R8 is Full Frame; R50 succeeds the M50?

Foskito wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

JustUs7 wrote:

Nunataks wrote:

JustUs7 wrote:

Nunataks wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Nunataks wrote:

Canon is killing me with these lenses! f/5-7.1 for an APS-C telezoom? WHATS THE POINT?

Size and cost. Go and buy the 70-200mm f/4, you know you want to.

See that argument doesn't work because Canon already used to have a small and light 55-250mm for APS-c over 10 years ago. They're not only not innovating - they're going backwards!

Older lenses needed f/5.6 to focus on the the APS-C bodies they were designed for. But they often needed to step down for max sharpness.

I think you’ll be shocked at how small this is compared to the old 55-250. And it’ll be sharp wide open. And focusing directly on the sensor, the small loss of light won’t compromise capability.

I am aware why they needed to be designed for f/5.6 focusing - but guess what these new lenses are going to require software correction to be even usable wide open, whereas the old 55-250 really was not that bad at 250mm f/5.6. Stop apologizing for Canon being cheap and lazy.

I’m not apologizing for anything. Some folks don’t seem to realize that not every new release is for them. My wife absolutely loves the small form factor of her M kit. The 18-150 is smaller than my RF 35. The 55-200 is no bigger than the 18-150. Both are half the size of the 55-250.

Exactly. It's really amazing that some people seem to take Canon releasing lenses they don't want as a personal affront. It's also amazing how reluctant people can be to even try to see things from other perspectives, simply assuming that their own preferences must be universal. I owned the EF-S 18-135 STM, and now own both the EF-M 18-150 and RF-S 18-150. The 18-150 lenses are shorter, and much lighter than the 18-135, and slightly better optically. They are also a little slower at the long end (just 1/3 stop). And as for lenses needing software correction, well, we use software already to process images (all digital images). The only thing that matters is the final result. I have the RF 16 F2.8, which requires extensive digital correction. But when I process images from that lens with Lightroom or DXO Photolab, I get great results (especially with PL6). It's also amazingly small, light, and cheap. I definitely don't want a bigger, heavier, more expensive 16mm lens, just so it doesn't require as much correction in RAW conversion. Others have different preferences, and that's fine. I see Canon taking advantage of advanced software capabilities to produce smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses as a really good thing. I also see them taking advantage of advanced mirrorless AF capabilities, which AF down to F22, to produce smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses with slow apertures (for those who want them), as a truly innovative move. No one is forcing anyone to buy these lenses. I really don't understand the need people have to whine and moan and gnash their teeth about these things. Just don't buy them, if you don't like them.

People complaining about lenses needing digital correction do not know that even the $7000 Leica Q also needs a pretty strong digital correction to deliver superior IQ and no one is complaining about it. If it is digital correction or analog who cares as long as the result is good?

Lots of folks talk-trash Canon cameras and lenses and I would bet most haven't used them. As I said earlier my chunky RF 35mm focus at 15cm vs 30cm of the twice expensive long and ugly Nikkor, has IS and it is pretty sharp wide open. I love it and use it daily for my work and wouldn't trade it for the Nikkon.

Saying that I also think Canon could innovate a little and bring new things to the table., taking some risks won't hurt. Those new ultra-slow zooms are nothing special.

Perhaps an f/2 full-frame standard zoom. Or a stereo fisheye for VR.  Or a £300 16mm f/2.8. Or a couple of super tele lenses under £1000. The list is endless.