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



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 25, 2022)

> 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
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Groundhog (May 25, 2022)

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).


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 25, 2022)

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.


----------



## LensFungus (May 25, 2022)

I would fight a tiger with my bare hands for something like a RF 22mm pancake lens. The EF-M version is a gem.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 25, 2022)

Add a 28mm macro and the ef-m line is replaced.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (May 25, 2022)

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?


----------



## unfocused (May 25, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> Add a 28mm macro and the ef-m line is replaced.


Well, they might need some cameras to put them on.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 25, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Well, they might need some cameras to put them on.



They just released 2 cameras...


----------



## sanj (May 25, 2022)

Wonderful


----------



## Bob Howland (May 25, 2022)

I'm a little skeptical about the 11-55. 11-25 or even 11-35 would be a lot more believable


----------



## David - Sydney (May 26, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> 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


----------



## bf (May 26, 2022)

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!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 26, 2022)

Hope some of these lenses are coming soon and not like 1 new lens a year.


----------



## takesome1 (May 26, 2022)

Reading the last two threads it doesn't look like there will even be rumors for a while.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 26, 2022)

Groundhog said:


> 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. 


gregedwards69 said:


> Add a 28mm macro and the ef-m line is replaced.


28mm is too short, bring the EF-S 35mm to RF-S.


----------



## Tom W (May 26, 2022)

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.


----------



## mxwphoto (May 26, 2022)

Tom W said:


> 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.


----------



## SnowMiku (May 26, 2022)

The Canon RF-S 55-250mm f/4.5-7.1 IS STM seems a bit slow compared to the old EF-S equivalent.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 26, 2022)

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.


----------



## Dragon (May 26, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> 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.


----------



## Dragon (May 26, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Coupled with RF 16 and 50 that would be a great set of primes for most users.
> 
> 28mm is too short, bring the EF-S 35mm to RF-S.


There already is a small inexpensive RF 35mm f/1.8 that has .5x macro capability. Unlikely you will see a different RF-s lens at that focal length.


----------



## Swerky (May 26, 2022)

Tom W said:


> 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've seen the same rumoured lenses on another site mentioned in this article the day the R7 and R10 were announced. Could be a typo in both cases, could be a rumour thrown into the wind, could be real. Although an 11-55 would need to rely heavily on digital correction, specially at the wide end. At 17.6-88 equivalent, it would surely make a great walk around lens. I'd like to see it happen. I'd also like a good 10mm f2.8.


----------



## Dragon (May 26, 2022)

Swerky said:


> I've seen the same rumoured lenses on another site the day the R7 and R10 were announced. Could be a typo in both cases, could be a rumour thrown into the wind, could be real. Although an 11-55 would need to rely heavily on digital correction, specially at the wide end. At 17.6-88 equivalent, it would surely make a great walk around lens. I'd like to see it happen. I'd also like a good 10mm f2.8.


That should be easy. Just scale the 16mm FF, but then BF distance might be a bit on the short side.


----------



## Flamingtree (May 26, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> The Canon RF-S 55-250mm f/4.5-7.1 IS STM seems a bit slow compared to the old EF-S equivalent.


Similar to the rf 100-500 though. Maybe they think modern cameras can handle higher ISOs?


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 26, 2022)

Dragon said:


> There already is a small inexpensive RF 35mm f/1.8 that has .5x macro capability. Unlikely you will see a different RF-s lens at that focal length.


Personally I don't consider a $500 lens "inexpensive". Maybe compared to other RF lenses, but my reference is the $125 EF-S 24mm f/2.8.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (May 26, 2022)

Photorumors now have a image of the 22mm (if not fake of course?):









Is that the Canon RF-S 22mm f/2 STM APS-C lens from the leaked roadmap I posted yesterday? - Photo Rumors


Yesterday I posted the leaked/rumored Canon EOS RF-S mirrorless APS-C lens roadmap and today we already have the first leaked picture of the Canon RF-S 22mm f/2 STM APS-C lens: Here again, is the leaked/rumored Canon EOS RF-S mirrorless APS-C lens roadmap in case you have missed it: Canon RF-S...




photorumors.com





Though I'm not personally interested, I see why a lot of people could be interested in this...


----------



## pzyber (May 26, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> View attachment 203897
> 
> 
> Photorumors now have a image of the 22mm (if not fake of course?):
> ...


Looks exactly like the ef-m 22/2 but with RF mount.

Same as the released 18-150 seems to be exactly the same as the ef-m lens. Just another mount and some minor changes to the exterior. 18-45 seems to be a bit different though. 15-45 would have the lens stick a bit out from the mount if they just adapted it. I guess that's why it's 18 and not 15 at the wide end like the ef-m lens.

If they release the 22 and a small m-sized body without evf I will get one immedietly. My favorite light travel and long hike combo. The 32/1.4 I would get as well, another amazing m lens.


----------



## mustafa (May 26, 2022)

I would like to mount my (several) M lenses to a small RF body. Viltrox?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 26, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> The Canon RF-S 55-250mm f/4.5-7.1 IS STM seems a bit slow compared to the old EF-S equivalent.



Canon seems to be happy to cancel high ISO improvements of new cameras with slower and slower lenses. The EF-S 55-250 5.6 is already very light and compact, what's the point of 7.1? To save extra 10 grams?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 26, 2022)

pzyber said:


> Looks exactly like the ef-m 22/2 but with RF mount.
> 
> Same as the released 18-150 seems to be exactly the same as the ef-m lens. Just another mount and some minor changes to the exterior. 18-45 seems to be a bit different though. 15-45 would have the lens stick a bit out from the mount if they just adapted it. I guess that's why it's 18 and not 15 at the wide end like the ef-m lens.
> 
> If they release the 22 and a small m-sized body without evf I will get one immedietly. My favorite light travel and long hike combo. The 32/1.4 I would get as well, another amazing m lens.



