Exactly; even if they never would have mentioned it, you just see it from what they did until now
Upvote
0
Canon RF-S 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM coming first half of 2023
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Exactly; even if they never would have mentioned it, you just see it from what they did until now
When i switched from the M6 II because I wanted a backup camera with same mount of my R6, I considered at basically the same price both RP and R10, and I got the second, even if APS-C, because it's a much better camera in all aspects (except very high iso, due to the sensor size), especially for video.
I was also really lucky and I paid 485€ for the R10 (ex demo, less then 200 shots, so basically a brand new camera), while reselling M6 II for 620€ (same price I purchased it), so in the end i even got money on top of the switch for a better camera, getting rid of a dead camera mount whose value was drastically dropping every day.
Upvote
0
Why would you expect the 22 f/2 RFs to sell for $350-400 when the 50 f/1.8 FF is currently selling for $150? Even the 16mm FF is selling for $250 and that is a lovely match for an R7 or R10. Yes, the 24mm f/1.8 goes for $600, but that is FF and includes IS and macro. The RF-s 18-150 lists for exactly the same price as the EF-M 18-150 and it has the added feature of a control ring. Too much pessimism is bad for your health
.
Upvote
0
Agreed. The RF-S and EF-M 18-150mm lenses have the same suggested retail price, and the EF-M 22/2 lists for $250.Why would you expect the 22 f/2 RFs to sell for $350-400 when the 50 f/1.8 FF is currently selling for $150? Even the 16mm FF is selling for $250 and that is a lovely match for an R7 or R10. Yes, the 24mm f/1.8 goes for $600, but that is FF and includes IS and macro. The RF-s 18-150 lists for exactly the same price as the EF-M 18-150 and it has the added feature of a control ring. Too much pessimism is bad for your health
Upvote
0
The L stands for Luxury (as in Lexus). The c (in APS-c) stands for cramped (as in Corolla).
Upvote
0
Yes, Canon will treat RF-S just like EF-S and EF-M because Canon understands who the target market is for crop sensor cameras. They understand that in all likelihood, the vast majority of photographers that want L quality, fast lenses are already buying or already own those lenses in EF or RF mounts. Making essentially the same lenses in the RF-S mount would be rediculous considering the cost to develop them and the apparently tiny number of potential buyers. Based on the popularity of the M50 and the DSLR rebels over the years, Canon knows that most crop camera buyers want inexpensive lenses and are not buying many lenses, especially primes, to begin with. The other large group of crop camera buyers is wildlife, bird and sports photographers (at least based on perusing the facebook R7 groups, where probably 90% or more of the posts are birds). That group is buying FF lenses for virtually all their needs. Some folks do want a standard zoom for shots other than their main interest, in which case they don't need an L quality lens and would rather have something small, light and inexpensive.
Upvote
0
I was guessing about list price on Canon website in my country, Italy, in euro; here 50 f1.8 sells for 250€ and 16 f2.8 for 360€.
Your prices in USA dollars probably doesn't include taxes; in Europe our prices are already final, with taxes included.
Attachments
Upvote
0
No, because M mount is not compatible with RF. The whole point of making RF-S mount is to make APS-C and Full Frame mounts compatible.
Upvote
0
ROTFL! Thanks for the correction! That's what I get for responding without checking the product list.They are EF-M 22 and EF-S 24
The f/2.8 on the EF-S 24 always throws me. I know there's an 8 in there somewhere. And believe it or not, I actually do own both. I just don't use them so often... obviously...
Upvote
0
I can definitely relate to that sentiment. Nobody wants to spend a lot of money on a body and lens(es) today, only to have Canon release new ones that fit their needs better next year.I a broader sense, for me, RF-S can never be a proper upgrade from the M line, it will always be more unwieldy and huge. The original M (which I still have and use) with the 22mm is what I still hold up as the ideal size and form factor for a system that you can have always with you. For an RF body to get close to that form factor, it will likely have to drop IBIS since that seems to add 5mm of depth and have a square-ish body aspect ratio to fit the RF mount while limiting the width.
Getting back to the topic, I find it hard to form an opinion on it without knowing which APS-C bodies and RF-S will follow in the next few years. With the 2 current bodies, the R7 and R10, it seems like a hasty, very low effort attempt at filling with crop UWA gap(s) in the line up. It might start making more sense if EVF-less bodies get announced and designed-from-scratch constant f/2.8 UWA zooms.
