Two more Canon EF-M lenses have been discontinued

[entoman]

I really don't see much benefit for the consumer to having the same mount for full-frame and APS-C

The benefit is primarily for Canon, not the consumer. They are a business. It's better business sense to consolidate, with all cameras using the same mount, than to have entirely different production lines for M cameras/lenses and RF cameras/lenses. That's exactly why Sony, Nikon and Pentax also use the same mounts for their APS and FF cameras. It's also one of the reasons why the M43 alliance and the L mount alliances exist. It brings manufacturing costs down and hence enables manufacturers to put more money into developing new products, paying staff and putting money in the pockets of shareholders. It's how the world works.

 

[entoman]

Darker isn't such an issue with modern sensors though, so if the design principal is small and light then there will be a trade-off. This is especially true for video where we almost always put ND filters on anyway.

Darker apertures *are* still a big issue, if you want to isolate your subject from it's environment by minimising depth of field...

F1.2 lenses exist for a reason.

 

[lustyd]

Darker apertures *are* still a big issue, if you want to isolate your subject from it's environment by minimising depth of field...

F1.2 lenses exist for a reason.

But then, there are plenty of lenses on the market for that purpose, some of which are compact. As I said it's a trade off, and sometimes small and light are worth more than depth of field.

 

[entoman]

But then, there are plenty of lenses on the market for that purpose, some of which are compact. As I said it's a trade off, and sometimes small and light are worth more than depth of field.

Yes, I agree. Canon e.g. produce some really excellent "dark aperture" lenses in RF mount e.g. RF100-400mm F5.6-8, and the "trinity" lenses are available as either F2.8 or F4 options. Fortunately, Canon gives us huge choice, from tiny budget lenses like the RF 16mm to mammoth exotica like the RF1200mm, and a whole lot of very desirable glass in-between. Of course, it would always be nice to have even *more* choice, both in terms of focal length and price. All of us have "dream lenses" and all of us see "gaps" or niches that we feel need to be filled. IMO, Canon is doing a pretty damned good job of pumping out new lenses, and we're pretty lucky.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Starting at twice the price of equivalent Canon models…

Not really. The X-E4 is cheaper than the M6 II while the Fuji 16-80 F4 is only 20% more expensive than Canon's new 18-150, while it's a much better lens.

 

[koenkooi]

Not really. The X-E4 is cheaper than the M6 II while the Fuji 16-80 F4 is only 20% more expensive than Canon's new 18-150, while it's a much better lens.

But a lot less megapixels and if you want parity and an 11-22 equivalent, prepare to sell 3 kidneys!

 

[Czardoom]

I do realise Sony isn't the only other option, the point was just that Canon no longer have a complete compact system available to buy, which is an odd decision. Personally I'll be keeping my M6ii for a while. I tried a Sony and hated the interface so came back to Canon.

There's nothing wrong with complaining - if Canon are smart they'll read forums to find out what people are thinking.

I think the reality is that virtually no one cares if there is a COMPLETE compact system to buy into. The M system was not complete when it started. No system is. If you already have an M camera and lenses, then you have no reason to buy into another system now or even in the near future. If you are a brand new camera buyer looking for a compact ILC system, you won't buy a complete system, but you can buy the R10 and one or two lenses right now. So your point that you keep repeating over and over again is a meaningless point.

 

[Czardoom]

I really don't see much benefit for the consumer to having the same mount for full-frame and APS-C, except for the small number who know when they buy their first APS-C camera (because that's all they can afford) that they will be upgrading to a full-frame eventually, and don't care about having compact equipment, so they buy only lenses that will be suitable for use on a full-frame.

The benefit is that you can buy and use "FF" lenses on your APS-C body.

 

[lustyd]

The benefit is that you can buy and use "FF" lenses on your APS-C body.

That was true on the EF-S system too. The M wasn't just APS-C it was a compact camera system, and could also use FF lenses from EF with a small adapter.

 

[lustyd]

I think the reality is that virtually no one cares if there is a COMPLETE compact system to buy into. The M system was not complete when it started. No system is. If you already have an M camera and lenses, then you have no reason to buy into another system now or even in the near future. If you are a brand new camera buyer looking for a compact ILC system, you won't buy a complete system, but you can buy the R10 and one or two lenses right now. So your point that you keep repeating over and over again is a meaningless point.