But the RF mount flange distance is 2mm bigger, so all the EF-M lenses would need some optical adjustments / changes. Not enough to just change the mount.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (May 26, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The only real data that we have seen from Canon about the M system is the discontinuation of the M6ii in Australia


I'm afraid there is more than Australia. M6 Mark II was already stopped in Honk-Kong and Philippines nearly three weeks ago. Now in France, one of our main web retailer (Digixo) has simply stopped any Canon M product, and I guess Canon is just selling their stocks in France by now. Signs may be here I think.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 26, 2022)

Considering the R10, I'm a little surprised the wider zoom starts at 18mm. Wouldn't the target audience want something starting at 10mm (equivalent to 16mm on FF)?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 26, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> Considering the R10, I'm a little surprised the wider zoom starts at 18mm. Wouldn't the target audience want something starting at 10mm (equivalent to 16mm on FF)?



Very strange design choice from Canon, especially because they already had the very tiny/cheap/small 15-45 in EF-M.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 26, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Very strange design choice from Canon, especially because they already had the very tiny/cheap/small 15-45 in EF-M.


Yes. The ultra wide FF zooms start at 14mm & 15mm, EF-S has 10-18mm/22mm for years. IIRC, there were no rumors of RF lenses that might be wider crop ultra wide zoom.

I'm wondering whether sales of ultra wide zooms for crop sensors are so low Canon doesn't see any profit in making a new one / repackaging the 10-18/22mm, or is it an intentional move to encourage landscape photographers to buy a FF camera.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 26, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> Yes. The ultra wide FF zooms start at 14mm & 15mm, EF-S has 10-18mm/22mm for years. IIRC, there were no rumors of RF lenses that might be wider crop ultra wide zoom.
> 
> I'm wondering whether sales of ultra wide zooms for crop sensors are so low Canon doesn't see any profit in making a new one / repackaging the 10-18/22mm, or is it an intentional move to encourage landscape photographers to buy a FF camera.


As I see it, wide APS-C lenses are conveniences for occasional use.

If you regularly need ultrawide FOVs, or very shallow DOF, FF is a better choice for you.


----------



## HMC11 (May 26, 2022)

Tom W said:


> 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.


Assuming my interpretation of what the Canon US rep in the Adorama video said is correct, it sounded like the current and next few RF-S lenses would be based on the optics of the M lenses. I also assume that these lenses are good enough for a 32.5mp APSC sensor.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 26, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> View attachment 203897
> 
> 
> Photorumors now have a image of the 22mm (if not fake of course?):
> ...



Plastic mount.... because it costs extra 10 cents to make metal mount like the EF-M


----------



## Quackator (May 26, 2022)

Dragon said:


> But no doubt smaller. More likely a stretch of the EF-M 55-200 than anything like the EF-s lens.


But still, adapting the old EF-S looks like the far better option, capability and image quality wise.


----------



## BBarn (May 26, 2022)

The R7 made sense. But the rest of this APS-C stuff looks like M series in a bigger and more expensive package. If consolidating to a single mount is saving money for Canon, they don't appear to be passing the savings on. At least when it comes to camera bodies.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 26, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> As I see it, wide APS-C lenses are conveniences for occasional use.
> 
> If you regularly need ultrawide FOVs, or very shallow DOF, FF is a better choice for you.


I can see how the target audience for the 7D would consider an ultra wide lens as a convenience for occasional use.

I don't see any reason why an owner of an 850D / 90D / R10 would see an ultra wide less any less useful than an 5D / R5 owner.


----------



## koenkooi (May 26, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Plastic mount.... because it costs extra 10 cents to make metal mount like the EF-M


Avid readers of the lensrentals.com teardowns know that metal mounts are usually screwed into plastic inside the lens, so on relatively light lenses it's window dressing to make it look more expensive and sturdy.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 26, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Avid readers of the lensrentals.com teardowns know that metal mounts are usually screwed into plastic inside the lens, so on relatively light lenses it's window dressing to make it look more expensive and sturdy.



Metal mount just has a more quality feel and those thin plastic threads can break off. Ive seen few lenses with broken plastic mount


----------



## Bob Howland (May 26, 2022)

I just wish that Sigma would figure out the R-mount protocols. I have 16mm and 30mm M-mount lenses that I'd like for Sigma to change the mounts. It may be too expensive though.


----------



## Daner (May 26, 2022)

I enjoyed the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 on my 1000D, 70D, and 7D2, but I hope that Canon updates the IQ for the RF-S 16-55 f/2.8 as I don't think that it will be sharp enough across the whole frame to support the resolution of the R7.
Of course, I would love it if Canon would also offer an RF-S 50-100 at f/2.8 (or larger if possible) but to be honest I'll probably just slap my RF 70-200 f/2.8 on the R7 and put my RF 24-105 f/4 on my R6 for an f/4 equivalent dual-body setup that covers my needs from 24-320mm


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 26, 2022)

Daner said:


> I enjoyed the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 on my 1000D, 70D, and 7D2, but I hope that Canon updates the IQ for the RF-S 16-55 f/2.8 as I don't think that it will be sharp enough across the whole frame to support the resolution of the R7.
> Of course, I would love it if Canon would also offer an RF-S 50-100 in a wide-aperture, as Sigma does for EF-S, but to be honest I'll probably just slap my RF 70-200 f/2.8 on the R7 and put my RF 24-105 f/4 on my R6 for an f/4 equivalent dual-body setup that covers my needs from 24-320mm



DPReview already tested the 17-55 and was not sharp enough for the M6 II. None of the EF-M lenses were, except the 32mm.


