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

MAC wrote:

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.

Thanks for your reply. I think I agree with you, and I think I disagree too.

Canon has clearly not made EF-S or EF-M lenses or bodies (with one class of exception noted below) that are suitable for pros. If you're a pro, you need reliability, robustness, weather resistance, speed, and superb image quality. The only EF-S or EF-M products that offer these are arguably the 7D/7DII/R7, and they're tailored products for wildlife photography designed to be used with long EF/RF lenses. But, for example, there are no weather resistant EF-S or EF-M lenses. Try shooting in the rain with an M6 Mark II and a EF-M 32/1.4; the combination gives excellent image quality, but will die, die, die.

So, here we agree: if you are a pro, Canon is basically offering FF plus 7D/7DII/R7.

However, I think for amateur photographers, Canon is happy to offer great lenses that are in some ways alternatives to FF lenses, provided they are not attractive to pros. So, the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 was an great lens at the time it came out and very attractive to amateurs, perhaps enough to keep them with an EF-S body rather than moving to EF, but lacking weather resistance it was not suitable for pros. Ditto with the EF-M 32 f/1.4. If you're an amateur and it's raining, you can keep your kit snug in the bag. If you're a pro, you don't always have that option.

I think Canon look at the EF-S and EF-M lines and think that they are fine for amateurs and that any gaps can be adequately filled by adapted EF lenses. Yes, adapted EF lenses will tend to be less sharp than dedicated EF-S and EF-M lenses, but Canon think they're adequate for amateurs.

So, here we disagree, perhaps. I think Canon did develop some great lenses for EF-S and EF-M, but they were all in some way hobbled for professional use.

If I'm right, we might see something similar in RF-S, great lenses for amateurs, but not adequate for pros. For example, we might see an RF-S 32 f/1.4 comparable in image quality to the EF-M 32 f/1.4, but it won't have weather resistance or USM speed. Those will be left to the RF 50 f/1.2L.

Regards,

Alan