Why no more Gold ring lenses?

[Kayaker72]

Like I might be better off just finally ditching APS-C and moving to the R6 or something.

So their plan is working perfectly....


Hey Alex....

This gets to be a bit tricky to answer as you bring up a lot of questions. Starting with the fundamental premise, my belief is that Canon simply did not make the revenue they needed to justify continuing the higher end EFs lenses. I started off with the EFs 15-85, which is still a favorite of mine for the focal length.

But, in a way, they did continue to make amazing APS-C lenses, but you had to look at the EF-m 32 mm f/1.4 (stellar lens, lives on my M6II) or the EF-m 11-22. Because of the latter, I would not sell the RF-s 10-18 short. I haven't checked lens groups, etc, but the rumor was that the RF-s 10-18 was going to be based on the EF-m 11-22, and if so, it will be a great lens.

Plastic. Its funny, but I'd say that there is plastic...then there is plasticy. I hope the RF-s 10-18 is Canon plastic and not plasticy. Bottom line is that most of Canon's wide/ultra wide angle lenses are now made of a very high quality "plastic". Even a number of EF "L" series lenses were, as I recall the 100 f/2.8 L macro being the first. I've own that lens for a decade plus, no issue on its construction. I am pretty sure the EF 16-35 f/4 L, EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II, EF 85 f/1.4 L IS are all made from the same material, which is an extremely high quality plastic. But, they do not feel plasticy at all. Hopefully the same is true with the EFs 10-18.

Gold ring. Looking at photos of the gold ring, the EFs 17-55, it actually said "Ultrasonic" on it. A 70-300 lens I bought in the 1990's for a film camera has the same gold ring. There was a point where Canon hyped their Ultrasonic motors. I think that time has passed.

But, getting back to your original premise, Canon has under served the APS-C market with premium lenses. My belief has been that they are using that system as a gateway to FF and the L series of lenses. Hence, the joke I led off with. I think their intent is actually to make money, which is common for businesses. So, they have many different offerings and if you look at one or two you may not see a complete picture, but generally, they have FF cameras that range from entry level to elite. They have FF lenses that range from entry level to elite. They have APS-C cameras that skew toward entry level, in fact stair step nicely from extremely entry level, but they do have a very good offering in the R7. As for lenses, definitely entry level, consumer grade lenses. But, you can fit the elite RF "L" lenses on those entry level APS-C bodies. The focal lengths may not match up exactly, maybe Canon is leaving a few optimized designs on the table (I always wanted an smaller/lighter EF-s telephoto). But you can mount elite FF lenses on the any of the APS-C bodies (within a given mount).

So, I think it gets down to an overall business strategy. And we are talking about a company that scuttled the EFm lineup, which, at one point, included the best selling mirrorless cameras in Japan. Because, it didn't fit their eventual RF centric lineup.

Just my thoughts.

Good to see you,
Brant

[alex]

Thanks for your reply Brant!

Yeah I get what you're saying in terms of the gateway nature of the APS-C cameras and kits. It might just be time to save up and make the jump.

To clarify, the plastic I'm referring to was kind of a poor choice of words on my part. What I should have alluded to is the cheap feel of the RF-S lenses which is likely less to do with the plastic construction and more to do with the overall amount of glass used which contributes to a feeling of cheap lightness.

They are really making clear that APS-C is entry-level outside of wildlife/sports telephoto offerings. Every RF-S lens is narrow, variable aperture, narrow diameter size in the construction. This means you can use a cheaper filter because the lens is tiny and light. This means you can carry it around because you're less likely to be someone with a big camera bag with lots of glass in it.

I had forgotten about the "Ultrasonic" designation of those old EF-S Gold Ring lenses and you're right, perhaps that gold ring was linked with that designation, not necessarily the quality of the glass or the construction.

But I'm wracking my brain to think of any EF-S glass other than the 17-55mm f/2.8 that had a constant aperture available throughout the entire zoom range. And I guess, at baseline, I'm asking in all these rambling words if Canon is ever gonna do that again for the RF-S lenses.

I doubt it.

So the answer for me seems to be either to continue to use the EF-RF adapter, or switch to full frame RF.

If I did make the switch to something like the R6 I or II with the 24-105 f/4L, I'd have a pretty decent kit with that, the 14-35, and the 100-400mm.

Of course, I haven't even considered up until this very moment the possibility of any future change in third-party lenses and the RF mount. This would potentially change this entire conversation.