----------



## bseitz234 (May 26, 2022)

RF-S 16-55 f/2.8
RF-S 22 f/2
RF-S 32mm f/1.4

If they had announced those at the same time as the R7 I would’ve preordered everything on day 1… as it is, I just haven’t felt that compelled by anything. *shrug*


----------



## vangelismm (May 26, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> DPReview already tested the 17-55 and was not sharp enough for the M6 II. None of the EF-M lenses were, except the 32mm.


There is an article with this content there?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 26, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> There is an article with this content there?



Check the M6 Mark II review.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 26, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Check the M6 Mark II review.


Whose review? I looked a the DPReview review and didn't see it. Also, I have the Sigma 16mm and 30mm primes and they seem pretty good. (However, using them reminded me why I like zooms.)


----------



## josephandrews222 (May 26, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> DPReview already tested the 17-55 and was not sharp enough for the M6 II. None of the EF-M lenses were, except the 32mm.


I very much enjoy reading DPReview.

I very much enjoy perusing all (most?) of the camera-and-lens oriented websites that enable pixel-peeping.

In addition to looking all over the web for examples, I also enjoy viewing images acquired by yours truly and family members using EF-M devices...literally thousands of images.

The EF-M 22mm pancake can deliver superb images.

The EF-M 11-22mm wide-angle can also deliver superb images.

In a pinch, the EF-M 18-150mm zoom also works well (not as well as the two mentioned previously) but the maxim 'the best camera-and-lens rig is the one in your hands' takes on new meaning when considering the mass-and-volume characteristics of any of the Ms, when mated to the 18-150.

So your quote of DPReview regarding the performance of the EF-M lens/M6 Mk II combo...is...(insert bad word here).

I could go on-and-on...I own the 17-55 2.8, too! My copy also delivers decent images until you get to the 50-55 range...when connected to a Rebel XT, a 40D as well as three different EF-M bodies.

I very much look forward to seeing images from the 18-150 RF-S lens and comparing them those obtained using the 18-150 EF-M lens...presumably Canon will 'up their game' since the sensor in the R7 sure as hell looks to be a close analogue to the sensor found in both the 90D and the M6 Mk II!

My two cents.


----------



## josephandrews222 (May 26, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Whose review? I looked a the DPReview review and didn't see it. Also, I have the Sigma 16mm and 30mm primes and they seem pretty good. (However, using them reminded me why I like zooms.)


The poster here is correct, Bob. I saw the review mentioning that. To be honest, it may not have been DPReview but the poster is correct--somebody somewhere with some credibility has made that claim.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 26, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> I don't see any reason why an owner of an 850D / 90D / R10 would see an ultra wide less any less useful than an 5D / R5 owner.


Absolutely! I couldn’t agree more.

I was trying to be brief in my original posting, so perhaps my intent was unclear. I wasn’t trying to throw shade on anybody’s needs or uses.

Choosing a camera is an optimization process, a compromise, if you will. You try to find the one that best satisfies your needs and constraints. Usually there’s no one camera that’s perfect for every consideration, so you have to prioritize and make tradeoffs.

If you’re looking for a jack-of-all-trades camera, any modern camera, FF or crop, can do it. I’m sure Canon will migrate the EF-M 11-22 to RF-S before too long (not sure about 11-55).

But my point was that if you are primarily interested in ultrawide fields, FF might be a better choice. A 10 or 11 mm lens on crop is like a 16-18mm lens on FF. Very wide, for sure, but not like a 12, 10, or even 8 mm on a FF. If you’re happy with 10-11 mm on crop, that’s all that matters.

Of course there are always other considerations, size, budget, other features... It’s not a simple formula, and everybody’s priorities are different.


----------



## jordanisaak (May 26, 2022)

pzyber said:


> Looks exactly like the ef-m 22/2 but with RF mount.
> 
> Same as the released 18-150 seems to be exactly the same as the ef-m lens. Just another mount and some minor changes to the exterior. 18-45 seems to be a bit different though. 15-45 would have the lens stick a bit out from the mount if they just adapted it. I guess that's why it's 18 and not 15 at the wide end like the ef-m lens.
> 
> If they release the 22 and a small m-sized body without evf I will get one immedietly. My favorite light travel and long hike combo. The 32/1.4 I would get as well, another amazing m lens.


Bryan from the-digital-picture mentioned that the 18-150 was indeed the same optical formula as the EF-M lens. Between that and the specifications being almost identical (RF-S version lists a slightly shorter MFD?), I'm convinced it is the same lens in a different housing.

Before this launch I had said several times that I didn't think Canon would just rebody EF-M lenses and call it a day, but the past few days have proven me completely wrong on that front. Now I would not be surprised if they used that strategy to quickly fill in their APS-C lineup. Good news for RF-S adopters, I suppose, but for current EF-M users it's not that attractive a sales pitch. I'm not going tto switch to RF-S just to rebuy all the lenses I already have. Maybe if I shot wildlife, action, or sports I would find the RF7 or RF10 attractive enough to jump over, but I don't (or else I wouldn't have chosen M in the first place).

For EF-M users I think the best possibility going forward is that Canon chooses to make future APS-C lenses available for both of their mirrorless mounts. Unfortunately, I think Canon's desire to push consumers into RF will mean that doesn't happen.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (May 26, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Whose review? I looked a the DPReview review and didn't see it. Also, I have the Sigma 16mm and 30mm primes and they seem pretty good. (However, using them reminded me why I like zooms.)


I remember the comment too, but it must have been in the 90D preview/review video (or maybe a combined preview of 90D and M6 II ?)


----------



## vangelismm (May 26, 2022)

> Some people seem to think a lens should be ‘certified’ for a certain number of pixels or something. That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of it works.











