M6 Mark 2 vs R7

nnowak wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Full-frame RF mount is definitely Canon's future.

RF-s would be the third time around for Canon APS-C lenses though. We had 24 EF-s lenses (of which 9 were 18-55mm) over 13 years (3 at launch, 7 in the first year, but that includes the first four 18-55mm lenses). We had 8 different EF-M lenses over 6 years (2 at launch, 3 in the first year). We now have two RF-s lenses; one that looks suspiciously like a slightly revised EF-M lens, the other is an 18-45mm with a lower specification than any EF-s or EF-M zoom. I'm not expecting a rich and interesting range of RF-s lenses, I think Canon will continue their trend.

You are conveniently ignoring all of the small and inexpensive full frame RF lenses that make perfect sense on a crop camera.

• 16mm f/2.8

I own it - Canon's MTF plot makes it look even better for crop than it is for FF, but size and price are the reasons I use APS-C, and the R10 and R7 miss those points quite spectacularly. That's why I'm not tempted by the Sigma 16mm. I really, really want a 32Mpx M300 as a small companion to the EOS R.

• 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS

Sent it back the day after I received it. The coma and astigmatism made it worse for stars on the EOS R than my 21mm f/1.4 on the M100.

• 50mm f/1.8

Some day, when my 30 year old EF lens dies. I'd prefer a 62mm on APS-C though, but I find 58mm to 90mm quite hard to use on FF.

• 85mm f/2.0

I prefer my 100mm f/2.

• 100-400mm f/5.6-8.0

My other Canon RF lens, but I wouldn't describe those last two as particularly small and inexpensive full frame RF lenses. They cost £670 & £700 here.

None of those lenses costs more than $600, and most of them would require adapting an old EF lens to get something similar in the M system.