Is Canon actually going to launch RF-S lenses alongside the Canon EOS R7?

[mdcmdcmdc]

Interesting rumor.

I've said many times that "RF-S" could be used as simply a product designation to indicate those RF lenses with a crop image circle. Put it on your FF R camera, it goes into crop mode automatically. There's no need to make the RF-S lenses physically incompatible with FF bodies like the EF-S lenses were. Those had to be, because they had shorter back-focus and wouldn't work with a full-size reflex mirror.

I think of an "R7" as the high-end APS-C birds/sports/action photography camera, which would mostly be coupled with a long telephoto lens. There's no need for RF-S teles because the cost and construction of a long lens doesn't benefit much from the reduced image circle (so I've been told; I'm not an optical engineer). That's why there were never any EF-S lenses longer than 255 mm or EF-M lenses longer than 200 (again, so I've been told).

So if the typical R7 user will mainly be using teles, maybe Canon could do the 18-45 for those times when you want a "normal" lens. But otherwise, there's not a lot of need for an RF-S lens "lineup" in the worldview I just presented

Unless... Canon's RF APS-C plans go beyond an R7. Maybe Canon is still planning for that RF Rebel line we've heard speculation about. Maybe the entry level R body will be APS-C. Maybe the much-prognosticated demise of the M in favor of the R is still in the works. I find it hard to believe there's still that much of an entry level camera market anymore, having been subsumed by cell phones, but Canon's product planners have their vision and view of what the product line should and shouldn't be.

All rumors and speculation for now, of course.

 

[adrian_bacon]

Lets hope RF-S just means smaller image circle and subsequent smaller cost, not an inability to mount an RF-S lens on an RF body like what Canon did with EF-S lenses.

It could also literally be an update to the EF-M mount where it's the EF-M mount, but with the added pins that came with the RF mount, though I'd personally prefer just one mount, RF, and the camera just detects the lens image circle and does the right thing.

 

[Jethro]

Or could the R7 be a sub-$800 FF body that launches with a 24-105 non-L kit, a 24-105 + 100-400 dual lens kit, and the 18-45 as an inexpensive UWA zoom to go with it?

Interesting speculation - there were pretty strong rumours last year that a low-$ FF R series body (maybe even 2) was coming in first-half 2022, which has gone very quiet. Maybe there is a convergence between those rumours. Although the specs included in the R7 thread included a BSI APS-C sensor ...

If it WAS a lower-$ body (maybe a FF sensor optimised for cropped use), then having 1 or 2 presumably smaller profile crop lenses released as kit lenses would make sense. Whereas it would make less sense to release such lenses if the R7 is a semi-pro successor to the 7D II.

 

[flaviojzk]

I think Nikon has a whopping two Z-DX lenses. Having an APS-C body and zero APS-C specific lenses is bad marketing.

In fact they have 3: 16-50, 50-250 and now the 18-140 travel zoom. I think Canon could take a similar path for RF-S and add a consumer wide angle zoom and perhaps a pancake such as the 24mm.

 

[Czardoom]

My guess is that Canon will put out a number of cameras to see what "sticks" so to speak. So the idea that they would try one or more APS-C cameras is not unusual. If rumors regarding the R7 are accurate, there we have the high-end model for birders and wildlife. It's certainly possible that we will see low-end APS-C models, too, (perhaps using the current RP body) and those will need a kit lens. So, no surprise if we have one or two RF-S lenses (RF mount, smaller image circle), although I would also not be surprised if we have have a kit lens with FF image circle that will double as a semi-wide consumer level FF lens. If Canon sees that Rebel equivalent RF crop cameras sell as well as the M cameras, then they may decide to replace M with RF crop. It's all still up in the air, in all likelihood as the market is in such flux. 5 years from now we may know what "Sticks" and what doesn't. Only forum dwellers seem to be in such a hurry to know the future of the camera lineup(s).

 

[David - Sydney]

Obviously a niche application, but I scuba dive with an Olympus u4/3 setup because Canon doesn't have a similar compact setup and diving with a full frame camera is out of my desire-level. So for this application, you'd need a true wide-angle (10 mm maximum) ability (maybe zoom) and something like the 50-60mm macro.