More Ultra High-Resolution MTF Experiments


GEEK ALERT!! Let’s be absolutely clear; this is not a practical or useful article. It won’t help your photography or cinematography become better. It won’t help you choose equipment any time in the next couple of years. It won’t provide any fodder for your next Forum War. It’s just a geek...



www.lensrentals.com





Resolution = lens resolution x sensor resolution.

Increase sensor MP will always increase the overall resolution does not matter the lens used, and vice versa.
Maybe the increase will be barely noticeable but will.


----------



## Skux (May 26, 2022)

Finally it looks like they're putting some effort in. A 16-55mm f/2.8 is the fast standard zoom the RF-S system deserves.


----------



## Sharlin (May 26, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> As I see it, wide APS-C lenses are conveniences for occasional use.
> 
> If you regularly need ultrawide FOVs, or very shallow DOF, FF is a better choice for you.



On the contrary! Unlike with long telephoto lenses where you get diminishing returns from a smaller image circle, ultrawides are where a smaller sensor actually shines when it comes to affordability. For a long time, APS-C was the _only_ way for a Canon user to shoot ultrawide at any reasonable price; Canon doesn't even have any non-L EF ultrawides! To most people it makes zero sense to spend 3x to 5x the money just to be able to shoot at <16mm equivalent focal lengths. Now, in the DSLR world ultrawides were always a bit tricky, optically, due to the long flange distance, and mirrorless does change that equation somewhat. Specifically, it's now possible to design a non-retrofocal FF ~16mm lens, and that's a fact that the RF 16mm _f_/2.8 exploits. But we'll have to see whether there will be an affordable FF ultrawide _zoom_ at some point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Avid readers of the lensrentals.com teardowns know that metal mounts are usually screwed into plastic inside the lens, so on relatively light lenses it's window dressing to make it look more expensive and sturdy.


While I agree that the metal mount being screwed into a plastic lens frame doesn't make the lens more sturdy overall, I think it's more than just window dressing. Lens mount tolerances are tight for a reason – a change in orientation (except for rotation) will tilt the image circle projected onto the sensor. Camera mounts are metal, and metal-plastic contacts wear faster than metal-metal contacts. 

What the metal mount means is more durability in terms of number of mount/unmount cycles than a plastic mount. Now, many users of entry-level cameras have just the one kit lens, meaning it is probably never unmounted so wear will never be an issue. Even with two-lens kits, changes won't be that frequent. But for avid enthusiasts with a collection of lenses, changes will be more frequent and that means plastic mounts won't be as durable.

Avid readers of lensrentals.com teardowns are probably also members of that minority of Canon users having a collection of lenses and changing them frequently.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 26, 2022)

Sharlin said:


> On the contrary! Unlike with long telephoto lenses where you get diminishing returns from a smaller image circle, ultrawides are where a smaller sensor actually shines when it comes to affordability. For a long time, APS-C was the _only_ way for a Canon user to shoot ultrawide at any reasonable price; Canon doesn't even have any non-L EF ultrawides! To most people it makes zero sense to spend 3x to 5x the money just to be able to shoot at <16mm equivalent focal lengths. Now, in the DSLR world ultrawides were always a bit tricky, optically, due to the long flange distance, and mirrorless does change that equation somewhat. Specifically, it's now possible to design a non-retrofocal FF ~16mm lens, and that's a fact that the RF 16mm _f_/2.8 exploits. But we'll have to see whether there will be an affordable FF ultrawide _zoom_ at some point.


Agree. But per my follow-up post, it’s a compromise. We optimize our choices for the parameters that are important to us, and budget is generally one of those parameters for most of us.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 26, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> More Ultra High-Resolution MTF Experiments
> 
> 
> GEEK ALERT!! Let’s be absolutely clear; this is not a practical or useful article. It won’t help your photography or cinematography become better. It won’t help you choose equipment any time in the next couple of years. It won’t provide any fodder for your next Forum War. It’s just a geek...
> ...


Thanks. That's what I remember. It's really a matter of "system balance". About a decade ago, I bought an EF 300 f/2.8 L IS to use with a 10MP 40D. I had been using an EF 100-400 L IS which gave (and still gives) pretty good images. The difference was spectacular, even with 1.4X and 2X converters. But at dusty racetracks, the lens was a pain to use. I'm waiting to see how both lenses work with an R7.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (May 26, 2022)

I’d love canon to bring the EFs 10-18mm to a new RF version. A fast wide angle prime would nice, too.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 26, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> 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


I stand corrected. Replicated or duplicated are far better terms.


----------



## pzyber (May 26, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> But the RF mount flange distance is 2mm bigger, so all the EF-M lenses would need some optical adjustments / changes. Not enough to just change the mount.


Nah only needs a change if the rear lens is far back and within those two mm. Hence why they probably changed the 15-45 to 18-45 since the rear element on the 15-45 is far in the rear of the lens while the 18-150 don't have that problem. To make an 15-45 with 20mm flange distance would most likely result in a bigger lens.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 26, 2022)

One thing I would love to see is weather sealing on the RF-S 16-55mm f/2.8 IS USM! 

I know it’s unlikely being a crop lens, but if it’s canons “premium” rf-s standard lens then a bit of sealing would be reaaaallly appreciated, Canon!!


----------



## Dragon (May 26, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Personally I don't consider a $500 lens "inexpensive". Maybe compared to other RF lenses, but my reference is the $125 EF-S 24mm f/2.8.


The ef-s 35mm macro that was referred to wasn't that much cheaper.


----------



## jordanisaak (May 26, 2022)

pzyber said:


> Nah only needs a change if the rear lens is far back and within those two mm. Hence why they probably changed the 15-45 to 18-45 since the rear element on the 15-45 is far in the rear of the lens while the 18-150 don't have that problem. To make an 15-45 with 20mm flange distance would most likely result in a bigger lens.


