Why we might never see Canon’s APS-C primes

There are 3 APSc cameras already and ZERO RF-s prime lenses or interesting zooms like the M 11-22mm. No even a roadmap to speculate.

My take is Canon does not want to create competition or risk its full-frame share.

If they produce f1.4 compact and affordable APS-c lenses, why upgrade? They had great M-mount lenses because there was no full-frame M market to risk.

They know R7 users are happy with full-frame lenses so R10 and R50 bodies are just a way to get people into the Canon ecosystem, maybe some will upgrade to full-frame, or simply keep those “Best Buy” kits for their Disney family holidays.

I believe is the exact same thinking as Nikon with their Z50, I wonder what do you think?

I'm Sony apsc user, but watching the whole mirrorless scene. I think that Canon expect apsc users to use budget fullframe lenses like 16f1.8, 24f1.8, 35f1.8, 50f1.8 etc., so I expect 0 apsc dedicated lenses to be released.

The worse is lack of f4 / f2.8 apsc zooms in my opinion. This is the reason, despite good cameras they started to offer, I will not consider Canon in the future.

How exactly does an RFs lens differ from an RF lens?

Martin_99 wrote:

I'm Sony apsc user, but watching the whole mirrorless scene. I think that Canon expect apsc users to use budget fullframe lenses like 16f1.8, 24f1.8, 35f1.8, 50f1.8 etc., so I expect 0 apsc dedicated lenses to be released.

The worse is lack of f4 / f2.8 apsc zooms in my opinion. This is the reason, despite good cameras they started to offer, I will not consider Canon in the future.

I don’t think there would be much size or cost savings in dedicated APS-C lenses, and Canon figures APS-C users might upgrade one day.

Foskito wrote:

There are 3 APSc cameras already and ZERO RF-s prime lenses or interesting zooms like the M 11-22mm. No even a roadmap to speculate.

My take is Canon does not want to create competition or risk its full-frame share.

If they produce f1.4 compact and affordable APS-c lenses, why upgrade? They had great M-mount lenses because there was no full-frame M market to risk.

They know R7 users are happy with full-frame lenses so R10 and R50 bodies are just a way to get people into the Canon ecosystem, maybe some will upgrade to full-frame, or simply keep those “Best Buy” kits for their Disney family holidays.

I believe is the exact same thinking as Nikon with their Z50, I wonder what do you think?

For me personally, I don't see the point.  How many EF-S primes were there?  3 I think (24, 35 and 60)?

I've been shooting APS-C bodies for close to 15 years now.  T3i, 60D, 77D, 80D.  I now have the R7 and R10.  All the primes I've ever used were EF or RF.  I've used plenty of EF-S zooms and they work quite well, even on my R7 and R10.  The Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 is amazing on my R7.

I'm sure Canon sees no reason to make RF-S primes, just like they say no real reason to make EF-S primes.

MarshallG wrote:

Martin_99 wrote:

I'm Sony apsc user, but watching the whole mirrorless scene. I think that Canon expect apsc users to use budget fullframe lenses like 16f1.8, 24f1.8, 35f1.8, 50f1.8 etc., so I expect 0 apsc dedicated lenses to be released.

The worse is lack of f4 / f2.8 apsc zooms in my opinion. This is the reason, despite good cameras they started to offer, I will not consider Canon in the future.

I don’t think there would be much size or cost savings in dedicated APS-C lenses, and Canon figures APS-C users might upgrade one day.

I don't agree. For example - Sigma produce both FF and apsc fast zooms for Sony. I use and like their 18-50f2.8. If don't exist I would be "forced" to use their very similar, but FF variant 28-70f2.8. So for $250 more I will get bigger and heavier lens (290g VS 470g) with missing wide focal range. Not a good deal in my opinion...

Not mentioning, that only native option on RF is $2,200, 900g RF 24-70f2.8

Foskito wrote:

There are 3 APSc cameras already and ZERO RF-s prime lenses or interesting zooms like the M 11-22mm. No even a roadmap to speculate.

Never has there been ever a roadmap in the past

My take is Canon does not want to create competition or risk its full-frame share.

I have heard that before for every XYZ that did not exist in the lineup. Wasn't this the same reasoning for why there won't ever be an APS-C R mount camera?

If they produce f1.4 compact and affordable APS-c lenses, why upgrade?

You are saying going from cropped to FF at same f-stop has no benefits? Phone cameras should be enough then

They had great M-mount lenses because there was no full-frame M market to risk.

Why make any cheaper APS-C camera or lens in the first place when they can sell the more expensive FF stuff. Yet they create a market at every price point, perhaps because many of the hypothetical sales we speculate over might never materialize

They know R7 users are happy with full-frame lenses so R10 and R50 bodies are just a way to get people into the Canon ecosystem, maybe some will upgrade to full-frame, or simply keep those “Best Buy” kits for their Disney family holidays.

