I knew that the hood is included only in L lenses, but I did'nt imagine that there was no cap for the EF-M kit lenses.
Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for sharing.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The 17-40mm zoom may not be the very best of wide angle choices, but it isn't so bad either. I primarily shoot wide angle primes (14mm L, 17mm TS-E and 24mm L), but sometimes the need for versatility makes me pick up my 17-40mm zoom and no it doesn't kill me to use it, not on a 1D-X nor on a 5D Mark III.
Actually the 17-40mm zoom provides a much nicer zoom range on full frame than it does on crop, so yes, this lens will come into its own on a full frame body. It has not been designed for crop cameras. I expect you will be happy with it despite its flaws. In case you are desperate for better optical quality, you can still follow my route and collect wide angle primes .
I personally think that we do not need a new M body that urgent. What we need is a more comprehensive M system – more lenses and accessories available. The EOS M should not be only a backup camera for the EOS DSLR. It is nice that I can put the L lenses to my M body once in a while, but I prefer to use it with more choice of smaller lenses as my daily camera.
+1 on the need for more lenses. In that regard, Canon USA's decision not to launch the one recently announced lens (11-22mm) completely baffles me.
This comparison of DXO's results is what makes me EXTREMELY SUSPICIOUS of them. The Nikkor 500mm scores 25, when every single trait that factors into that score is worse than the Canon 500mm...which also scores 25. That is just plain wrong. The Canon has zero distortion, higher sharpness, less vignetting, less CA, and the same transmission...on a LOWER RESOLUTION BODY! It should have a higher score than the Nikon.
An intriguing offer has appeared on an Italian site:
EOS M + EFM 18-55mm + EFM 22mm + 90 EX + EF Mount adapter = "Full Kit EOS M" = 565€.
The vendor (galaxiastore) does not belong to my "preferred list" (which includes Amazon.it and two other shops) but other Italian people checked it and were happy about it.
3. As I've said for YEARS: APS-H is dead. Please don't keep resurrecting it. APS-H is now an unnecessary 'half way house' between APS-C and FF. The 6D particularly demonstrates that. Leave it to RIP, please!
- APS-C for budget sensor, on camera flash, 'reach' (ie pixel density for certain applications - eg birding, some sports), and to make use of the wonderful array of EF-S lenses (many of which are L class in terms of image quality.
- FF for more depth of field (DOF) control and per pixel sharpness, lower noise, and possibly in the (near) future, an overall much higher resolution photo - already competing with Medium Format.
Much better at servo tracking. Similar with one shot (too bad the 70D seemingly won't have Spot AF).
I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....
"Also in development is a focal length reducer for EF lenses, this will be announced with the 20mp EOS M camera"
That is something you hear about more in astronomy. But a 0.8 focal reducer that would turn your 10-22 3.5-4.5 into, say, a 8-18 2.8 - 3.6 would be interesting. A Meade or Celestron focal reducer costs in the neighborhood of $100. Count on the Canon being $300, maybe. Because it is Canon, and because it has the EOS electronic connections.
Let's see -- a .8 reducer would make the 85 1.8 a 68 1.4. But the efl would still be a bit over 100mm because of the crop factor. This sounds intriguing, but will probably not be inexpensive.
A reducer factor of 0.63 would restore EF lenses to their full frame optical values. (0.63 = 1/1.6). I wonder if that's it....
I would expect a factor of .707 (sqrt(2)/2) mainly because it would be an even 1 stop difference, whereas a factor of .63 comes out to a very odd 5/4ths stops.
85/1.8 would become a 60/1.3
24-70/2.8 would become 17-50/2
70-200/4 would become 50-140/2.8
I think that would be enough to make focal lengths that are only so-so on crop (24-anything) quite attractive.
offenseoffence intended. It appears my attempt at humour may have fallen apartmentflat.
Hmm I believe spelling differences are becoming the centre er ... center of this thread
QuoteI went to Paris last year (also) to test my new 17-40.
Dang... I just walk around my neighborhood to test mine...
Do you really want to get into a new series of lenses? Buying lenses for a M that only work on a M?? You can adapt EOS lenses to a M, but then you lose the benefit of size.
AF is also very slow.
Actually, I think the heaviest part of your gear are the lenses. So, maybe buy a 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/2 for the 5D camera? The nice thing about your 5D is that it is not so temperamental regarding older lenses.
this is the compromise we all face - weight vs IQ. What's more important to the OP?
Not much more odd than my 5Dc and 6D.
I would spend my money on a bag that will take your 5Dc with 24-105 and your 17-40 and 70-200 (and other accessories). That is traveling light (your wife may need some convincing). I know you love your 100, but for a trip like this it is the one to leave at home --- the others aren't. For what it's worth, last year I went to Rome and Venice with the 5Dc, 24-105 and 70-200. That kit worked for almost everything. At that time, I didn't yet have the 17-40. Now, I would bring it.
Where did you go wrong with your second daughter?
I wish my Italian was as good as your English.
I just bought the EOS M for an up coming trip to Perth, Australia.
Decided to travel light and leave my 40D and lenses at home.
It's a easier choice for me as I don't have the 5D+24-105.
Take your 5D come hell and high waters. It's worth it. Pair it with a 40mm F2.8 (just get it!) and your 17-40L for landscapes and you're set. For most of the time, 5D + 40mm would be sufficient and light enough. Just bring your flash and 17-40 inside a bag and you're set.
It depends on what kind of stuff you like to photograph. If traveling light as possible is your aim then just use your smartphone (iPhone 5?) otherwise get the right gear for the job. If you want to cover a large range of subjects AND travel light then the EOS M is a pretty good choice, especially once this firmware comes out.
What's wrong with just taking the 5D c? What lenses do you have? You might find a 17-40L a bit too wide for capturing street shots of people or portraits. You could pair it up with a short tele, like an 85 1.8, otherwise a 24-105L covers just about everything - maybe rent one?
For traveling I personally think one or two lens max plus a speedlite is best. No tripod as long as you have an IS lens.
Buy a Fuji x100s and you're set.
Yes the fuji x100s is a very good suggestion! and it was on my shortlist but now that I have the Eos M I wonder if it can be so much better for double the price....But the Eos M will integrate nicely with the rest of your Canon stuff and can work well as a backup camera. I bought the kit here in South Africa for the equivalent of about 600usd and that included the 22mm f2, lens adapter and flash. Now, I, could easily travel the world with this kit...oh and yes I consider an ovf as a must have with this kit.( Although I use the rear lcd a lot more than I would care to admit...!) The zoom will give you IS and a bit more reach on either side and from what I have heard is very good quality. The Eos M kit is half the price of the X100s over here...
So yes I will say go ahead! just take two extra batteries. I bought two Wasabis from amazon but have not yet received them ...was only about 20-25 usd for the pair. There is a lot to be said for travelling light...
I'd take the 5D simply because it makes gorgeous files.