Two more Canon EF-M lenses have been discontinued
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Feel free to complain in CR but that will invite lots of responses. I think that you have received some good advice for options though.
The best place to complain is via Canon's support pages if you want them to directly receive it.
Upvote
0
Strange that CR didn't post their source for the discontinuation of the 2 lenses ie official or rumour....
Is it listed on the Canon Japan discontinuation page? I can't find the link.
Is it listed on the Canon Japan discontinuation page? I can't find the link.
Upvote
0
There wouldn't be much that APS-C R-series users are enjoying right now that M-series users don't, but in the future there certainly could be, sure. But even if that happens it doesn't mean that the M-series won't be the last offering of its type from Canon. In other words, that Canon will offer a full replacement for the M50 and its lenses at some point.
Upvote
0
It's only fairly recently that they even decided to produce crop RF bodies, and clearly their main priority until now has been to fill out the range of full frame glass (which still has several lenses "missing"). Crop bodies and lenses will always be second place for Canon, but I'd say that the launch of the R7, R10 and R50 signify that they'll now recognise a need to produce more crop glass, including a high quality kit zoom.
Upvote
0
I don't know the details of how lenses are assembled, but are there really that many parts in common between an RF lens and an RF-S lens? Maybe some elements of the mount itself and the electronics. But beyond that I don't see them being much more similar than a given EF-M lens and an RF lens.
Upvote
0
At the moment, at least some of the RF-S lenses are nothing more than ported M lenses, so there's very little extra development work going into them. Personally I think these ported lenses look a bit silly - narrow barrels trumpeting out to a larger mount look as much of a botch up as Sony's wide diameter lenses trumpeting down to their tiny diameter mount.
Canon made the decision to port lenses because it means that development times are shorter and hence the lenses can be made faster and more cheaply (although not necessarily cheaper to buy). You'd be waiting a lot longer if the RF-S lenses were all designed from scratch - and that's why there is a shortage of crop glass.
Bear in mind also that the vast majority of crop cameras are sold with a kit lens, and that most users never even consider buying extra lenses. Those of you who are demanding more crop lenses are very much in the minority, I'm afraid, and you are not a high priority segment of the market for Canon.
FWIW, many of us using full frame RF cameras also find that the lenses that we want are not a high priority. Several people here including me have been begging Canon to produce a 180mm or 200mm stabilised macro, but we ain't a high priority segment either
Upvote
0
True.
"for every interchangeable-lens digital camera, 1.6 units of interchangeable lenses were shipped in 2022" -CIPA
Upvote
0
I hate to break it to you but the M6 II did not sell all that well.
The M50 did hence the R50.
I am hoping for an R100 but that would not replace an M100.
Canon could quite easily put the R7 in a smaller body with an optional EVF.
I really hope they do but I do not expect that they will.
Upvote
0
I have no idea how Canon released the R50 without that lens.
Also, the kit lens is 18-45 as opposed to the 15-45 kit lens for the M50.
The R50 is still selling well but it deserves and desperately needs a UWA lens.
Upvote
0
Plus a lot of those were 2 lens kits.
That was how I bought my first Canon digital ILC.
Upvote
0
The entire goal of the M line was to be compact.
That is not the goal of the R line.
Although, the R50 is pretty much the same size as the M50.
Unfortunately, the lenses will not be as small, at least not without compromises.
Upvote
0
FWIW, many of us using full frame RF cameras also find that the lenses that we want are not a high priority. Several people here including me have been begging Canon to produce a 180mm or 200mm stabilised macro, but we ain't a high priority segment either
I want a 12mm, but I'm not holding my breath
Upvote
0
I'm not sure. So far, the RF-S lenses have had the same design principal as EF-M and have been standard diameter, albeit with a flare for the massive mount. If they continue with that, and release more compact bodies they'll get back. I agree though, there is definitely a compromise in there due to the mount.
