Canon confirms discontinuation of EF and EF-S lenses

[roby17269]

Why would that be?
Money is money.
Canon is investing more into mirrorless because they project a better return on investment.

Not sure what you are trying to say? It seems you are agreeing with me.

I have no doubt that Canon makes more money from a single 1DX III sale than a single R6 sale.
If Canon could sell as many 1DX III DSLRs as they do R6 mirrorless I have no doubt that they would.

Indeed. But those cameras target materially different markets.

 

[roby17269]

The entire EOS-M system is marketed at folks who might buy a camera and a couple of lenses once every five years or so. They then use it without constantly worrying about who has a newer/brighter/cooler/better camera coming out next week. They're not gearheads. They're people who want more than a phone for those special moments when their kids have birthday parties or they go on a nice vacation or visit the zoo. Just because a few gearheads buy an EOS M camera to use as a small, lightweight "pocket camera" when they don't want to tote their pro gear around does not mean they are the primary buyers of EOS M systems. They aren't.

But the market you are describing is eroding. I was at a birthday party for one of my daughter's schoolmates a few months ago. There were 30 kids with parents. There was only 1 non-cellphone camera to be seen, that being my R5.
Sure, that episode is not statistical proof, but it seems to me that we gear heads are one of the few remaining niches of a dwindling market who still buy camera and lenses, so manufacturers are catering for gear heads more and more.

Consider the introduction of new APS and FF cameras by Canon + Nikon + Sony:
2017 APS: 6 - FF: 4
2018 APS: 4 - FF: 5
2019 APS: 8 - FF: 4
2020 APS: 4 - FF: 8
2021 APS: 2 - FF: 6
2022 (so far) APS: 0 - FF: 1
If you count crop vs. FF lenses I am pretty sure that the picture would be even more stark.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It's probably not actually in production. They've still got remaining stock to sell, though. It's a pretty good lens, especially for its price point, in real world usage as long as you're not looking for flat test chart reproduction bragging rights.

Canon used to stockpile their most popular lenses in huge batches.

So many people told us that Canon pivoting to RF would not have a big impact because there was such a big stockpile of EF lenses.
Now after just of few years many of these lenses ran out of stock.
Of few have no viable replacements through either third parties or the RF mount.

 

[Blue Zurich]

So many people told us that Canon pivoting to RF would not have a big impact because there was such a big stockpile of EF lenses.
Now after just of few years many of these lenses ran out of stock.
Of few have no viable replacements through either third parties or the RF mount.

I'm still seeing quite a good selection, new and used from reputable sellers such as B&H, MPB and Keh not to mention FM, Ebay and CL.

 

[stevelee]

Street shot outside a bar on Halloween. Sodium vapor lights on street plus just a bit of flash either camera mounted or held wide in my left hand. Hand held, EOS 5D Mark IV + EF 85mm f/1.8, 1/80, f/2.2, ISO 3200.

After I got the 6D2 I used my 100mm macro for portraits, but didn’t like the look. So I bought a refurbed 85mm f/1.8 for some trivial amount of money. I went into downtown to try it out on large brick walls and such. I started shooting other things, and was really pleased with the results. It is certainly the best lens for the money I ever got. It acquits itself really well for my intended purpose and also does fine as a general purpose short telephoto. One use I had not anticipated was shooting video of myself for use in little squares during the pandemic in a virtual choir and in multi-language readings of Acts 2. (I was assigned the original Ancient Greek, which I hadn’t read aloud to any degree for 45 years.) I was in the Wally Cox square one time, and I forget which of the Bradys I was another time.

 

[roby17269]

I am at least equally sure that Canon also prefers having products to sell to people who would never, ever consider an RF mount camera and half a dozen RF lenses. That's who the EOS M line has always been aimed at. Those who are looking for a compact, lightweight, and relatively inexpensive camera and lens or two that will last them for a few years.

This is where we disagree. Not in the sense that Canon would not go for market penetration, but in the sense of "is the market you describe a viable proposition?".
My sense is that it is becoming increasingly less so because: a) that market is dwindling in numbers, and b) market contraction and supply chain issues are forcing Canon (and other manufacturers) to focus on the most profitable parts of the remaining market, meaning the people that still buy pro/prosumer cameras and lenses

 

[SteveC]

It was the first comment after the initial post. But it was, in fact, positive about the EOS-M system and said:

"It's no surprise to me that M lenses continue to be produced, as the cameras sell extremely well, especially in Asia."

