Next official EF-M Lens

[bf]

Bottom Line: We need a nice EF-M portrait tele. Please optimize it Canon! Thanks! 

[Haydn1971]

Current list of Canon EF-M patents...

9-18mm f4.0-5.6
10-20mm f4.0-5.6
16-120mm f3.5-5.6
18-40mm f4.0-5.6 - Pancake
18-55mm f4.0-8.0 - Pancake
18-200mm f3.5-6.3
22-46mm f3.5-5.6 - Pancake

Some odd conflicting sizes here, what's missing are the primes

[jebrady03]

All I want is a newly designed, kick-ass EF 50/1.4 II IS

How did I miss the EF 50/1.4 IS (aka, version I)?

[preppyak]

I do still believe that Canon will go mirrorless with their 'normal' SLR's (I expect the 7DII to be the first one -> hybrid VF, stunning video functions, many autofocus points etc.) and they will have an EF mount, otherwise they would kill themselves after building up a lens system for, I don't know, 40 years?! I wouldn't bet on the M system.

What is the point in going mirrorless and keeping the EF mount? I get the lens compatibility, but by keeping the EF mount, you basically limit the size of the camera to, at best, be the size of the SL1. Can't really make it smaller than that, and if you want more processing power (many point AF, etc), it'd have to be bigger.

So, if you're not gaining size, I'm not seeing the point in going mirrorless and EF mount.

Canon may end up making a mirrorless body with built-in speedbooster.
1. They would keep the EF mount and all FF lens support
2. No need for FF sensor, lower price, more sales, more profit
3. No more dust specks, no more sensor cleaning, just think about the level of weather sealing it could have

This is an interesting concept, but, I have to imagine that technologically it'd be pretty complex. And, since those speedboosters all run in the $4-600 range, you're talking a big price addition to any body.

if they implemented that, it'd have to come in a prosumer or higher level body, as they wouldn't be able to price it <$1000 most likely.

[Etienne]

I'd love a small macro lens with reasonably long working distance. Would the M's design allow for an equivalent to the 100L macro or 180L in a much smaller package? I've found the M a really good macro camera, with both the 100 and the MP-E - most of the time I'm using Live View for macro work anyway (especially with the MP-E) so the lack of a viewfinder isn't a problem.

But these lenses are rather bulky on the small body.

The 100 f/2.8L IS Macro works very well on the EOS-M.  I hold the lens by the barrel, and use touch shutter. With IS on, you can get pretty good macro shots. Also good on a tripod. Give it a try!

[scyrene]

I'd love a small macro lens with reasonably long working distance. Would the M's design allow for an equivalent to the 100L macro or 180L in a much smaller package? I've found the M a really good macro camera, with both the 100 and the MP-E - most of the time I'm using Live View for macro work anyway (especially with the MP-E) so the lack of a viewfinder isn't a problem.

But these lenses are rather bulky on the small body.

The 100 f/2.8L IS Macro works very well on the EOS-M.  I hold the lens by the barrel, and use touch shutter. With IS on, you can get pretty good macro shots. Also good on a tripod. Give it a try!

Oh I have, and it does work well. That lens is a dream in almost every situation But it dwarfs the body. Since we were dreaming up what we'd like as the next EF-M lens, my vote is for a macro lens that's much smaller (assuming it's possible; although I doubt it would ever happen).

[moreorless]

Current list of Canon EF-M patents...

9-18mm f4.0-5.6
10-20mm f4.0-5.6
16-120mm f3.5-5.6
18-40mm f4.0-5.6 - Pancake
18-55mm f4.0-8.0 - Pancake
18-200mm f3.5-6.3
22-46mm f3.5-5.6 - Pancake

Some odd conflicting sizes here, what's missing are the primes

My guess is we'll only see one pancake see the light of day and that both the other UWA's were rejected in favour of the 11-22mm although I spose the 9-18mm might be a future higher end option.

The 16-120mm is interesting simply because that focal length range points to something large and expensive you'd expect to see a more advanced body released for.

[DRR]

Canon may end up making a mirrorless body with built-in speedbooster.
1. They would keep the EF mount and all FF lens support
2. No need for FF sensor, lower price, more sales, more profit
3. No more dust specks, no more sensor cleaning, just think about the level of weather sealing it could have

This is an interesting concept, but, I have to imagine that technologically it'd be pretty complex. And, since those speedboosters all run in the $4-600 range, you're talking a big price addition to any body.

if they implemented that, it'd have to come in a prosumer or higher level body, as they wouldn't be able to price it <$1000 most likely.

I do like that idea! Canon would certainly have to recoup R+D costs but I think they'd be able to build this into a body for much less than the $400-600 other companies need to charge to recoup their costs. For one, it's a simpler, fixed design, it becomes part of the body as opposed to a standalone unit. The numbers for Canon would be significantly less than it costs Metabones to make a widget because Canon has economies of scale on its side. Still, I agree it would first arrive on a much higher end camera and eventually trickle down - but I really like the idea of a built in speedbooster.

[crashpc]

Agree. Sounds like very good idea!

[moreorless]

If anyone does that my guess would be Pentax as they've got no FF sales to damage.

[Haydn1971]

Dec 2014 update

Current list of Canon EF-M patents...

9-18mm f4.0-5.6
10-20mm f4.0-5.6
16-120mm f3.5-5.6
18-40mm f4.0-5.6 - Pancake
18-55mm f4.0-8.0 - Pancake
18-200mm f3.5-6.3
22-46mm f3.5-5.6 - Pancake
70-400mm f4.5-7.2

Anymore to add ?