The argument is old and tired, and we can beat all around it until a lens shows up and then it's gone. The rise of mirrorless, demise of M, launch of crop R mount were all not in Canon's interest, and then they suddenly were

I believe is the exact same thinking as Nikon with their Z50, I wonder what do you think?

Been around long enough to see this repeat over and over, I think it's just a way to explain things to ourselves. If that keeps us happy, sure

gmcooper wrote:

How exactly does an RFs lens differ from an RF lens?

RF-S (not RFs) lenses are designed for APS-C sensor cameras. Therefore they can draw smaller image circle. So the overall lens design can be (and usually is) smaller, lighter, cheaper while maintaining the same optical parameters as their FF equivalents.

I have heard that before for every XYZ that did not exist in the lineup. Wasn't this the same reasoning for why there won't ever be an APS-C R mount camera?

No. The point for an APS-c like the R50 is to let people into the Canon ecosystem for much less money.

pyla wrote:

gmcooper wrote:

How exactly does an RFs lens differ from an RF lens?

They are cheaper. Buying an RF lens means you are paying for larger lens elements that are not needed for crop bodies.

Sometimes I shoot on the ground then have get back up.

That is when I really like the M6II and EF-M 32mm.

That kit has never made my back hurt after shooting all day at the car show.

And that may well be the main reason I like it so much.

I really like shooting raw and have been doing Photoshop since CS2.

Love PL6 now and the M6II with the EF-M 32mm STM can deliver raw files to PL that are a lot of fun to work with !

Sometimes I think I could do with just that one lens !

Don't see why I would need anything else.

gmcooper wrote:

How exactly does an RFs lens differ from an RF lens?

An RF-S lens is designed for the APS-C “1.6x crop” sensor, so it only has to cover the diameter of the smaller sensor, which is about 5/8ths the linear dimension or about 40% of the area of a full frame sensor. Thus the lens elements can be smaller and the whole lens proportionately smaller and lighter.

An RF-S lens can be used on a full frame camera, but it automatically switches the camera to crop mode, so that it doesn’t vignette.

The 22mm f2 RF-S prime (35mm equivalent) has been strongly rumoured for some time and is highly likely, as is an RF-S version of the EF-M 11-22.  Personally I use the existing EF-S 10-18 on my R10 for an UWA zoom, it’s a very nice, small lens.

Foskito wrote:

I have heard that before for every XYZ that did not exist in the lineup. Wasn't this the same reasoning for why there won't ever be an APS-C R mount camera?

No. The point for an APS-c like the R50 is to let people into the Canon ecosystem for much less money.

A few months ago, that was the point of R10. A year or more ago, it was RP. The point of your argument is that it fits your narrative. The point for Canon may simply be that they provide a product that makes a sale which might not happen otherwise, hence products at various price points. A lot of people buy one camera and stay with it

drsnoopy wrote:

The 22mm f2 RF-S prime (35mm equivalent) has been strongly rumoured for some time and is highly likely, as is an RF-S version of the EF-M 11-22. Personally I use the existing EF-S 10-18 on my R10 for an UWA zoom, it’s a very nice, small lens.

Yes, but those rumors are more wishes than anything else. So is rumored full frame RF 40mm pancake. Agree, the 10-18 is a very nice lens.

jumpthesnark wrote:

Maybe Canon has done marketing research on their customers and they found that most people who buy APS-C bodies and dedicated lenses tend to want less expensive zooms and not fast primes?

So customers want less choices? I really doubt it. I think, that is clear their intention to protect FF products. From some reason a lot of customers are nostalgic and still buy Canon, just because the brand. At least it's what I see in my area often.

Canon is really involved with market segmentation of their own product range. They know who shops for an R3 vs an R5 vs an R6 Mk II vs an R8. The same goes for their APS-C bodies. Likewise, which lenses they buy - it's why they offer kit lenses with some bodies and not others. The answer to your question may very easily be they know their customers.

Martin_99 wrote:

jumpthesnark wrote:

Maybe Canon has done marketing research on their customers and they found that most people who buy APS-C bodies and dedicated lenses tend to want less expensive zooms and not fast primes?

So customers want less choices?

Yes. Mainly low end cameras buyers want to just buy a standard zoom and that is it. Kit lenses serve this purpise very well. They don't care to have 3 or 4 lenses.

I really doubt it. I think, that is clear their intention to protect FF products. From some reason a lot of customers are nostalgic and still buy Canon, just because the brand. At least it's what I see in my area often.

Canon is really involved with market segmentation of their own product range. They know who shops for an R3 vs an R5 vs an R6 Mk II vs an R8. The same goes for their APS-C bodies. Likewise, which lenses they buy - it's why they offer kit lenses with some bodies and not others. The answer to your question may very easily be they know their customers.