Maps, comment four, extended the doomsaying to EF-M.

 

[Joules]

In the case of the EF 135mm f/2, those who use it know that flat test charts aren't the only measure of a lens' usefulness for taking images of a 3D world. [...] The last thing Canon needed to do was replace the EF 135mm f/2 L with a newer version that produced clinical looking images with nasty bokeh like Sigma's 135. Let the uninformed Philistines rave about how great their Sigma 135s are because they're so good at imaging flat test charts while the rest of us make beautiful photos with our "outdated" EF 135mm f/2 L lenses!

The world could be a nicer place if we would be able to appreciate the value of one thing on its own, without having to degrade another thing in the process.

Do you need to be uniformed in order to appreciate sharpness? Or is it also possible to look at the properties of a product as a whole and judge them in the context of one's own values and use cases?

I don't see anything wrong with the bokeh of my personal Sigma 35 mm 1.4 (Also not in the side by side comparison to the old Canon version on this site). Nor in the images from the 135 mm I've looked up online. I'm genuinely curious what justifies the negative comments, so if you have a comparison that demonstrates in what way the Canon lens delivers different results, could you please point me in the right direction?

I'm well aware of your point about an increase in sharpness and flat field having affects on other aspects. But I am unconvinced it really has such a large practical impact and the difference is not more a matter of taste than anything else.

The Canon 50mm 1.2 and 85 mm 1.2 RF lenses for instance are also sharp AF and I don't see anything wrong with them. And on the one lens where Canon gave in and added the option to sacrifice sharpness to alter the bokeh, I've not really seen any praise of that feature - I'm talking about the SA control of the RF 100 mm 2.8 L macro of course.

 

[tbgtomcom]

This makes perfect sense considering the shortages of raw materials. May as well use available resources on new technology.

 

[Blue Zurich]

Canon just put out a statement:

Canon denies it's discontinuing its EF lenses for DSLRs

There's still life in the old glass yet, according to Canon

www.techradar.com

 

[unfocused]

Canon just put out a statement:

Canon denies it's discontinuing its EF lenses for DSLRs

There's still life in the old glass yet, according to Canon

www.techradar.com

So, a non-denial denial that actually confirms that they are dumping 70 lenses?

I still find the most interesting thing about this list are the lenses that are being dropped that have no RF replacement on this site's Canon Lens Roadmap. Reading tea leaves, yes, but I'm not sure anyone should be holding their breath for a lens that has been discontinued and is not listed as having an RF replacement coming down the road.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'm surprised that the ef 135mm f2.0 L has been discontinued. However...we all know that Canon have been holding back a revision for it for years. I'm guessing a new RF version with IS, closer MFD and slightly brighter is on the RF lens slate.
The 135L is one of the most versatile tele's available. 135mm is a sweet spot for portraits. Pop a 25mm extender on it and it can pass for a general walkabouts macro lens. Pop a 1.4x TC and you have a 190mm f2.8. Pop a 2x TC and it's a 270mm f4. It's light and small. Rugged enough and it's IQ is excellent.
I often choose this lens over my 70-200 f2.8 II LIS. The difference between 135mm and 200mm isn't that great, often a few steps forwards (where possible). If I have a 24-70 on my other camera then the 135L make a nice tele. A lot less bulky than my 70-200 f2.8 II LIS.

I've never had much luck with my EF 135mm f/2 L + EF1.4X III. The bare lens is very sharp and has good contrast. The lens plus extender is not nearly that sharp, even when carefully manually focused while tripod mounted with wired remote release.

 

[Michael Clark]

More likely, the R5 is a better reason why there is no R7 for the moment .

Things that make you go, "Hmmmm..."

 

[Michael Clark]

DSLRs (the lenses) will be popular again in 20-30 yrs. There will be countless forums and facebook groups dedicated to them. People will get giddy about the "look" of a DSLR taken photo and opine for the good old days when there were "real" cameras.

That's how I duped myself into believing I just had to have 50+ year old lens tech (over 50 of those old dogs) adapted to my digital cameras.

I've since grown up.

You may have grown up, but you still wish you had that EF 135mm f/2 L which you sold back, don't 'cha?

 

[Michael Clark]

But the market you are describing is eroding. I was at a birthday party for one of my daughter's schoolmates a few months ago. There were 30 kids with parents. There was only 1 non-cellphone camera to be seen, that being my R5.
Sure, that episode is not statistical proof, but it seems to me that we gear heads are one of the few remaining niches of a dwindling market who still buy camera and lenses, so manufacturers are catering for gear heads more and more.

