April 17, 2014, 07:35:47 PM

Author Topic: The rumored tele lens for the M  (Read 5841 times)

axtstern

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • EOS M(ediochre)
    • View Profile
The rumored tele lens for the M
« on: September 21, 2013, 06:13:58 PM »
Whenever the new M is rumored also the new tele lens is rumored shortly after.

Especialy in this Forum I hear again and again that such a lens would make Little sense as by Definition such a lens Needs to be huge (compared to the camera) and that this misses the reason of existence for the M. Once that Argument is thrown into the Arena the usual comments either go towardes the 'I anyway just use the pancake'  or  'please give me another Xmm pancake'

Now to come to the Point:
Does Canon not have this DO technology? WHy should they not decide to make a lens with the 'beauty' of the 70-300 DO I mean fat and short? Maybe the guys here who can calculate the feasibility of an optical system better than me can tell me what is possible or impossible. A EFM 55-200 DO IS 3,5-5,6 only 1 centimeter longer but 2,5 cm wider  than the kit lens? DO would massaker the IQ but a System that would still fit in the pocket of a coat would be very sexy to me.

canon rumors FORUM

The rumored tele lens for the M
« on: September 21, 2013, 06:13:58 PM »

bainsybike

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2013, 02:23:00 PM »
Maybe they can make it "collapsible", like the 11-22mm.  So that it's relatively compact for storage/carriage, even if it has to expand in use.

Don Haines

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 2410
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2013, 07:20:30 PM »
strange tidbit of information....

Diffractive optics are not new.... the history goes back to 1823 and the Fresnel lenses used in lighthouses... They don't make lenses shorter as much as they are made lighter... by using a thin element instead of a thick lens, there is considerable weight savings, and the reduced thickness of the lens element(s) becomes the saving in length.  The big problem with them is the trade-off with image quality... they would have to be made with a finer diffraction grating than the camera could resolve to get reasonable image quality, and as the size of a lens element gets smaller, the grating would also have to shrink.... I'm not saying it's impossible, but it certainly would be a challenge to manufacture.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2013, 11:55:13 PM by Don Haines »
The best camera is the one in your hands

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2013, 06:35:09 AM »
Whenever the new M is rumored also the new tele lens is rumored shortly after.

Especialy in this Forum I hear again and again that such a lens would make Little sense as by Definition such a lens Needs to be huge (compared to the camera) and that this misses the reason of existence for the M. Once that Argument is thrown into the Arena the usual comments either go towardes the 'I anyway just use the pancake'  or  'please give me another Xmm pancake'

Now to come to the Point:
Does Canon not have this DO technology? WHy should they not decide to make a lens with the 'beauty' of the 70-300 DO I mean fat and short? Maybe the guys here who can calculate the feasibility of an optical system better than me can tell me what is possible or impossible. A EFM 55-200 DO IS 3,5-5,6 only 1 centimeter longer but 2,5 cm wider  than the kit lens? DO would massaker the IQ but a System that would still fit in the pocket of a coat would be very sexy to me.

Apart from the issue of size, there is also the issue of duplication.  One of the main selling points of the M is the compatability with EF and EF-s lenses.

An EF-m lens fits only on an M.
An EF-s will fit on Rebels, X0Ds and 7D.
An EF will fit on all EOS cameras.

The new EF-s 55-250 looks great for it's class and price, but obviously would need the adaptor..

Maybe canon should instead release a very low cost EF-s adaptor, maybe even plastic body and mounts, but with electronics..  £30 / $50?  Strong enough for the EF-s lenses...

But then, would the 'intended' market of the M, powershot upgraders, want the hassle?  Would they want the hassle of any interchangable lenses.

You see, here's the rub with the M.  Canon made it for beginners or compact users.  I think it's actually only the enthusiast and those already in the EOS system that it makes sense for.

They got it entirely wrong, but it's a good wee camera at it's core.  I don't think I'll use it with anything other than the pancake tbh, it's just such a well sorted package, but to my mind the EF-m 18-55 makes little sense, bigger EF-m lenses even less so.

