svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDEwMjQnIHhtbG5zPSdodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2Zyc+PC9zdmc+ - Here are some rumoured RF-S lenses that may be coming in the near future.

    Here are some rumoured RF-S lenses that may be coming in the near future.

    By Updated:111 Comments1 Min Read Canon Lens Rumors

    With the reality that is RF-S lenses, Photo Rumors has posted a list of rumoured upcoming RF-S lenses. Some of them look like they could be using the optical formulas from a few EF-M lenses.

    Using the optical designs of EF-M lenses will definitely help keep development costs and time required to bring the lenses to market much more managable than all-new designs.

    As the supply chain issues begin to improve, I'd expect to see more RF-S lenses in 2022.

    Rumored RF-S Lenses

    • Canon RF-S 11-55mm f/4-4.5 IS STM (18mm-88mm equivalent)
    • Canon RF-S 16-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (25mm-88mm equivalent)
    • Canon RF-S 22mm f/2 STM (35mm equivalent)
    • Canon RF-S 32mm f/1.4 STM (50mm equivalent)
    • Canon RF-S 55-250mm f/4.5-7.1 IS STM (88mm – 400mm equivalent)

    We have not been able to independtly verify that these lenses are in fact on the horizon. Whenever we do, we'll let you know.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    111 comments

    2. Would absolutely be interested in the 16-55mm f2.8! That’s pretty much the lens I was hoping for to go with the R7. The apertures of the current RF-S offerings are too narrow for me.
    5. Yes, an RF-S 16-55mm f2.8 would be nice (an 15-55mm/2.8 even better).
      Nothing else mentioned are interesting to me.

      An RF-S version of the EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 or eventually a faster 15-70mm range (f2.8-4.0?) is what Canon should do as standard-zooms in my opinion. But what I want the most (I'm sure my current EF-S 15-85mm will continue to work fine on my R7), is somehing wider than the EF-S 10-22mm. I'm thinking that the shorter flange distance of mirrorless should make it possible to go wider without lens gets bigger, heavier or downgrades optically compared to the EF-S 10-22mm. Something like an RF-S 9-20mm maybe? Or even an RF-S 8.5-18mm?
      I have Sigma's old 8-16mm, but besides being a little short in the long end, it is too heavy to be the default wideangle zoom in my bag. But if designed for mirrorless, couldn't it be done better?
    10. Add a 28mm macro and the ef-m line is replaced.
      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
    11. 11-55 is a good one if not too expensive and heavy!
      RF mount also needs an equivalent of 22mm pancake for the full-frame sensors around 30~35 mm, which is not a macro lens!
    14. A 22mm RF-S pancake on the R7 (because IBIS) would be a great small setup ... in general I want more pancakes (love my shorty forty).
      Coupled with RF 16 and 50 that would be a great set of primes for most users.
      Add a 28mm macro and the ef-m line is replaced.
      28mm is too short, bring the EF-S 35mm to RF-S.
    15. As stated elsewhere, I think the 11-55 is a typo - most likely an 11-22 similar to the M lens.
      In fact, I think the 2 primes are going to be very similar, optically, to the M primes, and the 16-55 f/2.8 would be a revision to the decent 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S lens.
    16. As stated elsewhere, I think the 11-55 is a typo - most likely an 11-22 similar to the M lens.
      In fact, I think the 2 primes are going to be very similar, optically, to the M primes, and the 16-55 f/2.8 would be a revision to the decent 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S lens.
      I concur the 11-55 being a typo. Seeing the other possible offerings all being rehoused ef-m it wouldn't make much sense to develop a UWA rather than rehouse the existing one, especially with Canon trying to cut costs.
    18. Great rumor! I'm definitely interested in the 16-55 f/2.8. That's a great focal length range for APS-C. I don't need f/2.8, but I like the size, weight, and handling of a fast normal zoom like that. I love the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4! That's been my "normal" lens on every APS-C DSLR I've had for the past ten years (T2i, 70D, and 7D Mark II), my a6400 (with MC-11 adapter), and soon (hopefully) on my preordered R7 (with the Canon adapter).

      I know a lot of people really like the EF-M 32 mm f/1.4, and the 22mm f/2 will also make a lot of people happy. I like an inexpensive pancake lens too, but 22mm is a bit wider than I normally like.

      If the 55-250 is as good as the EF-S STM version, it will be a great hiking/biking lens. I don't mind f/7.1 because I'm an "f/8 and be there" guy, but it makes me wonder how much they're tinkering with the EF-S optical formula. Hopefully it doesn't lose IQ.
    19. The Canon RF-S 55-250mm f/4.5-7.1 IS STM seems a bit slow compared to the old EF-S equivalent.
      But no doubt smaller. More likely a stretch of the EF-M 55-200 than anything like the EF-s lens.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment