At least two new EOS M cameras coming in 2019 [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Do you really consider our Tamron 17-50/2.8 being any big? Without at least 2.8 all-arounder, any system is doomed 
People wanting "fast" glass shall buy EF or RF, since size, weight and price are obviously not their priorities. EF 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II deliver excellent IQ on any EOS M body.
Do you really consider our Tamron 17-50/2.8 being any big? Without at least 2.8 all-arounder, any system is doomed
Likes:
-pekr-
to me it looks "very optimistic". Closest existing lens in the range with short FFD mount is Fuji XF 18-55/2.8-4.0 ... 65mm diameter x 78.4mm length, 58mm filter thread. Not sure an EF-M 17/18-50/55mm f/2.8 would be possible with only a 58mm filter ... without 5 stops vignetting.
Price? Fuji XF 18-55/2.8-4.0 retails around € 750 [Fuji eXpensive], Tammy 17-50 (non-VC) is € 250, Sigma 17-50 is € 310, Tammy 17-50 VC at € 375.
Canon EF-S 17-55 is also around € 750. I think it sold decently in the beginning with xxD and 7D buyers, before many of enthusiasts/amateurs moved to FF [5D/II, 6D and successors]. For typical Rebel and EOS M customers € 750 seems way beyond ambition and budget. And those who want EOS M as secondary, small & light set are also not very likely to buy a f/2.8 EF-M zoom.
In short: I don't think we 're ever going to see Canon EF-M f/2.8 zoom/s.
Price? Fuji XF 18-55/2.8-4.0 retails around € 750 [Fuji eXpensive
], Tammy 17-50 (non-VC) is € 250, Sigma 17-50 is € 310, Tammy 17-50 VC at € 375. Canon EF-S 17-55 is also around € 750. I think it sold decently in the beginning with xxD and 7D buyers, before many of enthusiasts/amateurs moved to FF [5D/II, 6D and successors]. For typical Rebel and EOS M customers € 750 seems way beyond ambition and budget. And those who want EOS M as secondary, small & light set are also not very likely to buy a f/2.8 EF-M zoom.
In short: I don't think we 're ever going to see Canon EF-M f/2.8 zoom/s.
It is completely physically impossible to make a 17-50mm f2.8 with a 61-odd mm exterior diameter. And Canon seem to be really committed to that particular design decision for the M system. Besides, Canon is very clearly positioning the M system as a small-and-light, non-premium offering, and would much rather you'd buy a Canon R with a 24-70/105mm f4 than a Canon Mx with a 17-50mm f2.8.
That being said, I think a f2.8-4 standard zoom isn't out of the question. As noted above, the Fuji lens is only ~3mm away from being thin enough, and with a deliberate design decision it could probably easily be trimmed off. Being a variable aperture lens and a stop slower on the long end it's much less of a threat to full frame sales, while still offering more than a full stop better performance than the kit lens. There have even been a few patents for lenses in this ballpark. I'd give it a 50-50 of happening.
That being said, I think a f2.8-4 standard zoom isn't out of the question. As noted above, the Fuji lens is only ~3mm away from being thin enough, and with a deliberate design decision it could probably easily be trimmed off. Being a variable aperture lens and a stop slower on the long end it's much less of a threat to full frame sales, while still offering more than a full stop better performance than the kit lens. There have even been a few patents for lenses in this ballpark. I'd give it a 50-50 of happening.
Likes:
mirage
No, I think the answer is you'll have to wait and see what future mirrorless cameras will be offered - if mirrorless is what you areooking for. If you are looking for a DSLR replacement, and you want crop, then wait to see if and when there is a 90D. We have no idea what future R cameras are coming - and if some of them might be crop.
The M system is for people looking for a compact APS-C crop camera. This may or may not quality as "for real" in your and other people's minds, but it is what it is and many others find it ideal.
The M system is for people looking for a compact APS-C crop camera. This may or may not quality as "for real" in your and other people's minds, but it is what it is and many others find it ideal.
Likes:
mirage
is short end the real limitation? should not 15-19mm at f/2.8 all be possible with a 58 filter thread, 61.6mm diameter and 18mm FFD? what about long end - 45mm vs 50 or 55 or 60? "mathematically" no issue, but in real life? without 4+ stops large corner vignetting?
15-45/2.8 might more easily fit external EF-M size parameters than a 19-50/2.8 ?
and then there is "usefulness". If the only choice were like this, i'd take a EF-M 15-75/85 f/4.0 any day over either a 15-45/2.8 or 19-50/2.8.
there is some choice already at wide-angle to "normal FOV" FLs in EF-M lineup. but beyond 32mm there is only f/3.5-5.6 and from 55mm onwards f/5.6-6.3 with EF-M 55-200, and 18-150. there are also no "small" EF/EF-S lenses to fill the gap via adapter beyond 50/1.8 STM and 60/2.8 Macro.
That's why i would favor "long end" in a "somewhat faster", fixed aperture f/4 EF-M zoom if f/2.8 is not feasible within size/price limits.
Not sure, how majority of potential buyers and Canon view it. Likely both will go for an 18-200/3.5-6.9 "super-zoom" - but it would "cannibalize" 18-150 sales.
15-45/2.8 might more easily fit external EF-M size parameters than a 19-50/2.8 ?
and then there is "usefulness". If the only choice were like this, i'd take a EF-M 15-75/85 f/4.0 any day over either a 15-45/2.8 or 19-50/2.8.
there is some choice already at wide-angle to "normal FOV" FLs in EF-M lineup. but beyond 32mm there is only f/3.5-5.6 and from 55mm onwards f/5.6-6.3 with EF-M 55-200, and 18-150. there are also no "small" EF/EF-S lenses to fill the gap via adapter beyond 50/1.8 STM and 60/2.8 Macro.
That's why i would favor "long end" in a "somewhat faster", fixed aperture f/4 EF-M zoom if f/2.8 is not feasible within size/price limits.
Not sure, how majority of potential buyers and Canon view it. Likely both will go for an 18-200/3.5-6.9 "super-zoom" - but it would "cannibalize" 18-150 sales.