But seeing how EF-S didn't get a lot of attention from Canon and EF-M even less (but with gems like the 11-22mm, 22mm and 32mm!) I don't see how of why Canon is going to divert their sole lens design team from filling out the FF RF line to designing RF-S lenses.
I've always had the impression that the APS-C line at Canon was only there to bring in the money to work on the things they actually find interesting: FF bodies and exotic L lenses. That might change with both the APS-C mirrorfull bodies and EF-M being discontinued, but I think we'll always get disappointed by Canon when it comes to APS-C, especially when they release things like the EF-M 32mm, M6II and R7 just when I'm ready to abandon all hope
On the other hand, the entire RF line is still relatively new, and RF-S even more so. You can wait five years and see what happens, or you can get out there and use the gear that's available now to do what you want. If Canon comes out with something in the future that matches your needs better, you can decide if it's worth the cost to switch at that time. Either way, you've gotten good use from what you have now, and there will still be a vibrant market for used Canon gear.
Upvote
0
I agree that there won't (likely) be an EF-M to RF adapter. Such an adapter isn't impossible to build, but because of the similarity in diameter and flange distance, it can't just be an empty tube like the EF to RF or EF to EF-M. Since the EF-M protocol is the same as EF, and the R cameras work with EF lenses, the electrical interface only has to make sure the signal integrity is preserved over the greater distance and the two mechanical connections. No worse than an extender or speed booster.
But because such an adapter would need some nonzero length, there would have to be some sort of optical element(s) in the path in order to bring the focus on the sensor at the greater distance. This would also seem to me to be no worse than the optics of a good quality extender or speed booster.
Canon certainly could make such a device if they wished, as could many third parties such as Viltrox or Metabones, but you won't see $30 knockoffs on Amazon that work just as well, like you do with the EF to EF-M or EF to RF adapters (and if you do, they'll be as good quality as you would expect from a $30 extender).
The real problem, IMO, is the economics. A good quality adapter with optics like this would be priced just like a good quality extender or speed booster, which is to say, anywhere between $200 and $500, and I doubt there's that big of a market for such a device at that price. While a few enthusiasts with large EF-M lens collections might spring for it, I daresay it's not like needing to preserve an investment of thousands of dollars in "L" lenses.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I picked up an RF 100-400 at the sale price this fall and I'm super happy with it. The results have been great, and the f/8 maximum aperture doesn't bother me since I normally shoot between f/8 and f/11 anyway. I'm coming from an adapted Sigma 100-400|C, which is also a fantastic lens.
I've got two kids in college so for now I can only dream about the RF 100-500L.
Upvote
0
When the EOS system was first introduced, Canon actually made an FD to EOS converter, which had lenses in it. It was only available for a few years in the late 1980's, and I don't know if it was something you could buy in a store or if you had to get through CPS, which at the time had much more selective membership requirements (I think at the time you had to be nationally published to be considered for CPS). I also recall once hearing it only worked with the big white FDs, which would make sense because the high-value customers that Canon wanted to move to the new EOS system were concerned about their existing lens investments.
Once Canon came out with the fast focusing USM big whites in the early 1990's, a lot of the remaining FD holdouts finally switched, along with a lot of Nikon pro sports photographers.
EDIT: Also, in 1987, there were no Sony cameras or MFT, and even APS was 8 years away. If you didn't want Canon or Nikon (the big two), your main choices were between Pentax, Olympus, and Minolta. There were other, less common (in the US) brands, such as Ricoh, Yashica, and Konica, among others. Minolta and Konica merged in the mid 1990's and sold their consumer camera business to Sony in 2006, which started Sony down the path to where they are today. The Sony A mount was originally the Minolta A mount from the Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 35mm film SLRs.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yes, such an adapter could be made, but the catch is that (like FD to EF adapters), the resulting combination no longer has the same focal length and aperture that the original lens had. The only true solution would be an open tube with a negative length of 2mm. You might even call it the "wormhole adapter".
.
Upvote
0
Because it's a recycled design and to keep size down. Plus APS-C users don't need anything other than basic in Canon's mind.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