Cheap plastic adaptor is the way forward, the gateway to the decent enough EF-s lenses.  Keep the metal version in the line up too, for folk with the more substantial EF lenses like the 200 f2.8L or 135 f2.0L.

Kathode-Ray

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 36
  • Shoot, shoot, shoot!
    • View Profile
Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2013, 08:07:12 AM »
I would love to see an EF-M 55-200, even a 70-200 with variable aperture would be fine. I use my M mainly when I don't want to carry the bulk of my 6D and want to be less obtrusive. In such cases I don't mind the lower image quality and the fact that it doesn't fit my pocket.

I got my EF/EF-M adapter off e-bay for around 35 bucks. It's a Meike/Fotga with a (sturdy) plastic body and metal mounts. It works great.

Ray
6D | M | EF-M 18-55 | T 24-70 2.8 VC | EF 24-105 | EF 70-200 4.0 IS | SY 14 2.8 | EF 50 1.4 | EF 85 1.8 | Metz 58 AF-2 | Røde Videomic Pro | Magic Lantern

lw

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2013, 04:39:52 AM »
The problem is that any P&S shooter 'upgrading' to a EOS M is going to looking at the competition too.
M43, Nex, etc, all have a range of small lenses to match their small bodies that includes at least one telephoto and at least one large zoom range (e.g. 10x) lens.

It is of less advantage to say that new EOS M users can use EF lenses if they don't have them already, as their size negates the advantages of the EOS M and don't compare well against the smaller sized competition.

Moreover, if the solution to lack of EF-M lenses is to use EF and EF-S, then why even bother producing an EF-M 18-55 or 11-22 when there are adequate EF-S equivalents already?  Why not simply produce an EOS M sized body with the EF mount? (slightly bigger than EOS M, but still probably smaller and lighter than a EOS M + EF adaptor.

No. To be successful in the CSC market the EOS M has to have a range of native lenses that at least allows it to be competitive against the other CSC systems it will be compared against.

At a minimum it needs
- a telephoto like a 55-250mm STM
- another prime at 50mm or longer. Perhaps with Macro. EF-M version of 60mm Macro.
- a large zoom range in the 18-200mm category - for P&S shooters who see value in a larger sensor, but don't want the hassle of changing lenses all the time.

Then, the EF adaptor provides the icing on the cake by providing access to all of Canon's lenses.

But IMO only with a decent range of native EF-M lenses will it be a system in its own right that is capable enough of competing with other CSC systems.


DRR

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2013, 10:42:46 AM »
Whenever the new M is rumored also the new tele lens is rumored shortly after.

Especialy in this Forum I hear again and again that such a lens would make Little sense as by Definition such a lens Needs to be huge (compared to the camera) and that this misses the reason of existence for the M. Once that Argument is thrown into the Arena the usual comments either go towardes the 'I anyway just use the pancake'  or  'please give me another Xmm pancake'

I agree, and I think those people should have bought a powershot instead. Look at the competitors, the Sony 55-210 for example, mounted on a NEX camera. It's relatively large mounted on the camera. There's not really a way around it, past a certain point it's physics. Higher zoom ranges require longer lenses, especially if you want to preserve optical quality. You can't have it all.

Quote
Now to come to the Point:
Does Canon not have this DO technology? WHy should they not decide to make a lens with the 'beauty' of the 70-300 DO I mean fat and short? Maybe the guys here who can calculate the feasibility of an optical system better than me can tell me what is possible or impossible. A EFM 55-200 DO IS 3,5-5,6 only 1 centimeter longer but 2,5 cm wider  than the kit lens? DO would massaker the IQ but a System that would still fit in the pocket of a coat would be very sexy to me.

That is a good thought. If they could put DO into a 55-200+ lens, it would at least cut down on the length, even if you fatten it up, it's not going to be much fatter than the camera. That would be a positive tradeoff.