The M was complete enough. All the normal prime equivalents, macro lens, wide zoom, medium zoom, long zoom and a superzoom. RF-S doesn't have close to that, and neither does it have proper compact bodies yet. If you're a brand new buyer looking for a compact ILC system then you'd have to fit into a really small niche to find R attractive right now since there are only three compact system lenses with nothing wider than 27mm equivalent which isn't really very wide at all.
And no, you're wrong. If you already have an M you can no longer buy certain lenses. If you're a new buyer and get an R you cannot yet buy certain lenses because they aren't available. Which means that if you want a wide and a tele you need two bodies, which defeats the entire purpose of compact.

 

[kmrahe]

Canon sees, Nikon sees, Sony sees ... that's a fact and all that matters!

They see benefits for Canon, Nikon and Sony. Not for the consumer.

 

[davidespinosa]

@lustyd made a good point.
If you want (the equivalent of) an M6II with an EF-M 11-22, right now, Canon has nothing to sell you.

The EF to RF transition is relatively smooth, because there's an adapter.
The M to RF-S transition is less smooth.

It's always good to have overlap during a transition.
That's a very general principle, applicable to many areas of life.

In software, there's a saying:
"There are two ways to do anything.
The old way, which no longer works,
and the new way, which doesn't work yet."

@lustyd says that Canon should have ported the EF-M lenses to RF-S more quickly, to ease the transition.
That's probably true.

I think Canon will release an R100 and RF-S 11-22 very soon.

But now I'm less sure about the RF-S 22.
Since we already have the RF 16, they may skip the RF-S 22.
Or they may release an RF 24 in the same form factor as the RF 16.
I'd buy that.

 

[kmrahe]

It brings manufacturing costs down and hence enables manufacturers to put more money into developing new products, paying staff and putting money in the pockets of shareholders. It's how the world works.

Is developing an RF-S 22mm lens and an RF 35mm lens really cheaper than developing an EF-M 22mm and an RF 35mm?

 

[kmrahe]

The benefit is that you can buy and use "FF" lenses on your APS-C body.

But that's a pretty small segment of the market. Probably smaller than the segment that appreciates/needs compact gear.

 

[kmrahe]

But now I'm less sure about the RF-S 22.
Since we already have the RF 16, they may skip the RF-S 22.
Or they may release an RF 24 in the same form factor as the RF 16.
I'd buy that.

That would be my concern if I had an R50/R10/R7 right now. There is a huge incentive for Canon to encourage you to buy RF glass rather than RF-S.

 

[davidespinosa]

That would be my concern if I had an R50/R10/R7 right now. There is a huge incentive for Canon to encourage you to buy RF glass rather than RF-S.

I would prefer an RF 24 (with RF 16 form factor) over an RF-S 22, since it works on FF.
And it's almost the same size as the RF-S 22 -- extension matters more than diameter.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Maybe but the RF-S is the only system on the market where you cannot get a zoom lens starting at 24mm equivalent.

There is a benefit. It's nice to be able to attach a 100-500 lens to an R7 for example. Or a 800 F11 to an R10 for some wildlife photography.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Yes, I agree. Canon e.g. produce some really excellent "dark aperture" lenses in RF mount e.g. RF100-400mm F5.6-8, and the "trinity" lenses are available as either F2.8 or F4 options. Fortunately, Canon gives us huge choice, from tiny budget lenses like the RF 16mm to mammoth exotica like the RF1200mm, and a whole lot of very desirable glass in-between. Of course, it would always be nice to have even *more* choice, both in terms of focal length and price. All of us have "dream lenses" and all of us see "gaps" or niches that we feel need to be filled. IMO, Canon is doing a pretty damned good job of pumping out new lenses, and we're pretty lucky.

Unfortunately, they don't give us a choice of a decent APS-C standard zoom not starting at almost telephoto range at the widest setting...

 

[kmrahe]

I would prefer an RF 24 (with RF 16 form factor) over an RF-S 22, since it works on FF.
And it's almost the same size as the RF-S 22 -- extension matters more than diameter.

For short lenses of moderate brightness, substituting a FF (RF) lens for an equivalent RF-S is more feasible than doing the same on EF-M, as the former doesn't need the additional space of an adapter. But when you start getting into longer and brighter primes like a 32mm f/1.4, I don't think that idea is going to work as well.

 

[lote82]

They see benefits for Canon, Nikon and Sony. Not for the consumer.

Are your really blaming companies for doing business and not being altruistic?!
Welcome to reality!