The RF-S 18-45mm is a completely different optical design from the EF-M 15-45mm. 7 lenses in 7 groups for the RF-S 18-45mm, 10 lenses in 9 groups for the EF-M 15-45mm.


----------



## davidcl0nel (May 26, 2022)

You can't adapt directly a EFM-lens to RF, but how much you have to change in development to rearrange it to the "new" specification? The backlens(es) only a bit? I have no idea.

The EFM 22mm is a nice pancake, this on RFS would be nice with an R10 - or even smaller camera.
I think there will be a R100 or even a R1000 "soon", which maybe a lot smaller and more cubish like the old M1-camera (or the post versions) some without grip"bulge". This would be a nice backup camera with 350gr or so.


----------



## pzyber (May 26, 2022)

jordanisaak said:


> The RF-S 18-45mm is a completely different optical design from the EF-M 15-45mm. 7 lenses in 7 groups for the RF-S 18-45mm, 10 lenses in 9 groups for the EF-M 15-45mm.


I never said the 18-45 had the same lens design.


----------



## Dragon (May 26, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Canon seems to be happy to cancel high ISO improvements of new cameras with slower and slower lenses. The EF-S 55-250 5.6 is already very light and compact, what's the point of 7.1? To save extra 10 grams?


you can carry an entire EF-M kit with all the lenses in one small bag. For some situations, size matters.


----------



## Dragon (May 26, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> I stand corrected. Replicated or duplicated are far better terms.


Good to also remember that replicating the same optical formula doesn't necessarily mean replicating all the mechanics of the lens. For example, the IS units in the M zooms have been determined to be quite sensitive to shutter shock, so it is possible that these new lenses will see a different IS mechanism given that the high-speed shutters in both the R7 and R10 will likely generate at least as much shock as the M6 II (which has SS problems with most off the M zooms). Only time will tell, but worth watching to see if there are subtle changes after years of experience with the M lenses. It is a perfect upgrade opportunity and hard to believe Canon won't take it.


----------



## Fernvndo (May 26, 2022)

Canon do it!!! would love to see some RF UWA, like the 10-24 FF on the roadmap. If Canon would also release a 7-15 for aps-c that would be great. No one has a more UWA lens in aps-c than Fuji (8-16) and so it's a chance to lead the segment.


----------



## jordanisaak (May 26, 2022)

pzyber said:


> I never said the 18-45 had the same lens design.


Got it. I misunderstood and thought you were implying that they modified the EF-M design slightly to accommodate the mount change, with the result that 18mm was the new wide limit.

Looking at the 15-45mm, the back element is somewhat far back, but I think the optics would physically fit on RF with a housing change. I suspect the main reason for the new design was cost. 7 elements is very low, even for an entry kit zoom.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 26, 2022)

Dragon said:


> The ef-s 35mm macro that was referred to wasn't that much cheaper.


My bad. I didn’t see the context of the original statement.


----------



## Skux (May 27, 2022)

Apart from a macro lens I don't think Canon will expand RF-S much more. Even EF-S had a rather paltry selection once you take out revised versions.

We have:
- kit lens (18-45mm) - announced
- kit telephoto zoom (18-150mm) - announced
- fast standard zoom (16-55mm)
- wide zoom (10-18mm or whatever it ends up being)
- telephoto zoom (55-200mm)
- 35mm equivalent prime (22mm)
- 50mm equivalent prime (32mm)

Full frame compact RF glass like the 16mm and 50mm can fill in the gaps without being too expensive.


----------



## koenkooi (May 27, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Good to also remember that replicating the same optical formula doesn't necessarily mean replicating all the mechanics of the lens. For example, the IS units in the M zooms have been determined to be quite sensitive to shutter shock, so it is possible that these new lenses will see a different IS mechanism given that the high-speed shutters in both the R7 and R10 will likely generate at least as much shock as the M6 II (which has SS problems with most off the M zooms). Only time will tell, but worth watching to see if there are subtle changes after years of experience with the M lenses. It is a perfect upgrade opportunity and hard to believe Canon won't take it.


The M6II only has a fully mechanical
mode, it lacks an EFCS for the shutter. The shutter closing and opening before each picture is what makes the shutter shock on the M6II so severe, compared to other M cameras.


----------



## Dragon (May 27, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The M6II only has a fully mechanical
> mode, it lacks an EFCS for the shutter. The shutter closing and opening before each picture is what makes the shutter shock on the M6II so severe, compared to other M cameras.


I know that (I have an M6 II), but the R7 and R10 also have a full mech shutter option which would be nice to be able to use with the standard lenses. sometimes a full mech shutter is desirable.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 27, 2022)

davidcl0nel said:


> You can't adapt directly a EFM-lens to RF, but how much you have to change in development to rearrange it to the "new" specification? The backlens(es) only a bit? I have no idea.
> 
> The EFM 22mm is a nice pancake, this on RFS would be nice with an R10 - or even smaller camera.
> I think there will be a R100 or even a R1000 "soon", which maybe a lot smaller and more cubish like the old M1-camera (or the post versions) some without grip"bulge". This would be a nice backup camera with 350gr or so.


I've been considering picking up an original M (aka M1) to pair with my EF-M 22mm. I hear wonderful things about its colour rendition that was lost in later M bodies - I understand this may be due to it having more in common with EOS firmware compared to the PowerShot derived firmware of later M cameras. It could prove to be a potent little everyday carry camera.

That said, I don't really need one, and my iPhone does a pretty good job as an always with me camera.


----------



## lote82 (May 27, 2022)

I miss the RF-S version of the 10-18mm and the 15-85mm!


