Here is what Canon is announcing next, including the EOS R7, EOS R10 and RF-S lenses [CR3]

Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
50 * 1.5/1.6 =/= 85

There is a reason why most camera manufacturers are producing 85mm lenses and not 70-75mm. Many ppl also complain that the standard 24-70 f2.8 is too short for portraits. So no, the 50mm on APS-C is not a portrait lens.
Please, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. 50mm x 1.6 = 80mm. You're suggestion that being 5mm shorter than the classic 85mm (a 9% difference) means it's not a portrait lens is simply asinine.

You'd have been better off arguing based on perspective, since that is solely based on distance to subject and with a 50mm lens on APS-C you'd be further from the subject than with 80/85mm on FF. But even that doesn't hold water, because pretty much the whole 70-200mm FF range is considered a 'flattering' perspective, and that encompasses the subject distance of an 50mm lens on APS-C. 70-200/2.8 zooms are very frequently used by portrait/wedding photographers for a reason. They don't start at 85mm, do they? In fact, both Canon and Nikon offered 80-200/2.8 lenses, and updated them to start at 70mm.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 7 users
Upvote 0

Blue Zurich

Traditional Grip
Jan 22, 2022
243
364
Swingtown
These all have useless viewangles on APS-C, you pay full-frame glass and at least the 24-105 & 70-200 are NOT small. On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens, 35mm = not really a 50mm, 24-105 missing the wide end etc. EF-M22 is a small lens, EF-M32 is small and a true 50 equivalent etc.

View attachment 203522

This is why a a unified mount is shit. If you look at at EF-mount, Z-mount or F-mount the APS-C lenses were always bigger than needed, half assed and missing important lenses, b/c you can always gEt ThE fUlLfRaMe LeNs and ApS-c Is EnTrY tO FuLlFrAmE.
I used all sorts of L glass without complaint on my M5, I guess the size of your mitts makes or breaks your options. YMMV. plus I don't limit my creativity by 'classic' focal lengths prescribed by history and media.

oh and do you think a telephoto lens such as 400 5.6L or 100-400L let alone larger white teles fit with the balance you desire on 7D/5D Ssize body? No, but we use them with proper technique and for many years, without relying on stabilization.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I agree that a slight variance from the "traditional" focal lengths is no big deal. I didn't care that my 50mm was actually 80mm equivalent instead of an 85mm, or that my 24mm was a 38.4mm equivalent instead of a 35mm or 40mm. Close enough is close enough.

But, every time somebody trots out the argument that RF lenses would work great on APS-C, I have to think that they haven't been paying attention to the other mirrorless lineups - most of these lenses only are good options for APS-C in a vacuum where other systems don't exist. There are more attractive APS-C options in terms of cost, optical performance, and/or bulk/weight for pretty much every RF lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens
Yes it is. In fact the 40mm STM pancake is an awesome lens for portraits on APS-C. I've shot a massive pile of couples portraits with a little Canon Rebel SL1 and the 40stm, and single person headshots with the same camera and the nifty 50. Back then, if you wanted to get into studio portrait photography, those two lenses and an entry level to mid level APS-C body were a very inexpensive and performant way to get into it. Add the EF-s 24mm pancake if you wanted to do more family sized group stuff and the ef-s 10-18 stm for larger group shots and for less than $2K you had a complete studio setup. I spent more money on lights and props than I did camera gear.

These days, I shoot a lot of studio stuff on an RF FF with the RF 70-200 at 70-100mm and with the RF 50STM or 35STM if I need to go a bit wider.

The point is, if you have APS-C camera and you're shooting a a single person portrait from about 6 feet away from the subject, 50mm is about right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
What you're suggesting is not really feasible.

Using existing EF-M lenses on an RF mount would require an adapter with optics, and likely result in substantial image degradation.

EF and EF-S lenses have a longer flange distance (44mm) than RF (20mm) or EF-M (18mm). That allows room for an adapter that is really just a spacer, without optics. Mounting an RF lens on an M body means a 2mm adapter, not really practical to use and no one has made one (nor, I suspect, will anyone). Mounting an EF-M lens on an R body would require the lens to sit 2mm inside the body, and that's not possible. Thus, any adapter would need optical elements like the old FD-to-EOS adapter.

To adapt EF-M lenses for RF mount would require an adapter with optical elements as the Flange distance of the EF-M is actually 2mm shorter. This could add not inconsiderable (cf EF-M lenses) weight and length to the whole setup, negating the light weight and small size advantages of the EM-M system. On the other hand, adapting EF & EF-S lenses on the M and RF mount are much easier, as the adapter is essentially just a spacer (with electronics that allow for communication between the lens and the camera body). Using adapter with optical elements to adapt lenses for shorter flange distance to lenses for longer flange distance system does not seem to have happened yet, as far as I know, for the major camera companies.

FWIW, I am NOT suggesting EF-M lenses to be adapted for use on the current RF mount. I realise that's not really possible, and it's pretty fruitless endeavour.

What I WAS suggesting is that RF-S and EF-M mounts could potentially be the same thing. So you could natively use EF-M lenses on an RF-S body, and use RF lenses on RF-S bodies with an adapter. However, I note neroanatomist's comment regarding the 2mm adaptor challenges and realise now that it's not really possible.