Of course, how compact could such a setup be with the RF mount? That's the beauty of the u4/3 system is the entire system is downsized. But not having to have two incompatible systems for different purposes would be fantastic.

The Canon SL2/200D with EH-s lenses is a compact solution and has housings like https://www.ikelite.com/products/200dlm-c-underwater-ttl-housing-for-canon-eos-200d-rebel-sl2-dslr
I agree that an equivalent to the EFs 10-22mm would be needed.
Your comment about an equivalent for the EFs60mm macro is an interesting one. Most users in my opinion want working macro distance as a positive attribute for APS-c sensors for nervous subjects but a 60mm compact macro for underwater would be a niche use lens.

 

[David - Sydney]

Couldn’t Canon just weld an EF-RF adapter on the back of an EF-S 10-18 or 10-22, jack the price up and call it a day?

Didn't they just do that with the RF800/1200mm primes

 

[David - Sydney]

If they canon wants to eat up Fuji's market, which is admittedly really big, they'll need to come up with a premium L line of crop sensor lenses.

"Really big"?? What % marketshare does Fuji represent (both 4/3 and medium format)?
I am not saying that they don't have an interesting product niche but I can't see Canon wanting to dilute their focus by duplicating the Fuji mature lineup.

 

[David - Sydney]

I would suggest that 7D users primarily used EF lenses for reach ie pixel-density-on-subject (big whites, 70-200mm rather than expensive 300mm lenses etc) and macro working distance with the 100mm/180mm.
To complete the focal range, only wide angle needs to be catered for. This can obviously be done using adapted EFs lenses today but not natively with faster RF protocols/control ring.
A cheap/small RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM (on the roadmap) would meet that general wider angle usage noting that it doesn't need to be labelled RFs as the crop mode is enabled automatically on R bodies giving focal range 29-72mm.
The only other lens I can think of would be an equivalent to the EFs10-22mm which is a good lens and perhaps just welding on the adapter would be sufficient to call it RFs.

@vondo does bring up a niche usage of the compact EFs 60mm macro for underwater use but you can still use that adapted onto the RF mount (or 200D etc).

 

[becceric]

Didn't they just do that with the RF800/1200mm primes

I can’t believe the secret’s out...

 

[Skux]

I'm thinking no. The R7 will likely be a high-end sports/wildlife specialist camera that people will be happy to use with full frame supertelephoto lenses.

If they do, they're going to need something much better than an 18-45mm, which would be a super weak offering even as a kit lens, and doesn't make sense to pair with an R7. Perhaps there is a low-end crop sensor camera in the works too which would finally put EF-M to bed.

 

[David - Sydney]

I'm thinking no. The R7 will likely be a high-end sports/wildlife specialist camera that people will be happy to use with full frame supertelephoto lenses.

If they do, they're going to need something much better than an 18-45mm, which would be a super weak offering even as a kit lens, and doesn't make sense to pair with an R7.

Those users can always use the existing RF15-35mm/2.8 or RF14-35mm/4 or even adapted EF11-24mm/4.
What is missing is a reasonably priced wide RF angle going to 10mm (16mm full frame equivalent).

Perhaps there is a low-end crop sensor camera in the works too which would finally put EF-M to bed.

EF-M is fine as it is. It could be even better with newer bodies/lenses but it is fit-for-purpose in its market niche even if you are not its target audience.
Why would Canon discontinue a profitable and mature market segment?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why would Canon discontinue a profitable and mature market segment?

It really baffles me how people can’t grasp that Canon isn’t stupid. The M line tops the MILC sales charts in Japan and has for years.

Maybe these foolish people should head over to toyotarumors and start claiming the Corolla will soon be ‘put to bed’.

 

[Iain L]

18-45mm is a good length for a crop sensor. The aperture doesn’t suggest amazing quality to me though. It would be a handy backup for a 7 owner’s bag, since people don’t necessarily want to shoot birds all day long without a single one of the landscape they’re in, but surely the main target would be as a kit lens for a hypothetical cheaper crop body.

Canon has sold loads and loads of EF-S bodies to people who want something a bit better than a phone, but aren’t prepared to either throw thousands at a new hobby, or in the other direction tie themselves to EF-M with no upgrade path to full frame. Surely that’s part of where you go with this?

