Stop me from buying an M6 Mk ii before Canon stops the M line

Alan WF wrote:

Jethro B-UK wrote:

MAC wrote:

canon is not developing great crop lenses for APSc because they don’t want to Impact their FF bisiness

Then why the EF-M 32mm f/1.4?

And, similarly, why the much earlier EF-S 18-55 f/2.8?

Regards,

Alan

I'll answer both and add one more.

I've been with Canon more than 2 decades going clear back to my $2000 D30, then 10d, 30d, 40d, xt, SL1, 60d, T4i, T7i, 7dII, m6II and with three FF's, 5d, 6d, RP

that is 11 APS-c bodies and 3 FF bodies

What I have discovered over many years is that I would almost always get better IQ out of the FF's than the Crop cameras with the same EF lens.

there are a lot of factors that go into IQ, including the filter they put with the sensor

here is an example of how IQ of the very nice 35 f2 IS lens was dramatically crushed by the 60d as compared to Canon's FF

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

but then later in the phases of DSLR maturity, Canon decided to release a bone, the m32 f1.4 for M users. Bryan at the digital picture site said that some folks (like me) would by an M camera just for this one lens. He said the IQ of the 32 is on par with Canon's 200 mm f2 L costing 12 times more.

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

Why did Canon make this one off f1.4 apsc great lens that is sharp across the frame wide open?

1) because when they released the 32 f1.4 a few years back, technology was already saturated and mature, and Canon viewed the M mount as an orphan mount that would not compete with their pro offerings. There are no dual slots in M cameras, and may pros will not use M for a variety of reasons. Whereas, the 7dII camera was viewed as an event camera with dual slots and speed. The R7 will also be viewed as a pro event camera.

2) but they never gave the 7dII a m32 f1.4 lens. And they'll not give the R7 a 32 F1.4 lens. They want you to buy a pro FF RF body and use a pro FF RF lens instead.

3) Canon would NEVER make a midrange EF 50 f2 IS for my FF's as good as my EF 35 F2 IS -- because they wanted you to buy the 3x as expensive EF 50 F1.2

4) but the EF 50 f1.2 had to be stopped down to F2 to be sharp whereas the m32 f1.4 is sharp across the frame at f1.4 which is the FF equivalent of f2.2

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

therefore after years of waiting for a sharp EF 50 f2 IS that never materialized, for $1400 I bought the m6II + m32 f1.4 instead of a $1400 EF 50 f1.2

you'll have a long wait if you expect Canon to give you a RF-s 32 f1.4 for their R7 pro dual slot body

On the Canon 17-55 f2.8 EF-s - it is old in the tooth and has been discontinued by Canon

The 17-55 F2.8 had old IS, was heavy, telescoped, got dust inside, was expensive and the FF equivalent of 27 mm - 88 mm F4.5

I need a pro lens starting at 24 mm. Instead of buying weaker IQ, I bought the RP for $850 and the RF 24-105 F4L with nano focus for $899 when it was first released. This FF lens blows away the 17-55

Canon RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

will Canon give RF-s users 24 mm fov F4 this good?  No way.

Another occasional gem that Canon gave was the 55-250 stm.  I found that mine was sharper between 201mm - 250mm than my 70 -200 F2.8 L + 1.4 ext.

but canon has discontinued this gem

do you think you'll get an F5.6 lens like it for RF-s  -- no way

Canon will work to keep RF-s crop less desirable than RF Full frame -- they are competing with themselves with one mount

whereas M would have been the perfect format to develop a new m16-55 f2.8 or a new m 55 -250 f5.6 stm

time will tell, but good luck on the RF-s IQ front