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

musicmaster wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Leonardo101 wrote:

Hi all,

Fascinating reading; I've been following the RF-S line up very closely too & am really disappointed with the first 2 lens releases; for me the R10 is amazing, almost the perfect camera only to be let down by really average, or dare I say boring, lenses! If Canon insist on only making 2 RFS lenses please at least make it then a bit more exciting!... Could we not have 15/16mm at the wide end & starting apertures of 2.8, even if they are variable & end up at 5.6+ at the long end? It's very limiting/frustrating/annoying to make such an amazing camera but be hampered by just the choice of two very average lenses, its massively off putting & shoots Canon in their own foot. Better designed more interesting, exciting lenses would keep people happy, engaged & more creative for much longer, get more into photography, better results & ultimately more loyal to Canon. I'd absolutely love a crop Canon mirrorless but never with these uninspiring lenses!

What's really frustrating is the design possibilities of the wide & shallow R mount, as was trumpeted at the start... Surely with crop sensors it would be even easier to design wider angled & wider aperture lenses? Canon are happy to pour millions into FF R lens R&D & engineer some phenomenal glass, but totally neglect the arguably much bigger APSC market, it's infuriating! If they did invest more it would be the ultimate feeder for the FF system.

Turned into a bit of a rant, apologies all!!

More RF-S lenses are coming. Canon did exactly the right thing with their initial offerings. Two kit zooms, one of which is actually the best wide range kit zoom available for any crop camera. Can you imagine the hyperbolic ranting and frothing, if Canon hadn't released affordable, small, light kit zooms with their first crop RF cameras? A 15/16-50 (ish) F2.8 would be much bigger, heavier, and more expensive.

The 18-45 is a joke. 3mm on the wide end loss compared to the EF-M 15-45 is huge. If it was at least 18-55 I'd understand. I'd much rather have the 16-50 on the Nikon as it has more range on both wide and tele and smaller to boot.

The only other kit lens I can think of that is that constrained range wise is the Sony 28-60, but that's at least full frame and likely the smallest FF zoom there is, and even then has a wider aperture and is the same size as the 18-45.

IMHO, the 18-45 is just a lens full of compromises and should have never been released.

If size was the main concern, Canon should have made all of their RF-S bodies IBIS (which the Fuji X-S10 manages to do for $1k) allowing them to get rid of IS on their lenses.

Canon definitely pounded the RF-S 18-45mm with their infamous cr@##le hammer by whacking 3mm off the wide end.  IMO, Canon will never make a crop RF-S lens that is too good.  It would keep crop users from buying more expensive FF lenses.  Canon likely knows that if a crop user buys enough FF lenses then they will splurge for a FF camera at some point.  A decent 15-45mm range lens would be all that most crop users would need.  In fact, I like the EF-M 15-45mm lens so much for its size and focal length I bought an M200 when Canon had a fire sale on it so I could replace my M3 to use it.  Add in that I can use the EF-M 22mm I have that collected dust for years and I am enjoying using the M200 as a highly portable small, lightweight package.  It is better than a smartphone but probably not for much longer.