----------



## SHAMwow (May 27, 2022)

I thought that if they are EF-S or RF-S lenses that there isn't the equivalent factor. Isn't that why they don't work correctly on a full frame camera?


----------



## koenkooi (May 27, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> I've been considering picking up an original M (aka M1) to pair with my EF-M 22mm. I hear wonderful things about its colour rendition that was lost in later M bodies - I understand this may be due to it having more in common with EOS firmware compared to the PowerShot derived firmware of later M cameras. It could prove to be a potent little everyday carry camera.
> 
> That said, I don't really need one, and my iPhone does a pretty good job as an always with me camera.


The M3 was a bit of an outlier, it had very different colours compared to other EOS cameras. The M6II has more traditional colours, but your RAW converter needs to have a proper profile for it, like a recent lightroom or using 3rd party profiles. The original M has great colours out of the box in LR and DxO PL, but its autofocus is a joke. I still use mine from time to time, it’s the perfect EF-M body for me: small, light and with a hot shoe that supports the GP-E2.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 27, 2022)

SHAMwow said:


> I thought that if they are EF-S or RF-S lenses that there isn't the equivalent factor. Isn't that why they don't work correctly on a full frame camera?


In the DSLR days, a camera with a smaller sensor also had a smaller mirror. So EF–S lenses could have their rear elements closer to the sensor. Canon had to make them physically incompatible with full frame DSLR‘s, otherwise the mirror would hit the back of the lens when it flipped up. That’s not an issue on mirrorless.


----------



## Sharlin (May 27, 2022)

SHAMwow said:


> I thought that if they are EF-S or RF-S lenses that there isn't the equivalent factor. Isn't that why they don't work correctly on a full frame camera?


The EF-S mount allows a few millimeters shorter backfocus (how close to the sensor the rear element can move – the "S" in EF-S means "short backfocus") taking advantage of the smaller mirror in APS-C DSLRs. Canon made the mount physically incompatible with EF cameras to prevent the possibility of mirror obstruction or even damage. Of course, with a smaller image circle, EF-S lenses would also heavily vignette on FF bodies.

Mirrorless cameras don’t have anything between the lens mount and the sensor assembly, and in theory can support arbitrarily short backfocus. So there’s no difference in that regard between RF and RF-S. The image circle difference is all that remains. Canon’s full-frame R cameras support a crop mode where the camera automatically emulates a crop body by only using the center part of the sensor and zooming in the EVF image accordingly. Thus FF R bodies accept RF-S lenses (and also EF-S lenses with the standard EF-RF adapter) without problems, you just get photos with 1/1.6 the nominal linear resolution (meaning 1/2.56 times the megapixels). For instance, the 45-MP R5 takes roughly 18-MP photos in crop mode.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 27, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The M3 was a bit of an outlier, it had very different colours compared to other EOS cameras. The M6II has more traditional colours, but your RAW converter needs to have a proper profile for it, like a recent lightroom or using 3rd party profiles. The original M has great colours out of the box in LR and DxO PL, but its autofocus is a joke. I still use mine from time to time, it’s the perfect EF-M body for me: small, light and with a hot shoe that supports the GP-E2.


The m3 was my first foray into canon mirrorless. Whilst the image quality was great and it performed adequately I could never get a hang of the colour rendition compared to my previous g12, either in jpeg or raw using DPP or Lightroom profiles. I remember reading numerous threads on DPReview about tweaking picture styles etc but it never quite worked. I’m quite happy with my m5 with its more traditional and realistic colours, but there's nothing "magical" about them compared to the older models.


----------



## BakaBokeh (May 28, 2022)

I'm pretty happy with this RF-S lens design. I always loved the EF-M mount because not only were the bodies small, but so were the lenses. I had my doubts that an RF-S system would satisfy that small and light form factor because the diameter of the RF mount. I even guessed that the only thing that would do it is if they kept the lens diameter as small or close to the EF-M diameter, and just have a larger diameter mount.... which is exactly what they did. I had a feeling that RF-S would be closer to EF-S than to EF-M. Color me shocked. Is it weird that the lens diameter is smaller than the actual mount? Yeah it's strange, and I thought that would be a deterrent to Canon. But kudos to them for actually doing it. It simultaneously satisfies the small & light EF-M crowd AND the 7D wildlife shooters who crave the reach and pixel density. Now I can see the EF-M finally being allowed to fade into the sunset. Looks like they're just going to port over all the EF-M lens formulas to RF-S. I do love the 22 & 32. If the plan was to go RF-S all along, I can see why maybe there was a pause in any new lens designs for EF-M. With this being an all new mount hopefully they can get back to creating new awesome tiny lenses.


----------



## Dragon (May 28, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The M3 was a bit of an outlier, it had very different colours compared to other EOS cameras. The M6II has more traditional colours, but your RAW converter needs to have a proper profile for it, like a recent lightroom or using 3rd party profiles. The original M has great colours out of the box in LR and DxO PL, but its autofocus is a joke. I still use mine from time to time, it’s the perfect EF-M body for me: small, light and with a hot shoe that supports the GP-E2.


I have found the biggest issue with the M3 is the Adobe profile. If you set the profile to "camera standard" (which LR didn't have for years but is there now) the images look normal. If you use the "Adobe standard" profile, the gamma is out in the trees and the blacks are heavily compressed.


----------



## jwpatmore (May 28, 2022)

I'm a little late to the party, but I already preordered the R7 the day it was released. The 16-55 F/2.8 IS is looking AMAZING!


