I agree Canon will not fully support the RF APS-C subsystem. We get what we get. The focus for Canon is full frame. Canon wants to move everyone to the RF mount and the R7 is a great way to get into the RF ecosystem.
I don't know, it's difficult to say,
On paper, Sony/nikon has more options currently, I'd be surprised if Canon didn't offer the ef-m lenses for rf-s but really what are R7 users missing?
Not that much in fact, probably a dedicated wide like the ef-m 11-22 is the most urgent and then something like the 16-55 2.8. After that well there are plenty of 3rd party option for Sony e too but the a6600 is so dated it's hardly worth the effort and a6400 is cheap but again its an old design.
Bro they only have 2 RF-S lenses, both of which start at ~29mm EFL. They are missing a lot. Using FF glass on crop works but it's hardly ideal.......... more expensive and heavier for really no benefit
Sure, but lets rolls this back a bit and check the reality, especially from my perspective
1)Replace my Tamron 28-200 with the EF-S 18-150
I get the 18-150 tomorrow so will be interesting, yes its a bit slower but for walk about and casual landscape I prefer the extra dof of the aps-c plus I can now quickly in-camera stack a few images or pano and the 18-150 has better macro than the Tamron, so if it stacks up its a win, especially the ibis as the 28-200 on the a7iv its hardly the best.
2)I add the 16 2.8, that lens isn't the best on the R5, its ok but I didn't rate it, on the R7 it should be right in its sweet spot, plus, I do like 4;3 ratio and the 16 2.8 on the R7 is 25.6mm, so ever so slightly longer than 24mm but sort of in the 28mm range too which on a prime is sort of nice I find, I really liked the Panasonic 14 2.5 along with the 15 1.7 and 20 1.7 so this is where I want to be and I can have 14 2.5 and 15 1.7 pretty much with the 16 2.8 on the R7, I like this a lot and its tiny and pocketable and can be carried along with the 18-150 for a nifty 2 lens do it all
3)I add the Laowa 10mm f4 cookie, basically stop it down to f5.6 everything's in focus, it has wonderful sun-stars good resistance to flare and again is tiny, so I can basically carry the 10mm cookie pancake for uwa and its teeny-tiny, the 16 2.8 and the 18-150 for a very complete set-up.
4)The 24 1.8 macro on the face of it is expensive, but again on R7 it's quite a logical lens, at around 38mm its a tiny bit longer than the usual 35mm and a bit wider than 40mm so in some respects its quite a nice aov for a prime, the 10 and 16 above with the 24 present as a nice trio on the R7 going 16(18 4:3), 25(28 4:3), 38(43 4:3) in ever increasing speed and slightly different usage.
5)The rf 35 1.8 macro, less pricey than the 24 but also very good sharpness and again very interesting on the R7, combined with the ibis we have a lens close to the 55 1.8 fov on Sony FF, plus it can get close, much closer and its steady too, now my options are 16(18 4:3), 25(28 4:3), 38(43 4:3) and 56(63 4:3)
6) Which brings us up further to the 85mm portrait range, now the 50 1.8 is honestly a very good lens, I liked it a lot on the R5, its a bit noisy (motor) but edge sharpness will gain a lift on the R7, alternatively sonyalpha blog has review of the Meike 50 0.95, yes its manual focus but for that really dreamy bokeh might be worth a look, iq looks top notch to, now my prime options are 16(18 4:3), 25(28 4:3), 38(43 4:3) and 56(63 4:3) and 80(90 4:3) so in effect I can replicate everything I wanted on m43 but with the better iq of apc-c and also replicate most of what I need for general photography without the need to touch a FF body
7)More zooms, more macro, more options for the R7
Canon RF 70-200.4, tiny and much newer design, speed etc compared to Sony 70-200.4, 100-300 essentially on aps-c, that's a nice range
85 macro, 135 on R7, again, that's a good lens for aps-c slightly longer than Olympus 60 2.8 but faster still, built in stacking, unlike Sony too
there's the 100-400, smallest 150-600 available on aps-c, so can go anywhere, great for landscape as well combined with the 18-150 that one heck of a tele landscape pairing
Finally we have the 100-500, this lens makes so much sense for aps-c 160-800mm 4.5(7) FF) to 750(10 FF) or in 4:3 ratio, 180-850mm with the last 30mm at 7.1 in reserve for an incredible 180-900mm 4:3 ratio lens, how much is Olympus 150-400 (300-800 f9) lens?
So why the 100-500 is not cheap its going to be every bit as good as the Olympus 150-400 and offers far more flexibility and if you are an R5 and R7 user you can mix and match accordingly.
8) Whilst I'd like to have the 11-22, 22 pancake and 32 1.4 ported across and maybe Sigma's 1.4 trio, they can come later for me, I'm in no rush I can live with the currently available options which as above are more than adequate for anything I need and for many the R7 is a second body alongside the R5 to give them extra range with the 100-500 or perhaps their legacy or long tele's.
I can't see me ever returning to m43 with the above now available and I don't enjoy the a7iv anymore than I did the r5 or a1 or z7ii I guess I just don't appreciate FF, its always felt like a lot of weight for little gain and that many of the FF lenses are more practical on aps-c, especially things like 70-200's and 100-400 and now 100-500.
They need to fill in the RF-S line. UWAs like you mentioned, standard zooms that go wider, wide crop primes that are smaller + cheaper than FF ones
As is it's not something I'd want to use for a general purpose system. Some people might say crop will cannibalize FF............ better to cannibalize internally than lose customers to other brands. I do think there are people who have money to spend that don't want FF..... Canon would be wise to serve them
Well, see above, I'm not completely disagreeing with you, it would be nice to have the faster 24-70 2.8 zoom option too eg 15-50, on RF-S but I quite like the idea of the 10,16,24,35 instead and just use the 18-150.
There's also a couple of other primes which have acquitted themselves well on sonyalphablog, that new Meike 10mm f2 for asto looks special, low coma, good resistance to flare, corner to corner wide open, some effort has gone into that lens and you can tell, for low light astro and as a partner to the more general use cookie that a couple of terrific uwa's. The TT artisans and Meike both have good fisheye's too, feels like these specialist areas are getting alot of attention now as most big manufacturers focus their attention elseswhere. All in all, yes there are only 2 dedicated rf-s lenses, more will come but I'll compare the following over the weekend
Tamron 28-200 and 150-500 on A7IV
RF-s 18-150 and RF 100-500 on R7
I can tell you this already, its a lot easier to hand-hold the R7 and 100-500 than the FE 200-600 or Tamron 150-500 on the A1 or A7IV!
Canon can win many friends by fleshing out the rf-s range and they should do it quickly, but I would agree the 18-45 is not the best start, putting a plastic mount on both rf-s isn't a great idea either, that was a very poor decision Canon, don't appreciate that at all. One way to make people feel corners were cut, plastic mount!
anorcross.smugmug.com
