Two more Canon EF-M lenses have been discontinued

[jam05]

Those are not popular M lenses anyhow

 

[jam05]

The M series of bodies and lenses was excellent, and were particularly good as travel cameras. I'm disappointed that the series is, in the words of CR undergoing a "slow death".

But it is by no means a "weird decision" by Canon. They exist to sell cameras and make profits. It makes far more sense for them to kill the M system, because:

a) it means they get to sell a whole new bucketload of RF cameras and RF-S lenses.
b) using a common mount encourages people to eventually upgrade to R6ii, R5 etc, rather than to switch to another brand.

Canon ain't daft!

There is no RF replacement for the M6. Period.

 

[kmrahe]

Those are not popular M lenses anyhow

I don't know if they're very popular add-on lens purchases, but I think they're pretty popular as kit lenses. That's how I got my 55-200mm.

 

[davidespinosa]

Those are not popular M lenses anyhow

The ones that Canon just discontinued ?
The EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS and EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM ?

They better be popular, because Canon only released three RF-S lenses, and these are basically two of them !

 

[davidespinosa]

There is no RF replacement for the M6. Period.

Yet. Period.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't know if they're very popular add-on lens purchases, but I think they're pretty popular as kit lenses. That's how I got my 55-200mm.

“You want one? Ok, you can buy one but it only comes in RF-S so you’ll need to buy a new body, too.”
—Canon

 

[Skux]

The RF-S lineup may be terrible, but let's be honest, so was EF-M and EF-S. These systems are only ever going to have a slow 'trinity' zoom set, a macro, and a couple of primes. Which is enough for most people.

APS-C has and always will be a second-class citizen next to Canon's FF lineup which they will dangle in front of you as an upgrade path. If you want a company that takes crop sensors and small cameras as seriously as you do, there's Fujifilm.

 

[davidespinosa]

APS-C has and always will be a second-class citizen next to Canon's FF lineup which they will dangle in front of you as an upgrade path.

I agree, the lens story says "second class, never gonna happen".
But the camera story says they're taking it more seriously.
They could have skipped the R7 and R10 and gone straight to the R50.

 

[lote82]

The RF-S lineup may be terrible, but let's be honest, so was EF-M and EF-S. These systems are only ever going to have a slow 'trinity' zoom set, a macro, and a couple of primes. Which is enough for most people.

APS-C has and always will be a second-class citizen next to Canon's FF lineup which they will dangle in front of you as an upgrade path. If you want a company that takes crop sensors and small cameras as seriously as you do, there's Fujifilm.

Yes, looking at the EF-S and EF-M lineup, I also don't have high expectations for further RF-S lenses from Canon. Therefore I'm more interested in 3rd party lenses than anything else. I would love to see an RF-S version of the Sigma 56mm f1.4 ... maybe off-topic, but has anyone experience with this lens?

 

[koenkooi]

Yes, looking at the EF-S and EF-M lineup, I also don't have high expectations for further RF-S lenses from Canon. Therefore I'm more interested in 3rd party lenses than anything else. I would love to see an RF-S version of the Sigma 56mm f1.4 ... maybe off-topic, but has anyone experience with this lens?

The EF-M version of the 56mm is wonderful! It’s not as sharp as the Canon 32mm, but still very good wide open.
It is relatively large for an EF-M lens, but not comically so.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The RF-S lineup may be terrible, but let's be honest, so was EF-M and EF-S. These systems are only ever going to have a slow 'trinity' zoom set, a macro, and a couple of primes. Which is enough for most people.

APS-C has and always will be a second-class citizen next to Canon's FF lineup which they will dangle in front of you as an upgrade path. If you want a company that takes crop sensors and small cameras as seriously as you do, there's Fujifilm.

That is a popular take but there is not a single Fuji camera that I would take over the R7 and the R50 outclasses every camera in its price range.
Fuji cameras are great for Fuji people.
I am not sure that it would be such a crime to use full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras and it looks like we will be getting 3rd party lenses as well.
Canon had some firm restrictions when it came to EF-M lenses that would not make much sense to carry over to RF-S.
When it came to EF and EF-S, Canon has the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and the crazy $5K 18-80.
Those seem like taking crop sensors seriously to me.
I am not sure that it would be a safe assumption that the RF-S lineup will be as limited as EF-M, especially with high-end crop sensor autofocus cameras like the C70.
The is nothing like the C70 with an EF-M mount.

