[toni-a]

Compact "affordable" constant aperture, should be a great addition, I am considering one if it turn out quite good.
It's not L but still interesting with good construction claimed and 2 UD elements 
eagerly awaiting the review 
Looks like same league as the EFs 17-55f2.8  IS USM at its time

[Klaus]

I find it somewhat amusing that they state different IS efficiencies for center and corner

"Coordinated control using IBIS x OIS provides an image stabilization effect of Center 7.5 stops and Corner 7.0 stops.*

[Rover]

As if anyone is going to agonise over that half stop, or even trying to measure it precisely?

But yeah, probably there goes any hope of a true successor to the 17-55mm f/2.8.

[Klaus]

But it is fairly close to the 17-55 concept, isn't it? It's plastic-fantastic and, as such, lightweight.
And it's not even absurdly expensive by Canon standards (compared to the S28-70 and T28-75).

Canon's MTFs look even slightly better than for the 24-70L

[Rover]

I meant an APS-C lens.

[Klaus]

Does APS-C still exist? ;-)

[Rover]

Canon probably wishes it didn't, although I guess this is where most of their revenue is coming from. Hence their extremely half-hearted approach: they killed one system (M), and let the new sub-system without much attention, or populated by Sigma lenses (the latter isn't a bad thing - at least Sigma can breathe some life into a decidedly underwhelming space).

[toni-a]

Canon attitude changed lately, they care for nothing but short term income, forgetting that a "large fan base" is the way for long term income...They pay big money for marketing and getting new customer, then they lose potential customers with their new income oriented attitude.
Rfs system however is still appealing especially for those who don't mind using  adapters...
I am considering replacing dust collecting Sony A6000 with a compact RFs camera.
Catherine-a my daughter would be very happy using it .
Most likely I will get one from the used market though and this won't make Canon really happy