Consider the introduction of new APS and FF cameras by Canon + Nikon + Sony:
2017 APS: 6 - FF: 4
2018 APS: 4 - FF: 5
2019 APS: 8 - FF: 4
2020 APS: 4 - FF: 8
2021 APS: 2 - FF: 6
2022 (so far) APS: 0 - FF: 1
If you count crop vs. FF lenses I am pretty sure that the picture would be even more stark.

It's eroding for sure, but so is the pro market. In the U.S. there are barely 30% as many full-time photojournalists (who do primarily stills imaging for print or web - these days most TV stations call their field video camera operators PJs but we're not talking about those folks) working for news organizations as there were only 10 years ago.

It's also eroding at different rates in different cultures. I'd venture to say that in Asia, and particularly in Japan, you'd see more than one dedicated camera at a child's birthday party with 30 children present.

 

[Michael Clark]

After I got the 6D2 I used my 100mm macro for portraits, but didn’t like the look. So I bought a refurbed 85mm f/1.8 for some trivial amount of money. I went into downtown to try it out on large brick walls and such. I started shooting other things, and was really pleased with the results. It is certainly the best lens for the money I ever got. It acquits itself really well for my intended purpose and also does fine as a general purpose short telephoto. One use I had not anticipated was shooting video of myself for use in little squares during the pandemic in a virtual choir and in multi-language readings of Acts 2. (I was assigned the original Ancient Greek, which I hadn’t read aloud to any degree for 45 years.) I was in the Wally Cox square one time, and I forget which of the Bradys I was another time.

I laugh inside when I hear folks proclaim loudly as if they have some kind of superior knowledge us mere mortals will never posses about how great macro lenses are for doing portraits because "they're so much sharper than non-macro lenses."

I usually try to bite my tongue and not reply, "Yes they are certainly sharp when used for the purpose for which they are optimized: to be sharpest at MFD when imaging flat targets perfectly perpendicular to the camera's image plane.

 

[Michael Clark]

This is where we disagree. Not in the sense that Canon would not go for market penetration, but in the sense of "is the market you describe a viable proposition?".
My sense is that it is becoming increasingly less so because: a) that market is dwindling in numbers, and b) market contraction and supply chain issues are forcing Canon (and other manufacturers) to focus on the most profitable parts of the remaining market, meaning the people that still buy pro/prosumer cameras and lenses

What were the ten top selling cameras in Japan last month?

Low end APS-C DSLRs and EOS M bodies, with one or two compact APS-C Sony bodies also thrown in. Your sense may be misinformed.

 

[Michael Clark]

Maps, comment four, extended the doomsaying to EF-M.

Yeah, with a byline that says "EOS M7 Please."

He's just mad because the EOS M system is what Canon wants it to be instead of what he wants it to be.

 

[Michael Clark]

The Canon 50mm 1.2 and 85 mm 1.2 RF lenses for instance are also sharp AF and I don't see anything wrong with them. And on the one lens where Canon gave in and added the option to sacrifice sharpness to alter the bokeh, I've not really seen any praise of that feature - I'm talking about the SA control of the RF 100 mm 2.8 L macro of course.

The humble EF 85mm f/1.8 does better flat document reproduction work (i.e. test chart reproduction) than the EF 85mm f/1.2 L. It wipes the floor with the more expensive lens for that use case. But it doesn't produce near the same out of focus areas that the 85 L does.

The RF 85mm f/1.2L is sharper than the EF 85mm f/1.8 on the edges of the frame when imaging a flat test chart, yet still manages to render out of focus areas fairly nicely. But it still doesn't hold a candle to the older EF 85mm f/1.2 L II with how it renders out of focus backgrounds.

 

[Michael Clark]

I don't see anything wrong with the bokeh of my personal Sigma 35 mm 1.4 (Also not in the side by side comparison to the old Canon version on this site). Nor in the images from the 135 mm I've looked up online. I'm genuinely curious what justifies the negative comments, so if you have a comparison that demonstrates in what way the Canon lens delivers different results, could you please point me in the right direction?

My comment said nothing about 35mm lenses. Sensible use cases of 35mm lenses certainly make full field acutance a more important consideration for comparing 35mm lenses than sensible use cases of 135mm lenses make edge acutance a consideration when evaluating 135mm lenses.

Unless you want to be the best 135mm brick wall photographer in the world, I guess...