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 28, 2022)

BakaBokeh said:


> I'm pretty happy with this RF-S lens design. I always loved the EF-M mount because not only were the bodies small, but so were the lenses. I had my doubts that an RF-S system would satisfy that small and light form factor because the diameter of the RF mount. I even guessed that the only thing that would do it is if they kept the lens diameter as small or close to the EF-M diameter, and just have a larger diameter mount.... which is exactly what they did. I had a feeling that RF-S would be closer to EF-S than to EF-M. Color me shocked. Is it weird that the lens diameter is smaller than the actual mount? Yeah it's strange, and I thought that would be a deterrent to Canon. But kudos to them for actually doing it. It simultaneously satisfies the small & light EF-M crowd AND the 7D wildlife shooters who crave the reach and pixel density. Now I can see the EF-M finally being allowed to fade into the sunset. Looks like they're just going to port over all the EF-M lens formulas to RF-S. I do love the 22 & 32. If the plan was to go RF-S all along, I can see why maybe there was a pause in any new lens designs for EF-M. With this being an all new mount hopefully they can get back to creating new awesome tiny lenses.
> 
> View attachment 203921


As I said in another thread, this may mean that canon will be able to refocus their r&d and develop new lenses for both rf-s and ef-m simultaneously, or at least relatively simply retool new rf-s designs for ef-m. 

I do still see an ef-s parallel with this new design however. Much the same way as ef and ef-s shared the same mount but you couldn’t use ef-s on ef bodies. Which again leaves new buyers with the the issue of not being able to use all of their lenses if they later move from a crop R to a full frame R.


----------



## scyrene (May 28, 2022)

BakaBokeh said:


> With this being an all new mount hopefully they can get back to creating new awesome tiny lenses.


Worth keeping in mind, this isn't a new mount. RF-S _is_ RF, it's just a subgroup of lenses with smaller image diameter.


----------



## scyrene (May 28, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> I do still see an ef-s parallel with this new design however. Much the same way as ef and ef-s shared the same mount but you couldn’t use ef-s on ef bodies. Which again leaves new buyers with the the issue of not being able to use all of their lenses if they later move from a crop R to a full frame R.


There's nothing to stop you mounting an RF-S lens on a full frame RF body, is there?


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 28, 2022)

scyrene said:


> There's nothing to stop you mounting an RF-S lens on a full frame RF body, is there?


Physically yes. But I would think it’ll result in significant vignetting or dark circle on a full frame camera.

EDIT: I’ve just found out there’s a “crop mode” on some FF R bodies. Perhaps it will work after all. But still, you wouldn’t be getting the most out of the FF sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2022)

scyrene said:


> There's nothing to stop you mounting an RF-S lens on a full frame RF body, is there?


All FF R bodies automatically go into crop mode when an EF-S lens is mounted (via the adapter). I’m sure the same will be true for RS-S lenses, and Canon may have designed the lenses to signal the same as EF-S (in terms of reporting being a crop lens), if so body firmware updates would not be needed. 

The only thing stopping you would be a reluctance to sacrifice IQ from using only a fraction of your FF sensor.


----------



## scyrene (May 28, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> Physically yes. But I would think it’ll result in significant vignetting or dark circle on a full frame camera.
> 
> EDIT: I’ve just found out there’s a “crop mode” on some FF R bodies. Perhaps it will work after all. But still, you wouldn’t be getting the most out of the FF sensor.


You wouldn't, but it's far better than being physically unable to do it, as was the case with EF-EF-S. Fwiw I think "upgrade paths" are overrated, but in any case the RF paradigm offers greater flexibility than was previously possible.


----------



## koenkooi (May 29, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> Physically yes. But I would think it’ll result in significant vignetting or dark circle on a full frame camera.
> 
> EDIT: I’ve just found out there’s a “crop mode” on some FF R bodies. Perhaps it will work after all. But still, you wouldn’t be getting the most out of the FF sensor.


In the Adorama livestream Rudy Winston said all FF RF bodies will automatically crop when an RF-S lens is attached. As mentioned above, just like when using EF-S lenses with the adapter.
3rd party lenses can have issues, the Laowo 100mm 2x EF lens triggered the crop function, laowo had to change the non-user upgradable firmware to fix that. The RF variant of that lens ditched all electronics


----------



## koenkooi (May 29, 2022)

scyrene said:


> You wouldn't, but it's far better than being physically unable to do it, as was the case with EF-EF-S. Fwiw I think "upgrade paths" are overrated, but in any case the RF paradigm offers greater flexibility than was previously possible.


I really appreciate having the option to mount EF(-s) lenses on my 7D, M6II and R5. RF-S decreases that a bit, but the only 2 lenses non-EF-M lenses I actually use on the M are the EF-S 60mm and the MP-E. So practically speaking it doesn’t make a difference to me 

I preordered the R7, so the 7D will see even less use when that arrives.

I wish canon would release an Mxxx with eye-af in servo mode, that’s the form factor and features I want for the M, the M6II is too large for my liking.


----------



## entoman (May 29, 2022)

Wondering whether *any* of these RF-S lenses will have a control ring?

Seems unlikely given their small size and lowish prices.

Illustrations of the 18-45mm and 18-150mm appear to show only a zoom ring and a focus ring.

Absence of a control ring means only 2 direct control dials available for settings on the R7. Typically people will assign these to aperture and shutter, which means having to "press a button and dial" to access ISO and exposure compensation.


----------



## koenkooi (May 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Wondering whether *any* of these RF-S lenses will have a control ring?
> 
> Seems unlikely given their small size and lowish prices.
> 
> ...


On other lower end RF lenses the focus ring doubles as a control ring, there’s a switch on the lens for that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Wondering whether *any* of these RF-S lenses will have a control ring?
> 
> Seems unlikely given their small size and lowish prices.
> 
> ...


There are current RF lenses where the ‘one ring’ can be set to function as either MF or control ring. The RF-S 18-45 doesn’t appear to have the switch that @koenkooi mentions. Perhaps Canon will have the physical AF/MF switch able to automatically change the ring function from control to MF? 

