Two more Canon EF-M lenses have been discontinued

[lustyd]

Yes, I hope the focus for the upcoming RF-S lenses will rather be on speed and image quality instead of small/light/cheap. But to be honest, I think this is wishful thinking.

You've completely missed the point then. M lenses were defined entirely by size, that's why they're all the same diameter. If you want fast lenses then you're trading away that compact form factor so standard RF lenses are what you want. There's no reason at all they can't make a cheap RF lens, it doesn't have to be small form factor or even APS-C focussed.

 

[kmrahe]

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.

a) They can't sell lenses that they don't produce, and right now the line-up of RF-S lenses is pretty dismal compared to what we've had in EF-M.
b) The advantages of a common mount as a practical matter aren't what they seem. The idea is that you can have a compact and/or low cost system today and an upgrade path that preserves your investment. But the fact is that those are really competing objectives. If you invest in RF-S lenses you can get compact and maybe lower cost equipment today, but if you do move to a full-frame later you're really going to want to replace your RF-S lenses, because not only are they not going to let your full-frame act like a full-frame, but unless your new full-frame camera has a much higher resolution sensor than the APS-C camera you're migrating from, your RF-S lenses will give you poorer results (i.e. less detail) than they did on your APS-C camera. This makes the ability to use an RF-S lens on a full frame camera not much more than a gimmick. On the other hand, if you do have a plan to eventually "upgrade" to a full-frame when you buy your APS-C camera, and so you only buy RF lenses and avoid RF-S, you'll be able to take your lenses with you and you'll probably be happy with them when you do, but you may not have as many lenses to use with your APS-C camera, because they'll be more expensive than equivalent RF-S versions would be, and you'll never get to enjoy the benefits of a compact camera system.

 

[lustyd]

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!

My point was that their decision around timing is weird given they have clearly shown they intend to release M equivalents in the R range but they discontinued one and have yet to fully release the other, leaving customers in limbo with no Canon option to buy. They won't sell a bucket load of anything until they actually release it. Unfotunately they have chosen to slowly drip feed the releases we all know are coming so their marketing people have something to talk about. One press release of "M Dead, RF-S replaces every lens and body would have been too quick for them, but it would have given people a viable option for something to buy. As it stands the only option for this has a Sony badge on it.

 

[lote82]

So shortsighted to discontinue these before launching replacements. Almost none of these EF-M lenses have equivalents in the R world, and we still don't have an M6 replacement. Canon make great cameras but they make some really weird decisions. Glad I bought my M system last year with all the lenses I need

This was your initial (and false!) statement. The lenses which were discontinued has already a replacement in the R world. Even the M6 has an replacement in the M6 II. Not Canon decisions are weird, only your statements are.

 

[lustyd]

This was your initial (and false!) statement. The lenses which were discontinued has already a replacement in the R world. Even the M6 has an replacement in the M6 II. Not Canon decisions are weird, only your statements are.

I think you're being purposefully obtuse here. It's obvious that M6 doesn't have an R equivalent, and it's obvious that not all of the M lenses have equivalents in the R lineup. What's so hard for you to understand here, there is no complete compact system from Canon right now because they discontinued most of one and have yet to release most of the other. Nothing false about my statement at all.

 

[Blorp]

I don't know that discontinuing EF-M lenses itself really shows commitment to their logical RF-S replacements. (And I'm speaking in general terms here, not in regard to specific focal lengths.) Now if they announce a couple new RF-S lenses within the next few weeks (e.g. 22mm, 32mm, 11-22mm), then it might change my opinion.

They still miss the small but powerful RF-S camera.

 

[lote82]

Well, the new lenses don't work with M bodies, so we (Canon customers) would need a new camera in order to use them. That new body isn't compatible with the other M lenses which aren't available for R yet. I didn't think it was that complicated of a point. No, I'm not expecting new M stuff. I do hope that Canon completes the R line up soon though as right now they have huge gaps compared to where they were two years ago.

Now you start fantasizing about the need of a new M body to use with M lenses. There is no need, because you can put every M lens on every M body which is already available. Very simple, not complicated.

You were stating there are no "equivalents in the R world". This is false: There are already "equivalents in the R world" for the discontinued lenses! It's roughly one year ago the first APS-C RF cameras came out. You can hardly expect the complete M lineup to be replaced in such a short time.

 

[lustyd]

Now you start fantasizing about the need of a new M body to use with M lenses. There is no need, because you can put every M lens on every M body which is already available. Very simple, not complicated.

You were stating there are no "equivalents in the R world". This is false: There are already "equivalents in the R world" for the discontinued lenses!
It's roughly one year ago the first APS-C RF cameras came out. You can hardly expect the complete M lineup to be replaced in such a short time.

Can't tell if you're a bot or not.