The only problem I see is cost. Using the 70-300 as an example, the DO is twice as expensive ($1300) than the functional equivalent non-DO lens ($650). I'm sure it's a more difficult manufacturing process, and I'm also sure Canon is trying to recoup some R&D investment into DO.

So, just guessing here, but if a "normal" 55-250 would cost about $350-400 (that is the cost of the Sony equivalent) then you'd figure a Canon DO EF-M mount 55-250 IS would cost maybe $700+?

And at that price point you're talking squarely to dedicated hobbyists and amateurs, which is not really the market for the EOS-M. It's a tough sell.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2013, 10:42:46 AM »

lw

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2013, 02:57:08 PM »

Look at the competitors, the Sony 55-210 for example, mounted on a NEX camera. It's relatively large mounted on the camera. There's not really a way around it, past a certain point it's physics. Higher zoom ranges require longer lenses, especially if you want to preserve optical quality. You can't have it all.


But it still smaller than a Canon EF-S 55-250mm, especially when the EF adaptor is taken into account.
Sony = 345g, 108mm long
Canon=500g, 136mm long

BJDrew

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2013, 07:52:00 AM »
I dunno. It makes sense to have a tele lens for any system, but having used a 70-300L (via adapter) quite a bit on the little M, it is really disorienting and shaky to frame a subject using the rear screen. Not a terribly pleasant experience.

If prayers are answered and an M with viewfinder comes along, makes complete sense. Otherwise, I'm not sure it is a necessary and priority piece of gear from canon.

Show me a 30-35mm f/2 first.


bainsybike

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2013, 08:04:49 AM »

caruser

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2013, 08:22:35 AM »
Moreover, if the solution to lack of EF-M lenses is to use EF and EF-S, then why even bother producing an EF-M 18-55 or 11-22 when there are adequate EF-S equivalents already?
One factor is the fact that the smaller flange distance allows smaller lenses only for wider angle lenses. (This is the "in a nutshell" of a very long explanation; for an example look at the 35L and a 35mm f/1.4 for Leica M-Mount; the difference in size is due to the 35L having to "compensate" for the larger flange distance of the EOS mount; I'm no expert on the field but I remember reading something about having to complicate wide-angle lens design once the focal length goes below the sensor diagonal (or some value that is a linear function of the sensor size)).

9VIII

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 425
    • View Profile
Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2013, 12:49:03 AM »
Retrofocusing adds a bunch of lens elements and therefore generally reduces image quality.

If you can get away without, the lens should be better, though apparently Sony was having trouble with chromatic aberrations on their full frame NEX design due to lenses being too close to the sensor.
My best thought is that the flange distance should be as short as it can be without compromising the integrity of the mount or unnecessarily exposing the sensor, and then whether or not the to use retrofocusing could be decided on a lens by lens basis. Then you could sell something like a 24mm pancake alongside a potentially higher quality, but bigger and heavier traditional design.

e17paul

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 36
  • Keen amateur, film & digital. Mac addict too.
    • View Profile
Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2013, 01:51:24 AM »
Whenever the new M is rumored also the new tele lens is rumored shortly after.

Especialy in this Forum I hear again and again that such a lens would make Little sense as by Definition such a lens Needs to be huge (compared to the camera) and that this misses the reason of existence for the M. Once that Argument is thrown into the Arena the usual comments either go towardes the 'I anyway just use the pancake'  or  'please give me another Xmm pancake'

Now to come to the Point:
Does Canon not have this DO technology? WHy should they not decide to make a lens with the 'beauty' of the 70-300 DO I mean fat and short? Maybe the guys here who can calculate the feasibility of an optical system better than me can tell me what is possible or impossible. A EFM 55-200 DO IS 3,5-5,6 only 1 centimeter longer but 2,5 cm wider  than the kit lens? DO would massaker the IQ but a System that would still fit in the pocket of a coat would be very sexy to me.