 

[lote82]

That is a popular take but there is not a single Fuji camera that I would take over the R7 and the R50 outclasses every camera in its price range.
Fuji cameras are great for Fuji people.

Agree!

I am not sure that it would be such a crime to use full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras and it looks like we will be getting 3rd party lenses as well.
Canon had some firm restrictions when it came to EF-M lenses that would not make much sense to carry over to RF-S.

Agree!

When it came to EF and EF-S, Canon has the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and the crazy $5K 18-80.
Those seem like taking crop sensors seriously to me.

I would also mention the EF-S 15-85mm as a rather high-quality example.
I don't know the 18-80. Is it a cine-lens?

I am not sure that it would be a safe assumption that the RF-S lineup will be as limited as EF-M, especially with high-end crop sensor autofocus cameras like the C70.
The is nothing like the C70 with an EF-M mount.

Good point, never thought about it!

 

[Pierre Lagarde]

The EF-M version of the 56mm is wonderful! It’s not as sharp as the Canon 32mm, but still very good wide open.
It is relatively large for an EF-M lens, but not comically so.

And the bokeh is superb too on this Sigma lens. To be fair, I think nothing is as sharp as the EF-M 32mm F/1.4 on EOS M cameras anyway .

 

[kmrahe]

The RF-S lineup may be terrible, but let's be honest, so was EF-M and EF-S.

Given the price range of the bodies, I don't think you can say that the EF-M lens lineup was lacking anything significant. I've challenged folks several times to point out a significant omission, but all they've been able to come up with are long or specialty lenses whose cost (>$500 U.S.) would put them out of reach for most people on the low (cost) end of the market.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Given the price range of the bodies, I don't think you can say that the EF-M lens lineup was lacking anything significant. I've challenged folks several times to point out a significant omission, but all they've been able to come up with are long or specialty lenses whose cost (>$500 U.S.) would put them out of reach for most people on the low (cost) end of the market.

I’d say the exception to that is a short tele macro lens, like the EF-S 60/2.8 (which launched at $450).

 

[koenkooi]

I’d say the exception to that is a short tele macro lens, like the EF-S 60/2.8 (which launched at $450).

That EF-S60mm balances pretty well on my M6II and is sharp enough for its 32MP.
I agree a dedicated EF-M version would be great, I don’t have strong feelings about it not being there.

 

[kmrahe]

I’d say the exception to that is a short tele macro lens, like the EF-S 60/2.8 (which launched at $450).

But that was back in 2005. By the time the M series was introduced I would guess it was already above the expected price range of EF-M lenses. (Today it goes for about $600 refurbished.)

 

[neuroanatomist]

But that was back in 2005. By the time the M series was introduced I would guess it was already above the expected price range of EF-M lenses. (Today it goes for about $600 refurbished.)

Given the lenses already in the lineup, and the fact that they would most likely have followed the pattern of later M series lenses using cheaper materials, I have no doubt the lens would have launched under that price threshold if they had made it. It could have been a 60/3.5, for example. Moot point now, though.

 

[kmrahe]

Given the lenses already in the lineup, and the fact that they would most likely have followed the pattern of later M series lenses using cheaper materials, I have no doubt the lens would have launched under that price threshold if they had made it. It could have been a 60/3.5, for example. Moot point now, though.

It's not just a matter of whether it could have been made and sold under that price threshold, but whether it would have been popular enough among that segment of the market to warrant the R&D cost. Do you think it would have been as popular as the 22mm or 32mm, or even the 28mm macro?

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's not just a matter of whether it could have been made and sold under that price threshold, but whether it would have been popular enough among that segment of the market to warrant the R&D cost. Do you think it would have been as popular as the 22mm or 32mm, or even the 28mm macro?

No, or Canon would have made it. My point was that a short tele macro is not a, “long or specialty lenses whose cost (>$500 U.S.) would put them out of reach,” as was shown clearly by the EF-S lens.