RF-S lenses don't work with M bodies because they have different mounts. This means that, having discontinued the M version of the lens, an M6ii user CANNOT use those lenses. If that M6ii user buys an R body (which they can't, because there isn't an M6ii type camera available in RF mount) then they can use those two lenses but they CANNOT use the ones which are still only available on the M system.

Got all that? It's really not that hard to grasp.

 

[DhlcadR6]

But then I'm currently thinking if I should get the RF100-400 or RF100-500 for the big body for more reach in some situations.

That EF 70-300mm (112-480 on the M) would cover about the same range at less costs and less space in my bag. And it would leave the big cam free with another lens for a closer range I already own (while I don't own any closer lenses in the M system).

So maybe getting the EF 70-300 and the adapter for the small cam is an option to think about. Thanks for that input.

@OskarB What advantages does the EF-S 55-250 IS STM have over the M variant? I know the M is rather soft, even worse with mechanical shutter and has the occasional IS hiccups, is all this solved with the EF-S? Maybe also something to consider, if it fits the case I use for the small setup.

And like with the Nikon 1 before I consider investing in a dead system.

As a happy RF100-400 user... I'm going to recommend this lightweight, affordable powerhouse to every RF user. EF 100-400L and RF100-500L(and equivalents in E/Z/L mount) aren't capable in low light anyway. Why not take the light one with decent enough image quality. It's only worse than EF 100-400L II and RF100-500.

 

[entoman]

a) They can't sell lenses that they don't produce, and right now the line-up of RF-S lenses is pretty dismal compared to what we've had in EF-M.
b) The advantages of a common mount as a practical matter aren't what they seem. The idea is that you can have a compact and/or low cost system today and an upgrade path that preserves your investment. But the fact is that those are really competing objectives. If you invest in RF-S lenses you can get compact and maybe lower cost equipment today, but if you do move to a full-frame later you're really going to want to replace your RF-S lenses, because not only are they not going to let your full-frame act like a full-frame, but unless your new full-frame camera has a much higher resolution sensor than the APS-C camera you're migrating from, your RF-S lenses will give you poorer results (i.e. less detail) than they did on your APS-C camera. This makes the ability to use an RF-S lens on a full frame camera not much more than a gimmick. On the other hand, if you do have a plan to eventually "upgrade" to a full-frame when you buy your APS-C camera, and so you only buy RF lenses and avoid RF-S, you'll be able to take your lenses with you and you'll probably be happy with them when you do, but you may not have as many lenses to use with your APS-C camera, because they'll be more expensive than equivalent RF-S versions would be, and you'll never get to enjoy the benefits of a compact camera system.

a) is just a matter of time. If the new APS-C cameras sell well, I'm confident that Canon will respond with more RF-S lenses. I fully accept the advantages of a true compact system, and as I said, I'm disappointed that Canon is killing off the M series. But Canon has decided otherwise so there's no point in any of us moaning about it after the horse has bolted.

b) yes, I accept the logic of your argument. People *will* end up buying new full frame RF lenses if they upgrade. The point is that Canon will promote the RF mount as an upgrade path, and buyers will fall for it. RF-S lenses can be used on full frame bodies in crop mode, but it's really just a stepping stone to save money in the short term, before moving up to "proper" full frame lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I was surprised that Canon made APS-C R bodies, but in retrospect it makes sense.

In large part, my opinion was based on the fact that Canon chose to make the RF mount incompatible with EF-M. To me, that suggested the ‘upgrade path’ they had for APS-C to FF DSLRs was not taken by enough people to be meaningful and justified eliminating it. That surprised me, but I knew Canon had the data to drive the decision.

Turned out I was being shortsighted – the upgrade path is important, they just kept the very successful M line going until they chose to establish it for the R line.

The data do show that most ILC purchases are ‘one and done’ – people buy a body with kit lens(es) and that’s it. If they buy again, it’s another body with kit lens(es) several years later. That trend is supported by the replacement of the M50 kit with the R10 kit as Canon’s best seller on on BCN’s list (I expect the R50 will take over, maybe it already has).

As always, Canon knows the market better than anyone here.

 

[lote82]

I think you're being purposefully obtuse here. It's obvious that M6 doesn't have an R equivalent, and it's obvious that not all of the M lenses have equivalents in the R lineup. What's so hard for you to understand here, there is no complete compact system from Canon right now because they discontinued most of one and have yet to release most of the other. Nothing false about my statement at all.

There are several options (R50, R10, R7) already available. For ME the equivalent would be the R7. Obviously for you not. I guess(!) you are missing the detachable viewfinder option of the M6. Maybe you should be a litte more precise with your statements otherwise people have to guess what your point is.

I think there will also be bodies with detachable viewfinder in the future RF lineup. I guess it's just not prioritized by Canon (maybe because of market research?). But again: After one year you can't expect having a full lineup of every body/lens which fits every customer needs.