Agree on only two camera dials, ergonomically that is a big downgrade.


----------



## reisi007 (May 30, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I wish canon would release an Mxxx with eye-af in servo mode, that’s the form factor and features I want for the M, the M6II is too large for my liking.


What about the M200?


----------



## koenkooi (May 31, 2022)

reisi007 said:


> What about the M200?


Right form factor, but that has no eye-AF in servo mode, only in non-servo AF.


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 2, 2022)

Sony just launched 15 / f1.4 with no focus breathing… that’s what vloggers need… canon feels like it is allways going to be behind.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> Sony just launched 15 / f1.4 with no focus breathing… that’s what vloggers need… canon feels like it is allways going to be behind.


Except in market share.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 2, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> Sony just launched 15 / f1.4 with no focus breathing… that’s what vloggers need… canon feels like it is allways going to be behind.


Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If that wasn’t the case then we’d still all be shooting Rolleiflexs.


----------



## Madbox (Jun 6, 2022)

Shock! An entire lineup of EOS-M lenses with an RF mount! Obviously years of development went into figuring out a way to dupe Canon customers.


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 7, 2022)

Madbox said:


> Shock! An entire lineup of EOS-M lenses with an RF mount! Obviously years of development went into figuring out a way to dupe Canon customers.


Sadly my APS-c jorney went with Sony for 7 years. I never made full swich into sony. Sony RAW and colors were not worth it. Now the Sony APS-C jorney is ending. Finally.


----------



## entoman (Jun 9, 2022)

Madbox said:


> Shock! An entire lineup of EOS-M lenses with an RF mount! Obviously years of development went into figuring out a way to dupe Canon customers.


If the optical formula of the M version is fine, why change it?

Producing a completely new set of lenses unnecessarily, just because the mount changes, makes no sense. The design and manufacturing costs would need to be recouped and passed on the the customer. I suspect that most people would prefer to stick with the existing designs and keep the purchase price lower.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 9, 2022)

entoman said:


> If the optical formula of the M version is fine, why change it?
> 
> Producing a completely new set of lenses unnecessarily, just because the mount changes, makes no sense. The design and manufacturing costs would need to be recouped and passed on the the customer. I suspect that most people would prefer to stick with the existing designs and keep the purchase price lower.


I would love to have the 32mm f/1.4 available for the R7 I preordered! And the 22mm, 11-22 and 28mm macro!


----------



## entoman (Jun 9, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I would love to have the 32mm f/1.4 available for the R7 I preordered! And the 22mm, 11-22 and 28mm macro!


Of course, if new designs offered a significant improvement (e.g. closer MFD, wider max aperture, faster AF, nicer bokeh, additional focal lengths) then they would be very desirable, but obviously a lot more expensive than re-using existing designs, which was the point of my response to Madbox. Just look at the price of RF exotica, compared to nearest-equivalent EF glass!

Ideally APS-C users would have both - affordable re-ported M glass, and highly specified compact exotica. Realistically, we'll have to see just how popular the R7 and R10 become, as Canon are unlikely to pour resources into completely new APS-C glass unless demand is high.

I hope your upcoming R7 lives up to your expectations, the specs look excellent, and the only thing stopping me from getting one is the ergonomics - my muscle-memory would have problems if I was constantly switching back and forth between R5 and R7.


----------



## Franklyok (Jun 9, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I would love to have the 32mm f/1.4 available for the R7 I preordered! And the 22mm, 11-22 and 28mm macro!


Sigma has 16 / f1.4 in E mount , which I sold… it is Very fine video lens and it was very sad to sell away. 

I wish Canon would come up with L grade RF-s lens , just as Sony has , and Fuji too. Low focus breathing - hopefully. Looks like these lens are a lot cheaper than FF lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2022)

Franklyok said:


> I wish Canon would come up with L grade RF-s lens , just as Sony has , and Fuji too. Low focus breathing - hopefully. Looks like these lens are a lot cheaper than FF lens.


Don't hold your breath. Years of EF-S lenses, none with the L designation. The EF-S 17-55/2.8 and 10-22/3.5-4.5 delivered optical quality equivalent to some L lenses...the former aged and was never updated, the latter was replaced with the inferior 10-18/4-5.6.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jun 18, 2022)

Madbox said:


> Shock! An entire lineup of EOS-M lenses with an RF mount! Obviously years of development went into figuring out a way to dupe Canon customers.


Who’s been duped? Has Canon misled anybody about what they would develop? Where are the official statements about specific lenses coming? Or did you dupe yourself by expecting a bunch of f/1.2 APS-C L primes?

The EF-M 22 and 32 are great lenses in their own rite, and I’ve known people who have bought M50‘s just so they could use the 32. If the 55-250 is based on the EF-S 55-250 STM design, it will be a great lens too for traveling light. And I, for one, was glad that one of the first two RF-S lenses was a port of the EF-M 18-150. I got the EF-M version with my M5, and having an RF-S version was icing on the cake when I preordered the R7 kit. Not L quality perhaps, but definitely punches above its weight for a kit lens.

And I daresay Canon has redefined the expectations of “kit” lenses over the past 5-10 years with the EF-S 18-55 STM, EF-S 18-135 STM and USM, and EF-M 18-150. All sharp and versatile.

(I know this is a zombie thread but I felt compelled to respond)


----------



## Rocky (Jun 20, 2022)

Canon RF-S 16-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (25mm-88mm equivalent) may be the most versatile walk around lens. Just hope the picture quality good enough.


----------



## Jose Rubio Rodrigu (Aug 15, 2022)

Rf S 16 55 f.2.8, será el objetivo más vendido de Canon, para sus APS C. 
Seguro que iguala el Número de Cuerpos vendidos R7/R10.


----------

