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

Alan WF wrote:

MAC wrote:

Alan WF wrote:

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.

you bring up some good points on usm and weather sealing

but consider this - Canon did not develop a EF-s 32 F1.4 for the 7d mark II, they gave this nugget to what they considered an orphan m mount that they predicted pros would not use

No one developed a really good, compact 28-35 mm f/1.4 for EF-S. Sigma tried, twice, for the EF-S sensor size, and they were meh. The compact Canon EF option is f/2. The better Canon and Sigma EF options at f/1.4 are huge. In this case in particular, I think that even if Canon had wanted to develop a great 30 mm f/1.4, the flange distance of EF-S might have defeated them. Consider the difference between the EF-S 24 mm f/2.8 and the EF-M 22 mm f/2; being able to place elements much closer to the sensor helps so much.

you make good points on flange distance - from a technology viewpoint - not from a market segmentation standpoint though

I've owned many of the lenses you mention in your posts

mark this post - come back years from now - and you'll see I was right

We will indeed see!

the siggy 16 f1.4, the canon 32 f1.4, the siggy 56 f1.4, the new siggy 18-50 f2.8, the canon 11-22, all show what APS-c technology is capable of

but will you see this technology on the RF mount?  I don't think Canon wants to make great APS-c lenses listed above because they want folks to spend more on FF lenses instead.  I don't think they want great apsc f1.4 lenses on their stabilized R7 body, which could potentially be so great, that it would reduce sales on their FF gear

yes, we shall see

Regards,

Alan