Yes, why not? EF-S lenses were not that big and had the same 44mm mount diameter. They could have used the bigger lens diameter advantage to make slightly brighter lenses. At least match the 5 million year old EF-S 10-22 or the super cheap EF-S 10-18 in brightness.Would you rather the lenses have the same diameter as the mount all along the barrel? I do think the EF-M lenses have a nice look, and one that’s consistent across all eight.
But personally, I don’t see the point in making a lens bigger and heavier than it needs to be just for aesthetics. There’s already a big camera box on the back end, what does it matter if the lens barrel widens just before the mount?
Hopefully the optics are good, if so, this is a homerun and going to get alot of those on the EOS-M fence to hop off and unto the RF-S mount.
The EF-M 11-22 was the original reason that I purchased an EOS-M camera, and this lens would be the reason I'd purchase an RF-S camera, even though i really dislike the ergonomic decisions Canon has made with the RF-S cameras.
To me this len's concept appears to be modelled on the EF-S 10-18mm, not the EF-M range of lenses. A lot of the old EF-s lenses are sill "current catalogue", and still selling well for Canon. I'm guessing Canon are looking to reduce the EF-s lens catalogue with RF-s pro-rata lenses.Hopefully the optics are good, if so, this is a homerun and going to get alot of those on the EOS-M fence to hop off and unto the RF-S mount.
The EF-M 11-22 was the original reason that I purchased an EOS-M camera, and this lens would be the reason I'd purchase an RF-S camera, even though i really dislike the ergonomic decisions Canon has made with the RF-S cameras.
Wouldn't be the first time Canon rehouse a new RF lens in the chassis of a different previous model, such as the 16mm 2.8 / 50mm 1.8 or the 24mm 1.8 / 35mm 1.8.Anyone else notice similarities between this and the RF 18-45? Both 4.5-6.3, 49mm thread, similar external design. Front lens element looks nearly (if not) the same. The pictures look too real/gritty to be a render, but could it be someone taking some shotty photos of the 18-45 and meticulously changing the numbering? I\'m more than keen for an UWA for RF-S, but it seems a bit of a stretch to get the FF UWA announced last week and then an RF-S UWA soon after, though it is well and truly due for both systems.
Edit: Upon further inspection, the front surface of the two lenses are different. Hopefully this lens has some availability at launch, rather than being put on the short supply list.
I think the reasoning for Canon not offering lenses closer to what was designed for EF-S (yet) is obvious.Maybe we can split RF-S users into two categories (of course there are more than two, but to simplify things it a bit). Those coming from EF-M world wanting as small as possible lenses (and cameras), and those coming from EF-S maybe wanting smaller/lighter and cheaper "prosumer" lenses and cameras but not wanting to sacrifice anything extra for further compactness.
So far Canon has mostly been satisfying the first group... also when it comes to cameras (While the R7 has never technology than 7DII, R7 still feels mostly like a 90D replacement - maybe even a "cheap" 90D replacement with a "brutal" and noisy shutter).
But Canon has to start somewhere. Hopefully second group will get some products later...
Obvious to you, maybe, but none of us know what Canon’s planners discussed internally. What’s your theory?I think the reasoning for Canon not offering lenses closer to what was designed for EF-S (yet) is obvious.
I think the reasoning for Canon not offering lenses closer to what was designed for EF-S (yet) is obvious.
I beg to differ: there have been no EVF-less R bodies, which is where the M series shone (and is still shining bright). No M/M2, M200 or M6II style bodies. Apart from theMaybe we can split RF-S users into two categories (of course there are more than two, but to simplify things it a bit). Those coming from EF-M world wanting as small as possible lenses (and cameras), and those coming from EF-S maybe wanting smaller/lighter and cheaper "prosumer" lenses and cameras but not wanting to sacrifice anything extra for further compactness.
So far Canon has mostly been satisfying the first group... also when it comes to cameras [...]
EF-S didn't much cater for prosumers. You had to buy EF if you wanted higher quality/more specialised optics. I expect the same will be true for the R bodies.Maybe we can split RF-S users into two categories (of course there are more than two, but to simplify things it a bit). Those coming from EF-M world wanting as small as possible lenses (and cameras), and those coming from EF-S maybe wanting smaller/lighter and cheaper "prosumer" lenses and cameras but not wanting to sacrifice anything extra for further compactness.
So far Canon has mostly been satisfying the first group... also when it comes to cameras (While the R7 has never technology than 7DII, R7 still feels mostly like a 90D replacement - maybe even a "cheap" 90D replacement with a "brutal" and noisy shutter).
But Canon has to start somewhere. Hopefully second group will get some products later...
Those who are going for the looks instead should have went for Fuji /a7C/Zf toys... And imho the telephoto lens from Canon still beats everyone else.Canon really doesn't know how to make attractive lenses anymore, but at least its small (while incredibly slow) at this point the iphone aperture in some cases is actually better (despite a tiny sensor).
Please don't tell me you are shooting landscapes at f2.8. Or those video-centric keyboard warriors that claims they can't shoot with anything less than f2.8.f/4.5-6.3. Yawn. Sigma just released a 10-18 mm f/2.8 lens.
It make sense though. It creates the gap for 3rd parties, and other than UWA, using FF L lenses on RF-S bodies is not a problem.EF-S didn't much cater for prosumers. You had to buy EF if you wanted higher quality/more specialised optics. I expect the same will be true for the R bodies.
Canon lenses don't really have a common chassis. Every component attaches to each other so the whole becomes the structure. Even the body shell is effectively floating.Wouldn't be the first time Canon rehouse a new RF lens in the chassis of a different previous model, such as the 16mm 2.8 / 50mm 1.8 or the 24mm 1.8 / 35mm 1.8.
Every little bit helps with production costs for budget friendly lenses like these ones., I guess
Please don't tell me you are shooting landscapes at f2.8. Or those video-centric keyboard warriors that claims they can't shoot with anything less than f2.8.
Canon lenses don't really have a common chassis. Every component attaches to each other so the whole becomes the structure. Even the body shell is effectively floating.
The only EF to RF converted lenses that I am aware of are the EF 400mm f2.8 L IS III, into the RF version and also mated to a 2x TC to make the RF800mm f5.6 LIS) and the EF 600mm f4 L IS III into the RF version and like the 400, mated to a 2x TC to make a RF 1200mm f8 L IS.
All of the other lenses I'm aware of are literally a clean sheet of paper approach with their own optical formula. Some of the motors and aperture assemblies are shared where appropriate.
Those who are going for the looks instead should have went for Fuji /a7C/Zf toys... And imho the telephoto lens from Canon still beats everyone else.
Please don't tell me you are shooting landscapes at f2.8. Or those video-centric keyboard warriors that claims they can't shoot with anything less than f2.8.
You're absolutely right!Canon really doesn't know how to make attractive lenses anymore, but at least its small (while incredibly slow) at this point the iphone aperture in some cases is actually better (despite a tiny sensor).