 

[davidespinosa]

Predictions, based on pure speculation:

(1) No one who reads canonrumors will buy RF-S anything.

(2) RF-S will outsell full-frame RF by a wide margin.

 

[lote82]

It really baffles me how people can’t grasp that Canon isn’t stupid. The M line tops the MILC sales charts in Japan and has for years.

Maybe these foolish people should head over to toyotarumors and start claiming the Corolla will soon be ‘put to bed’.

Talking over and over about M line in inappropriate threads doesn't make it look alive.
If it makes you feel more comfort ... it's not dead, it's just sleeping for a very long time!

 

[entoman]

Some of their articles praising Nikon over other systems had a buried footnote, “This is sponsored content, created with the support of Nikon.”

I don't think the "sponsored content" issues exist any longer - due to criticisms, dpr now make it very obvious when an article is sponsored. But yes, it has been an issue in the past, and with many sites, not just dpr.

DPR spent years bashing Canon’s low ISO DR (including in their action-oriented bodies that had better high ISO performance than competitors) and praising Sony and Nikon (often with Sony sensors) for low ISO DR. Then, when the Nikon D5 came out with substantially less low ISO DR than other current Canon and Sony bodies, they praised the D5’s high ISO performance and said its low ISO DR was fine unless perhaps you were a hardcore landscape shooter.

That’s part of the bias, albeit less overt. Canon gear is reviewed by people who are not actual users of Canon gear. On one occasion, automatic AF point selection was deemed poor because it didn’t match the behavior of his chosen system, despite the fact that the Canon AF system was performing as intended; the reviewer was unaware of how the Canon AF system was designed to behave. Simply RTFM would have helped there, and also in the case where AF tracking was denigrated even though the reviewer was using settings that the manual recommended against.

Ideally all gear should be reviewed by users AND non-users of any particular brand. Non-users will have the advantage of being able to compare various brands, which is valuable to anyone who may themselves be considering switching. And yes, it's also important to have the perspective of an existing user, as per your example above.

Above all, IMO, it's vital that the reviewer should be a photographer experienced in the field (e.g. portraiture, sports, wildlife, landscape) that the camera is targeting, and fully understands the requirements and preferences of that sector.

I think dpr covers all these bases as well as any other site, and better than most. I'd never base a purchasing decision on the reviews from just one site or one reviewer, I read as many as are available, and try to find reviews from other wildlife/nature photographers who will understand what *I* need, far better than someone who doesn't specialise in that field.

 

[tron]

Didn't they just do that with the RF800/1200mm primes

They did that with RF400 2.8L IS and RF600mm 4L IS. In 800 and 1200 lenses they also inserted improved 2X converters.

 

[gregedwards69]

It really baffles me how people can’t grasp that Canon isn’t stupid. The M line tops the MILC sales charts in Japan and has for years.

Maybe these foolish people should head over to toyotarumors and start claiming the Corolla will soon be ‘put to bed’.

The trouble is, whilst I realise a lot of camera manufacturers are based in Japan, it is not representative of global sales or success. Nikon and Panasonic don't even feature in the top 10 selling cameras in Japan. Should they just call it quits because they're not big in japan? And FWIW, The Sony A6400 now tops the charts in Japan.

As I have already stated. I am a fan of the M series. But IF (and that's a big IF) an RF-S system was developed along similar lines to EF-S, I can see EF-M being slowly phased out. I highly doubt it will be dropped like a stone as yes, it's a popular system in some territories. But it's an oddball in Canon's line up, an awkward second cousin. Like Sony's A-mount. There will be no announcement, no tribute, no sunsetting event, Development will just slow down as they concentrate on RF-S and eventually stop.

Yes, there's the question of where does it leave users? Potentially, the value of M bodies and lenses will drop and I could afford to complete my system. On the other hand, a lot of people will simply jump ship for the latest and greatest adding to its demise.

We say a similar thing when Apple stopped developing Aperture. It had a lot of fans, me included. People were angry that they had invested so much time and money into it over the years. But we adapted. The software didn't just stop working. No-one died over it. And many users simply migrated to another solution.

 

[yeahright]

I bet telephoto focal lengths with a smaller image circle could be sold much cheaper, so that would definitely make sense.