RF-S Lenses - What We Know and What is Rumored

R2D2 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

koenkooi wrote:

A straight-through adapter like the EF-RF adapter is not possible, but an adapter with optics like the FD-EF mount adapter is possible. And like the FD-EF one, it will be expensive, huge and only there for Canon to say "See, you could if you wanted to!"

None of the EF-M lenses is worth going to this effort and expense. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Right, not adapted. However I’d LOVE to see several more of the EF-M lenses replicated in RF-S mount!

For instance the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 is simply without peer. Small, fast, and extremely sharp even at f/1.4; it’s always in my bag. And the outstanding EF-M 11-22 is absolutely the best crop UWA zoom Canon has ever made.

And if Canon could also duplicate the marvelous Sigma EF-M 16mm f/1.4 and EF-M 56mm f/1.4 lenses I’d be ecstatic. They are excellent wide open as well, and with the 32, outperform all of their entry-level RF “counterparts” (which I do own as well).

Plus there’s the ever-popular EF-M 22mm f/2 pancake. Which I personally would rather see as a contemporary designed f/1.4 (to complement the other fast primes).

I also really love my (excellent) copies of the standard EF-M kit lenses (15-45 and 18-55). Best of all the mid focal length kit lenses I’ve ever owned.

So IMHO if Canon really wanted to get serious with crop RF, they’d do well to continue to port over the already existing EF-M lineup. I’d be easy. Heck, I’d buy them all!

R2

The only Canon EF-M lenses that I don't want to see ported over are the 55-i didn't e200mm and 18-55mm. I think Canon needs to design the 55-200mm lens from scratch or use the EF-S 55-250mm as a base. I also think there will be just a few RF-S primes because Canon would rather offer FF lenses in place of them which makes sense to me.

There are some regular posters who have actually done quite well with their EF-M 55-200 lenses (I’ve seen their pics). It has the added bonus of being truly tiny.

However like you, I’ve always preferred the EF-S 55-250 myself. I even have a modded version that accepts a 1.5x TC, for even more reach. Can’t do that with a 55-200!

There are actually a goodly number of existing EF and EF-S lenses that work quite well adapted to RF(-S). In fact I can hardly wait for the day when my beloved M6 Mark II (and its tilting LCD) gets ported over to R! It’ll complement my R7 very nicely IMHO. And I’ll be adding lenses specifically for that body. Hint hint Canon

I don't think the 55-200mm is a bad lens. It is just a meh lens like the EF-M 18-55mm and the EF-M 18-150mm. I have had the EF-S 55-250mm for a number of years and used it heavily. It just delivers very good IQ and sharpness. Its only Achilles's Heel is the STM focusing for faster moving targets. Otherwise, it punches way above its weight class. Much more so than the EF-M 55-200mm based on the images from it that I have seen posted here and elsewhere.

IMO, the best value lens Canon has produced that I have used in the digital age is the EF-S 18-55mm f/4.0-5.6. I got one for $87 shipped from HK when the SL2 came out for video use. I was shocked at how good this lens is for stills use. It is tack sharp everywhere with very good IQ. Add in that it is very small and lightweight made me use it far more than I expected for those times I wanted a small lightweight package.

One thing I will say about the EF-S trifecta of the 10-18mm, 18-55mm f/4.0-5.6 and the 55-250mm is they delivered very good IQ/sharpness. Along with a wide 16-400mm range at great price points while being small and lightweight. I paid a total of just over $400 for these three great lenses with the 55-250mm costing just $125 used. It is almost worth it to get the R10 just to recycle these lenses.