At least two new EOS M cameras coming in 2019 [CR2]

[vangelismm]

Ok, if canon want us to believe this system is still for real, give us some 2.8 standard zoom.

 

[mirage]

Ok, if canon want us to believe this system is still for real, give us some 2.8 standard zoom.

definitely NOT needed for EOS M system. Get an EOS R and all the big, heavy, expensive f/2.0 and f/2.8 zooms you want.

 

[-pekr-]

definitely NOT needed for EOS M system. Get an EOS R and all the big, heavy, expensive f/2.0 and f/2.8 zooms you want.

Do you really consider our Tamron 17-50/2.8 being any big? Without at least 2.8 all-arounder, any system is doomed

 

[mirage]

Do you really consider our Tamron 17-50/2.8 being any big? Without at least 2.8 all-arounder, any system is doomed

So far, all EF-M lenses have 61.6 outer diameter and less than 90mm length. I hope Canon keeps it that way. EF-M lens lineup is excellent.
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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Do you really consider our Tamron 17-50/2.8 being any big? Without at least 2.8 all-arounder, any system is doomed

I think a 17/18-50 f/2.8 could be made within EF-M physical parameters. This is the focal range where the short FFD makes a difference, a 17-50/55 is retrofocal to normal with an EF-S flange distance (and the mirror), but would not need to be retrofocal on the M. But I suspect the price would exceed US$500, which might be a strategic no-go for Canon. Perhaps if the M32/1.4 sells well, that will suggest to Canon a market appetite for a fast standard zoom.

 

[mirage]

I think a 17/18-50 f/2.8 could be made within EF-M physical parameters. This is the focal range where the short FFD makes a difference, a 17-50/55 is retrofocal to normal with an EF-S flange distance (and the mirror), but would not need to be retrofocal on the M.

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.

 

[Ozarker]

as users migrate to Canon R and RF lenses, there will be a lot of hardly used, mint condition EF lenses available second hand for little money.

I think one of your other personalities (fullstop?) said this exact same thing.

 

[jschoonj]

If Canon does a good job on video for these new camera's (I just want a better codec with higher bitrates & sharper image in 1080, don't need 4K), and hopefully IBIS I'll definitely upgrade my M6 that I only bought in in March of this year.

 

[neuroanatomist]

In short: I don't think we 're ever going to see Canon EF-M f/2.8 zoom/s.

Did you think we’d see an EF-M f/1.4 prime?

 

[Rocky]

15-45 seems to be a more versatile range than the 17 to 55. If Canon makes a 15-45 2.8 with metal mount and picture quality of 22 2.0, I will pay $500 for it. I am not too concern about the weight and size of the lens.

 

[KristinnKr]

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.

 

[mirage]

Did you think we’d see an EF-M f/1.4 prime?

no. Never thought Canon would go f/1.4. Expected f/1.8 would be "the max." for EF-M.

 

[brad-man]

EF-M 32 f/1.4
EF-M 53 f/1.8 IS
EF-M 63 f/2.8 IS Macro
EF-M 17-50 f/4.0 IS

 

[mirage]

EF-M 17-50 f/4.0 IS

motion seconded!

but EF-M 15-85/4.0 IS STM preferred, if it were f/4.0

 

[vangelismm]

definitely NOT needed for EOS M system. Get an EOS R and all the big, heavy, expensive f/2.0 and f/2.8 zooms you want.

Does not make sense.

I would like to replace 80D + EF-s 17-55 2.8, and the answer is EOS R?

 

[mirage]

Does not make sense.
I would like to replace 80D + EF-s 17-55 2.8, and the answer is EOS R?

yes: if size/weight/cost are lower priorities, then EOS R + RF 24-105.
no: if size/weight/price are high priority, then M50 [or M5 Mk. II] with EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 [if you can still get one somewhere; it is better than current 15-45 ]

 

[dkangel]

EOS-M is not going anywhere. It has its place and it is becoming more and more popular as they progress.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It is completely physically impossible to make a 17-50mm f2.8 with a 61-odd mm exterior diameter.

I think it's possible. Not that a direct comparison is possible, but 2x 32mm f/1.4 is 64mm f/2.8. Given Canon's penchant for being slightly conservative with M lenses (e.g. M11-22 vs EF-S 10-18/22), we might see a 19-50/2.8 or some such.

 

[dak723]

Does not make sense.

I would like to replace 80D + EF-s 17-55 2.8, and the answer is EOS R?

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.

 

[mirage]

I think it's possible. Not that a direct comparison is possible, but 2x 32mm f/1.4 is 64mm f/2.8. Given Canon's penchant for being slightly conservative with M lenses (e.g. M11-22 vs EF-S 10-18/22), we might see a 19-50/2.8 or some such.

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.