 

[lustyd]

Turned out I was being shortsighted – the upgrade path is important, they just kept the very successful M line going until they chose to establish it for the R line.

I always find it curious in this industry what people see as an upgrade. The R3 might be the most expensive camera in the range, but it's not an upgrade for an M6ii by any stretch of the imagination, it's a completely different tool. This drives a lot of wrong assumptions in my eyes, most notably around small cameras being entry level and needing to be cheap. There is absolutely room in the market for a compact body with better features, bigger isn't necessarily better.
If canon want me to upgrade they would need to make better lenses in a compact form factor, and better bodies to match. They don't, the M6ii was pretty much the pinnacle of what I could buy.

 

[lustyd]

There are several options (R50, R10, R7) already available. For ME the equivalent would be the R7. Obviously for you not. I guess(!) you are missing the detachable viewfinder option of the M6. Maybe you should be a litte more precise with your statements otherwise people have to guess what your point is.

I think there will also be bodies with detachable viewfinder in the future RF lineup. I guess it's just not prioritized by Canon (maybe because of market research?). But again: After one year you can't expect having a full lineup of every body/lens which fits every customer needs.

Go on then, how will you use one of the compact M lens models which have not yet been released as RF-S with your R10 body? for instance RF-S 11-22. Oh, can't, doesn't exist.

 

[entoman]

One press release of "M Dead, RF-S replaces every lens and body would have been too quick for them, but it would have given people a viable option for something to buy. As it stands the only option for this has a Sony badge on it.

I've got nothing against Sony, but don't kid yourself that they are the only compact alternative to Canon.

OM Systems have the superb OM 1 and a very complete set of very high quality compact lenses. Image quality will match Sony APS, and features such as hand-held hi-res arguably negate the need for an upgrade path to FF. There's also Panasonic M43 and Fujifilm APS-C systems.

IF you are a Canon M user (??) and if you want to stay with Canon, you've got 2 choices - either *keep* the excellent M cameras and lenses, or switch to the slightly less compact RF crop bodies. If you choose the latter path, and if Canon doesn't currently produce the RF-S lenses you want, you'll just have to be patient - just like the rest of us who are very happy with our RF bodies and lenses, but would be even happier if Sigma and Tamron lenses were available for them to fill the few remaining gaps in the RF system.

At the end of the day, there's little point in complaining. Canon has made certain decisions and we all have to live with them. If you don't wish to stay with Canon, there are plenty of other brands to choose from. Canon won't be bothered by losing a few customers, overall, they'll grow market share, not lose it.

 

[lote82]

Go on then, how will you use one of the compact M lens models which have not yet been released as RF-S with your R10 body? for instance RF-S 11-22. Oh, can't, doesn't exist.

Easy: I attach my Sigma EF 10-20 f3.5 with an EF-RF adapter on my R7.

Let me guess again: Not small enough for YOUR needs! For me (and many others) it is.

Please don't make your personal problem to a general one.

 

[entoman]

I think there will also be bodies with detachable viewfinder in the future RF lineup.

I'll be surprised if that's the case. Detachable EVFs were, IMO, an experiment that failed. I don't imagine that many were sold as accessories, and most of those that were sold as part of a kit, were probably either lost or ended up in a cupboard never used.

 

[lustyd]

I do realise Sony isn't the only other option, the point was just that Canon no longer have a complete compact system available to buy, which is an odd decision. Personally I'll be keeping my M6ii for a while. I tried a Sony and hated the interface so came back to Canon.

There's nothing wrong with complaining - if Canon are smart they'll read forums to find out what people are thinking.

 

[kmrahe]

The data do show that most ILC purchases are ‘one and done’ – people buy a body with kit lens(es) and that’s it. If they buy again, it’s another body with kit lens(es) several years later.

That made it frustrating to watch "experts" in places like Canon's own forums over the last year recommend to newbies looking for a low-cost system that they get a T7 rather than an M50 because "EF-M is dead." In many cases they were consigning those folks to five or ten years or more of using old and limited technology rather than the latest mirrorless technology, for no benefit other than the ability to use lenses they might acquire (beyond the kit lens) with another camera should they ever decide to upgrade down the road.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I always find it curious in this industry what people see as an upgrade. The R3 might be the most expensive camera in the range, but it's not an upgrade for an M6ii by any stretch of the imagination, it's a completely different tool. This drives a lot of wrong assumptions in my eyes, most notably around small cameras being entry level and needing to be cheap. There is absolutely room in the market for a compact body with better features, bigger isn't necessarily better.
If canon want me to upgrade they would need to make better lenses in a compact form factor, and better bodies to match. They don't, the M6ii was pretty much the pinnacle of what I could buy.

Honestly, it sounds like you should consider Fuji. Their strategy is the ‘high-end’ APS-C market (quite likely because Canon is not going after that segment).