+1

I tried a 2nd hand 70-300 DO when I spotted one in a camera shop a while back. I don't like it for full frame because the weight seemed unnatural for the short length. There was zoom creep exacerbated by the heavy glass, and it was difficult to zoom into the high level details of surrounding buildings. That was disappointing because the idea had appealed to me - I find the Fresnel technology intriguing. I would expect it to be more appropriate for an EF-M lens because of the smaller geometry and hence lower weight. As well as the sensor being 1.6x smaller, the flange distance will help (as others have said). An EF-M 55-250mm IS DO STM could be really compact and make a good package with the Eos M

What puts me off the Eos M is the absence of an EVF, which means that the camera has to be held at a distance. That is especially important for a lens with a long effective focal length. Once Canon see sense and include a built in EVF, the M will become attractive in comparison with the 100D.
6D, 5(film)x2, 650(film)x2, Canonet QL19, EF 15/2.8, 24/2.8 IS, 50/2.5 & 70-300/4-5.6L
Fotodiox Pro OM/Eos adapter, Olympus OM-10, Zuiko 24/2.8, 50/1.4 & 135/2.8, Ensinor 28/2.8, XA/2, Mju 410
Apple iPhone 4S & iPad 2. I've only listed the equipment I still use for photography!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2013, 01:51:24 AM »

PureAmateur

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2013, 03:25:24 AM »
The problem is that any P&S shooter 'upgrading' to a EOS M is going to looking at the competition too.
M43, Nex, etc, all have a range of small lenses to match their small bodies that includes at least one telephoto and at least one large zoom range (e.g. 10x) lens.

It is of less advantage to say that new EOS M users can use EF lenses if they don't have them already, as their size negates the advantages of the EOS M and don't compare well against the smaller sized competition.

Moreover, if the solution to lack of EF-M lenses is to use EF and EF-S, then why even bother producing an EF-M 18-55 or 11-22 when there are adequate EF-S equivalents already?  Why not simply produce an EOS M sized body with the EF mount? (slightly bigger than EOS M, but still probably smaller and lighter than a EOS M + EF adaptor.

No. To be successful in the CSC market the EOS M has to have a range of native lenses that at least allows it to be competitive against the other CSC systems it will be compared against.

At a minimum it needs
- a telephoto like a 55-250mm STM
- another prime at 50mm or longer. Perhaps with Macro. EF-M version of 60mm Macro.
- a large zoom range in the 18-200mm category - for P&S shooters who see value in a larger sensor, but don't want the hassle of changing lenses all the time.

Then, the EF adaptor provides the icing on the cake by providing access to all of Canon's lenses.

But IMO only with a decent range of native EF-M lenses will it be a system in its own right that is capable enough of competing with other CSC systems.

I absolutely agree with lw.  In fact, I had moved to m43 system from EOS M due to the comprehensive choice of lenses of the m43 system.  I still keep my 5D Mk III.  I am not a professional photographer, just a hobbyist but there should be a lot of people like me that are willing to own at least two systems – one for IQ and one for convenience.  Canon need to catch up otherwise they will lose the CSC (MILC) market.

AvTvM

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2013, 05:42:55 AM »
Nikon DX 50-200mm/f4-5.6G ED seems to be the smallest 55-200 consumer telezoom for APS-C, but without IS (VR) at 79mm (length) x 68mm (barrel diameter), 255 grams, 52mm filter-thread

Diffractive optics (DO) would probably not bring a worthwile improvement in terms of size and weight.

But a combination of
1. it may not be much, but for a slow 50-200 consumer-telezoom the shorter flange-back of mirrorless cameras [like EOS-M] compared to DSLRs might still allow to shave a few mm in barrel length
2. folding design could make the lens quite a bit more compact in "parking position"
3. AF-only, no manual focusing ring/gear might also allow to shave a few more mm

Canon might be able to build a EF-M 50-200/4.0-5.6 IS STM lens with "reasonable image quality", weighing less than 300 grams and barrel length only around 50mm in "parking position".

I would certainly consider such a lens for an EOS-M [but am not interested in an EOS-M as long as it comes without viewfinder].

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The rumored tele lens for the M
« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2013, 05:42:55 AM »