmware compared to the PowerShot derived firmware of later M cameras. It could prove to be a potent little everyday carry camera.

That said, I don't really need one, and my iPhone does a pretty good job as an always with me camera.

 

[lote82]

I miss the RF-S version of the 10-18mm and the 15-85mm!

 

[SHAMwow]

I thought that if they are EF-S or RF-S lenses that there isn't the equivalent factor. Isn't that why they don't work correctly on a full frame camera?

 

[koenkooi]

I've been considering picking up an original M (aka M1) to pair with my EF-M 22mm. I hear wonderful things about its colour rendition that was lost in later M bodies - I understand this may be due to it having more in common with EOS firmware compared to the PowerShot derived firmware of later M cameras. It could prove to be a potent little everyday carry camera.

That said, I don't really need one, and my iPhone does a pretty good job as an always with me camera.

The M3 was a bit of an outlier, it had very different colours compared to other EOS cameras. The M6II has more traditional colours, but your RAW converter needs to have a proper profile for it, like a recent lightroom or using 3rd party profiles. The original M has great colours out of the box in LR and DxO PL, but its autofocus is a joke. I still use mine from time to time, it’s the perfect EF-M body for me: small, light and with a hot shoe that supports the GP-E2.