It was just a rumination. We'll wait and see what happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Bob Howland

CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
917
588
I think they'd make a big splash with M6II guts in an AE-1 style body. It would generate a lot of publicity and be hipster heaven!
As somebody who owned an AE-1 and A-1 25 years ago, that comment makes no sense at all. The AE-1 used an FD mount, was manual focusing with an optical viewfinder and had no P or S modes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Bob Howland

CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
917
588
50 * 1.5/1.6 =/= 85

There is a reason why most camera manufacturers are producing 85mm lenses and not 70-75mm. Many ppl also complain that the standard 24-70 f2.8 is too short for portraits. So no, the 50mm on APS-C is not a portrait lens.
And a lot of people use 24-70 lenses for portraits. Just step backwards and don't fill the frame with the portrait. Effectively that creates about a 1.2x crop of the FF sensor, resulting in an 84mm lens. Of course you lose pixels in the process, but if your using, for example, a 5Ds, you probably have pixels to spare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Bob Howland

CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
917
588
FWIW, I am NOT suggesting EF-M lenses to be adapted for use on the current RF mount. I realise that's not really possible, and it's pretty fruitless endeavour.

What I WAS suggesting is that RF-S and EF-M mounts could potentially be the same thing. So you could natively use EF-M lenses on an RF-S body, and use RF lenses on RF-S bodies with an adapter. However, I note neroanatomist's comment regarding the 2mm adaptor challenges and realise now that it's not really possible.

It was just a rumination. We'll wait and see what happens.
So you suggest making an M7 and calling it an R7?
 
Upvote 0
Jan 27, 2020
826
1,796
These all have useless viewangles on APS-C, you pay full-frame glass and at least the 24-105 & 70-200 are NOT small. On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens, 35mm = not really a 50mm, 24-105 missing the wide end etc.
I suggest you take up photography. It's a nice hobby. Then you might learn a little bit about lenses.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

mdcmdcmdc

EOS R7, M5, 100 (film), Sony α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
318
442
As somebody who owned an AE-1 and A-1 25 years ago, that comment makes no sense at all. The AE-1 used an FD mount, was manual focusing with an optical viewfinder and had no P or S modes.
It also had a mirror and used film so you’re right. Bad idea.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Bob Howland

CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
917
588
More like an evolution of M blended developments distilled from R. Best of both worlds.
I've often suggested that Canon should make both an M7 and an R7, very similar cameras with different lens mounts. Ideally the M7 would be smaller, perhaps the size of Olympus 4/3 bodies and Canon could introduce a tiny F/4 pro-grade trinity. If Canon actually does that, I'll be absolutely astonished.
 
Upvote 0
I've often suggested that Canon should make both an M7 and an R7, very similar cameras with different lens mounts. Ideally the M7 would be smaller, perhaps the size of Olympus 4/3 bodies and Canon could introduce a tiny F/4 pro-grade trinity. If Canon actually does that, I'll be absolutely astonished.
I'd be astonished too, but interested. I don't care about constant f/4 or not, but a set of higher quality zooms for M that can keep up with that 32.5mp sensor would be excellent.

Say an ultra wide that starts as wide as possible while still taking filters (9mm? Maybe 8mm?). So something like a 9-16mm, 16-60mm, and 60-260mm set. Drop the whole "M lenses must all be the same diameter" thing, and target lenses that are maybe 50-100% larger and more expensive than the current M zoom trinity, with corresponding IQ improvements.

0% chance of it ever happening, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
And a lot of people use 24-70 lenses for portraits. Just step backwards and don't fill the frame with the portrait. Effectively that creates about a 1.2x crop of the FF sensor, resulting in an 84mm lens. Of course you lose pixels in the process, but if your using, for example, a 5Ds, you probably have pixels to spare.
I've found that what many less seasoned portrait photographers don't generally realize (in the age of nobody really printing and instead using images online) is that it's generally a better practice to shoot a little wider than you think you'll need to account for your image being cropped a bunch of different ways depending on where it's being used. Either step back a little further, or use a slightly wider FOV to give the image some breathing room so it can have a lot of crop flexibility for online usage.

If you're shooting for print where it's always the same aspect ratio and approximate print sizes, then by all means, shoot for that and use the lenses that are most appropriate for that, but if you're shooting for online usage, a little wider at the same shooting distance isn't a bad thing. There's nothing worse than seeing a profile photo online somewhere that has a wonky crop because the photographer that took the photo didn't account for the fact that it was potentially going to be cropped a bunch of different ways, and so see face circles where the face isn't centered in the middle of the circle, or the whole head doesn't quite fit in the circle, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Are not the same sensor?
They're both about 24MP, but other than that, no, not really. The 80D sensor is ever so slightly larger at 22.5mm across the long edge vs 22.3 for Canon's other APS-C sensors, and has a different color response (which you can see via the WB multipliers). Canon has more than one 24mp APS-C sensor design. They could really save themselves some money by getting it down to just one or two sensors instead of seeming to have a different sensor for each line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0