Upvote
0
Slow autofocus at launch and the artificial video length limit killed it as it was up against Sony for video who do very fast AF with some other tricks. It did still sell extremely well though in spite of this underdog position. If they make an R version and don't choose to cripple it with software I think they'd take some of Sony's lead back in this area. Unfortunately Sony are the cool kid right now, but their interface absolutely sucks so it would be nice to see Canon choose to stay in the video market with a compact form factor
Upvote
0
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
I find it absolutely l bizarre that there's folks in here arguing that RFS is fine where it is or at least that's what I think I'm reading.
The RFS lineup is embarrassing to say the least. The lens formulas have been downgraded, there are sinkholes where they are missing lenses, and Canon is taken their sweet time about it.
Where exactly are the positives? What good is autofocus when your lenses are crap.
Then I'm seeing comments about putting on those cheap trashy low end FF lenses like the 16 mm 2/8 to replace what's missing on RFS. That's just nutty, the lens itself is not even great. I myself have no problem adapting EF lenses on my M bodies. But those are good EF lenses musing. Seeing recommendations for bottom of the barrel Canon FF lenses is crazy. I guess it's something if you don't care about quality at all.
If there was anyone waiting for RFS to replace thier M kit it was me. I studied the potential for the r10 and r50 up and down as they were released and afterwards. But for my compact kit set which essentially revolves around 22 f2 and the 11 to 22, RFS does not offer much at all unless I really like dark cheap lenses. So it's impossible to transition.
Really just don't understand the defense of one of the most embarrassing lens lineups in the industry. Reducing the quality of even the basic lens designs which were fine for many is really just rubbing salt into the wounds. And with Canon deciding that Ibis was going to be exclusive to higher end cameras, it's yet another unfortunate decision that had me looking elsewhere for a new compact kit.
But that kit doesn't exist for nikon, So Sony would be the only place I could even look when I'm ready. It's a shame.
End of the day RFS users are in a really terrible scenario until Canon changes it. How long they are going to let this embarrassing land situation play itself out, who knows. You can always hope right? Usually customers have timelines for the purchases and right now Canon does not have an equivalent replacement kit for existing M users. Slipping in some adapted FF lenses to fill in the gaps is just nonsense.
The RFS lineup is embarrassing to say the least. The lens formulas have been downgraded, there are sinkholes where they are missing lenses, and Canon is taken their sweet time about it.
Where exactly are the positives? What good is autofocus when your lenses are crap.
Then I'm seeing comments about putting on those cheap trashy low end FF lenses like the 16 mm 2/8 to replace what's missing on RFS. That's just nutty, the lens itself is not even great. I myself have no problem adapting EF lenses on my M bodies. But those are good EF lenses musing. Seeing recommendations for bottom of the barrel Canon FF lenses is crazy. I guess it's something if you don't care about quality at all.
If there was anyone waiting for RFS to replace thier M kit it was me. I studied the potential for the r10 and r50 up and down as they were released and afterwards. But for my compact kit set which essentially revolves around 22 f2 and the 11 to 22, RFS does not offer much at all unless I really like dark cheap lenses. So it's impossible to transition.
Really just don't understand the defense of one of the most embarrassing lens lineups in the industry. Reducing the quality of even the basic lens designs which were fine for many is really just rubbing salt into the wounds. And with Canon deciding that Ibis was going to be exclusive to higher end cameras, it's yet another unfortunate decision that had me looking elsewhere for a new compact kit.
But that kit doesn't exist for nikon, So Sony would be the only place I could even look when I'm ready. It's a shame.
End of the day RFS users are in a really terrible scenario until Canon changes it. How long they are going to let this embarrassing land situation play itself out, who knows. You can always hope right? Usually customers have timelines for the purchases and right now Canon does not have an equivalent replacement kit for existing M users. Slipping in some adapted FF lenses to fill in the gaps is just nonsense.
Upvote
0
Definitely try before you buy. It never even occurred to me to check it had touchscreen menus before I bought a ZV1. It had great reviews, people talked as if it was the perfect compact camera, why would I check something Canon has done for years?
It sucked. Hard. I bought a G7 x iii and have not used the Sony since. The worst part is that the screen is a touch screen, they just don't let you use it for anything useful!
Upvote
0
