Canon’s future RF bodies

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 3,705
Re: EF-M vs RF crop

lawny13 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Trapped.... might be the wrong word. Nevertheless, when upgrading from M to RF your M-lenses can't be used on the new camera.

Same is true when you've bought ef-s lenses for your aps-c dslr.

Only EF lenses are fully compatible with both RF and aps-c dslrs. However, same is true for M. I am using my EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art on both my M50 and my R, and these lenses are really useful on both systems. So aps-c dslr and M are in the same boat, really. A lot of people don't realize this as they find EF lenses to big to mount on the compact M system, whereas with aps-c dslr it isn't going to be compact anyway. This doesn't take away the fact the upgrade path compared to coming from ef-s isn't less compatible than coming from M.

Not quite the case EF-S lenses will fit on an RF mount camera with the existing adapters. The camera sees them and switches to crop mode. TS-E MP-E work as well.

That all EF, TS-E, MP-E and EF-S lenses are supported by the RF mount is excellent, facilitating the incorporation of an RF-mount camera into an existing Canon kit. While EF-S lens are not typically optimal for full frame cameras, the adapter accepts these lenses and the R-series cameras automatically switch to crop mode with such in use.

Given the inherent design

There wasn't any additional design needed as there's no flipping mirror in the way in a mirrorless camera.

of RF allowing EF-S suggests that at some point during RF planning and design stages, EF-S was considered and the possibility of using crop sensors on that mount.

I consider the possibility to mount ef-s on RF as a stop gap for cropped video modes, and nothing more than that. In my opinion you just bought the wrong camera or the wrong lens when you want to use crop glass on a full frame sensor. For video you should have bought a camera without the crop limits or a more affordable aps-c camera, and for stills your wasting your expensive sensor surface and resolution on a too cheap lens.

But you're right, it can be done, so there's a difference.

When I was on crop sensor (70D) I would buy EF-S lenses whenever possible. For example a 24-70 just didn't make more sense than a 18-135 or 18-55. Lets not forget that the FL matches between FF and crop isn't exactly ideal. It is different when you get longer glass, but from the wide to normal ranges it is not ideal.

So when I first started with photography read a lot about it. And the upgrade path was something many talked about. So I thought.... yep eventually I will go FF so I will get FF glass.

Ya... that didn't happen except when absolutely needed. I had borrowed my friends' FF lenses and such, and it was definitely not convenient for the most part (except longer glass). I mean why pay as much as you have to for a 16-35 to put it on crop over the 18-55?? If you want wide you would go for the EF-S 11-22 instead for example. For me at least I came to agree that the upgrade path was essentially a myth. I bought my EF-S glass, end a few primes (which were indeed FF) and eventually when I went FF I just got FF glass instead.
As far as I am concerned the whole crop body with upgrade path is just plain not as straight forward as many say. Sure you can get a FF body and place crop lenses on it and basically make the while FF experience pointless, since you end up with a worse than your crop body IQ and performance (generalizing). And unless you are a long lens shooter or really love sticking with primes those FF lens FLs don't exactly match what you want on crop. Look at the 24-70 f4 L for example. It is huge compared to the 18-55. Or look at the 16-35 f4 L compared to the 18-55.
Sure those on DPR, and really into photography can see reasons for it. But for the first 3 years of photography for me, I would have not opted to buying any of the L lenses for the 70D except something like the 70-200 and 100-400. And I think that canon knows this. It was once I went FF that I became more aware and picky about lens speed, and stuff like that. Before that f1.8 on crop was more than enough in terms of DOF. It was only when I started pushing the boundaries and got better that I wanted more.

Last but not least a lot of people getting into photography just don't know if they will be willing to spend more than 1k on any photography related stuff. And FF bodies and FF lgasss are jsut expective

I think it all depends on your needs. You say a 70-200mm is nice on crop, however, i went with the sigma 50-100mm on my M50 because that wider end was really important to have in my zoom. For me 70-200 was an example FF lenses aren't ideal on crop.

A 24-70mm f/2.8 would be useful on crop for me. It would fit nice with an ef-m 11-22mm for the wider end. And recently Tamron announced a 35-150mm starting at the same field of view on FF as a 24mm on crop. If 24 isn't wide enough you'll have to change your lens. The upside: you have some more on the longer end, useful for portraits, so here it might save you some lens changes. When you've ordered your camera with a 15-45mm kitlens once, you can use that lens from 15-23mm. At the longer focal lengths the IQ upgrade is needed the most. The 24-70 f/2.8 will take care much much better for a lot of portrait work for you, and it will take care of focal lengths where the kitlens is getting really soft, and beyond those.

Furthermore the majority of aps-c standard zooms are starting at 18mm being about the same as 28mm on FF, in stead of 24mm, the ef-s 15-85mm and ef-m 15-45mm being the exceptions, those have 15mm on crop = 24 on full frame. On the other hand there is the mighty f/2.0 RF zoom starting at.........   the focal length equivalent of most aps-c standard zooms: 28mm FF = 18 on crop. Same is true for the Sony Tamron f/2.8 standard zoom.

Two prime focal lengths are really useful both on crop and full frame: 35mm and 50mm. If you're into M and you would eventually upgrade, in my opinion it makes sense to buy the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM and Sigma 50mm Art f/1.4 over the ef-m 32mm f/1.4 and Sigma 56mm f/1.4. I like the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM on full frame more, but it is an alternative for the ef-m 22mm f/2.0.  The latter isn't that much brighter (only in the very middle while it isn't really a portrait lens focal length, so dark corners are limiting) and the 24mm will give you IS, and the size is nice, even on M.

My conclusion:  the upgrade path isn't a 100% myth for everyone. It's also not a 100% solution for everyone.  It's different from lens to lens from person to person.

I didn't mention an 85mm, because 135mm is too long on full frame for me. However, others like to have 135mm in a prime, so for those this is a dual sensor size purpose lens too. Different strokes for different folks.

-- hide signature --

M for zooms, RF for primes

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M50 Canon EOS R Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +11 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow