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

RLight wrote:

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?

Yup.

But that Best Buy kit is no joke without a f/1.4 prime. I know as a former M50 II + 15-45 and 55-200 owner. That combo can capture the majority of moments. Besides, we have the nifty fifty. Arguably “the” budget prime to get And turns into a fierce portrait popper on crop. Rebel days all over again…

My best friend has an M50 with the 15-45 and he manages to create pretty cool images with his kit.

Canon do not need to come with anything revolutionary, they already have a collection of sweet M lenses, why not simply adapt them to RF mount? lots of people will be happy.

Foskito wrote:

RLight wrote:

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?

Yup.

But that Best Buy kit is no joke without a f/1.4 prime. I know as a former M50 II + 15-45 and 55-200 owner. That combo can capture the majority of moments. Besides, we have the nifty fifty. Arguably “the” budget prime to get And turns into a fierce portrait popper on crop. Rebel days all over again…

My best friend has an M50 with the 15-45 and he manages to create pretty cool images with his kit.

Canon do not need to come with anything revolutionary, they already have a collection of sweet M lenses, why not simply adapt them to RF mount? lots of people will be happy.

You may get your wish. That’s the rumor (22 and 11-22 conversion this year)

RLight wrote:

Foskito wrote:

RLight wrote:

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?

Yup.

But that Best Buy kit is no joke without a f/1.4 prime. I know as a former M50 II + 15-45 and 55-200 owner. That combo can capture the majority of moments. Besides, we have the nifty fifty. Arguably “the” budget prime to get And turns into a fierce portrait popper on crop. Rebel days all over again…

My best friend has an M50 with the 15-45 and he manages to create pretty cool images with his kit.

Canon do not need to come with anything revolutionary, they already have a collection of sweet M lenses, why not simply adapt them to RF mount? lots of people will be happy.

You may get your wish. That’s the rumor (22 and 11-22 conversion this year)

And the full-frame 40mm pancake... in white

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?

Maybe Canon is waiting for a critical mass of RF-mount bodies to be sold, to be in the hands of people before they start being comfortable liberalizing their lens line up, including allowing third-party manufacturers eventually. No doubt the cost of R&D to come up with new RF bodies quite aggressively led to costs that need to be recovered, hence the perceived "protection" of the RF FF bodies / sales.

I have an R7 and only one RF-S lens (18-150mm, which is very good btw). The rest of my lenses are RF and EF, with the exception of a Tamron 60mm Macro with EF-S mount, which I can use on both the R7 and the R6Mii. It does not make my R7 feel terribly constrained or lacking options. Do I wish there are more native lenses? Of course, it's always good to have more choices. But right now, I can wait - partly because the other backup body I have is a Sony which gives me access to a slew of proprietary and third-party lenses.

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Martin_99 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

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? 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.

So the only reason to buy Canon is for the third party lenses? I must be a fool as I’ve been using Canon bodies and lenses and have been very impressed with their performance.

You seems confused. Topic is about apsc RF lenses.

3rd party AF lenses are not even allowed on RF mount.

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.

So what’s your gripe? That in less than a year Canon hasn’t yet offered a complete lineup of APS-c lenses and if anyone buys Canon they are just doing it because it was once a great name?

Maybe the workers at Canon are busting but to do the best they can to deliver what they can.

And just because Sigma or Fuji can do something at this time does not mean Canon can do it too ?

Maybe Canon blew the R+D money on focus features and have none left for lens R+D at this time ?

There is going to be a huge demand for made in Japan camera tech ?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/business/australia-chinese-cameras/index.html

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?

Yes, I agree. If we’ll see some primes at all they will be no faster than 2.8.

I am in the market for a crop (maybe even FF) sensor system.

What I see is that Nikon and Canon both lack wide angle lenses for APS-c.

For Canon the 16mm f/2.8 might be considered an APS-c lens, because it's corners are soft on FF and it is rather small, and that is only 25-26mm FF equivalent; the zoom lenses begin at 29mm equiv.

Nikon lenses start with 24mm equiv, right.

But where are the lenses, zoom or prime, in the 10-15mm (15 - 24mm FF) range?

The EOS R 7, 10 and 50 is a very well thought out choice of crop sensor bodies, other than the Nikon Z50, Zfc and Z30.

