I’d love canon to bring the EFs 10-18mm to a new RF version. A fast wide angle prime would nice, too.
Upvote
0
I stand corrected. Replicated or duplicated are far better terms.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
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.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.
The ef-s 35mm macro that was referred to wasn't that much cheaper.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 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.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.
I never said the 18-45 had the same lens design.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.
you can carry an entire EF-M kit with all the lenses in one small bag. For some situations, size matters.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?
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.I stand corrected. Replicated or duplicated are far better terms.
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.I never said the 18-45 had the same lens design.
My bad. I didn’t see the context of the original statement.The ef-s 35mm macro that was referred to wasn't that much cheaper.
The M6II only has a fully mechanicalGood 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.
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.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'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.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.
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.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.