In this Canon can only compared to Sony with the A6100, A6400 and A6600, where we both have UWA lenses and excellent AF.

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Martin_99 wrote:

There is no reason to be offended. I'm just describing my experience. I see the question relatively often online. Eg. "Should I buy R7 or R10?" Did you consider other brands like Fuji or Sony? "Not interested, I'm used to Canon" or something like that.

You seem to imply that the R7 and R10 aren’t good products that are worth considering. I’m sure Fuji and Sony are fine products but the Canon stuff definitely is good stuff, don’t be fooled.

What he means is simply that other than kit lenses or primes for FF there isn't much to grow into, if they want a versatile solution that can cover wide indoors and do some decent portraiture, without ever changing lenses. Entry level users do not "generally" like to change lenses.

Non-birders might want an f2.8 zoom because they're practical to use. I had one on my Nikon APS-C (and FF) cameras, I had one on my Sony APS-C cameras, now I have the Tamron 28-200 because it's just that good, but the principle is the same.

A lens that is fast enough for indoors, wide enough for landscape, and long enough for portraits has a very strong appeal. That's your usual 17-55 f2.8 or so.

I hope Canon will provide it, because the current APS-C bodies really do deserve it, and with a mount so large, some very good design is possible.

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?

I feel like FF camera manufacturers have a big "badlands" between low end user town and high end user town.

Their phisolophy is giving you good cameras that work well but if you want larger aperture lenses (specially zooms) you need to spend alot of money (I have no doubt that a wide angle RFs will come btw).

This is less perceived on Sony FF because of great and cheap third party lenses, but higher end Sony lenses are not cheap. Sony's higher end is not cheap for APS-C aswell.

But at least on Sony APS-C you have a billion options, also thanks to third party; three standards f2.8 zooms, 10 or so primes f1.8 or faster, I mean... 11,13,15 and 16 all super sharp and faster than f2, for wide angles only. But for some reason they update the bodies once every 4 years or so, and not massive updates either (so far), almost... firmware updates.

This picture shows why APS-C specific designs are important, that's a micro four thirds on the right:

I think that if the price barrier in upgrading lenses wasn't so massive, people might get more engaged with the concept of changing lenses and "hooked" on camera gear developing GAS 

I don't think that Canon wants to protect the full frame segment specifically, it's simply that most camera manufacturers don't offer much in terms of "middle of the road" solutions when it comes to lenses, it's either cheap-ish, or it's pro.

And it's in that middle of the road that third party makers thrive, offering products that are 80% as good as brand's higher end and often around half of the price. Then they have their own special top designs like the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 but they are rare.

Somebody said Canon did not have f2.8 zooms for EF-S...? I remember Tamron's 17-50, Sigma 17-50 and their own 17-55, for EF-S.

I totally could have been a customer for the Canon R7, because I hated the Sony APS-C bodies, and I like how Canikon APS-C handles, but without lenses... it wasn't possible. FF Canikon, neither.

I'm not the person to spend 2k or so on each zoom, I find Tamron/Samyang options to be good enough, so I went Sony FF, but only because Canikon didn't give me any option.

BBR5 wrote:

I don't know Canon's view of APS-c, but I consider APS-c a good fit for only four uses. I consider FF a better option for uses that fall outside the confines of these categories.

1) Smallest possible size/weight ILCs

2) Lower cost ILCs

3) Macro Use (increased DOF)

4) Wildlife/Increased Reach

The R50 and R10 are options that address the first and second market/uses. All of Canon's three APS-c bodies can be used for the third and fourth categories, but the R7 is seemingly aimed more specifically at the fourth category.

Most of the buyers in the first two categories are going to be satisfied with only a few lens options. Users in the third category are a fairly small market and FF lenses are a reasonable option, so not many APS-c specific lenses are really needed here. Similarly, users in the fourth category are fairly well served with FF lenses since there is little to be gained in size/weight/cost with APS-c super telephotos.

So, I see little point in a large selection of APS-c lenses. But as I said, I don't know Canon's view of the APS-c market.

The extra MP count of the R7 would be very helpful for macro, but I agree its main use is #4 and full-frame lenses are perfect for that camera.

Based on points #1 and #2, we might never see dedicated fast APSC primes.