Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]

[transpo1]

Actual EF-M line :
- 5 Zooms
- Only 2 primes
- All 7 lenses are under 300g. (The sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM ART is 435g.)
- Only 1 is non-stabilized : the smallest one (22 pancake).
- All 7 lenses are STM type

Knowing Canon, they will stick to their product familly philosophy : Small, light and reasonably priced.

If the "no IS" is confirmed, I'd bet on another ultracompact/pancake lense.
STM seems obvious a this stage.
Aperture? f/1.4 seems a bit "out of the family" and has an impact on both cost and size/weight.

A good 32mm f/2 (f/1.8 maybe) pancake, as sharp as the 22mm seem a logical plan.

But it also depends on what will really be the M50. If it's a very video-centric camera, it could ask for really different EF-M lenses.

Makes sense. Doesn't the M5 have 5 axis electronic stabilization? Maybe the M50 will, too. I'd rather have IS in the lens, of course, but I'm just thrilled they may be putting 4K in one of these cameras and improving their lens lineup

 

[slclick]

Well, add this to the 22 and use the 50 STM w/adapter (which works remarkably well, btw) and there's one version of the trinity. I'd prefer an ef-m 50 and an 85 for my needs.

 

[ahsanford]

Makes sense. Doesn't the M5 have 5 axis electronic stabilization?

...for video. Not for stills.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

curious lens if it comes in at a 32mm 1.4 with no IS.

it would be really the first time canon's doing a "fuji" versus something similar to a "sony" which is announce an odd focal length lens just to make purists that want a 50mm lens get what they want.

where sony would simply slap a 35mm 1.8 OSS out there and good it good.

Less of pulling a Fuji than showing off how small and simple a 50 (equivalent) double gauss lens is to make. For some magical reason, 50 primes can simultaneously be very fast and very small. See the non-L EF 50s for what I mean.

So I don’t see this as Canon going higher end like Fuji nearly so much as Canon dropping some long pre-existing FF know-how into a crop lens. That’s not a bad thing at all, but we should keep both feet firmly planted on the ground if we were hoping for a line of super fast EF-M primes — that’s not happening.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

curious lens if it comes in at a 32mm 1.4 with no IS.

it would be really the first time canon's doing a "fuji" versus something similar to a "sony" which is announce an odd focal length lens just to make purists that want a 50mm lens get what they want.

where sony would simply slap a 35mm 1.8 OSS out there and good it good.

Less of pulling a Fuji than showing off how small and simple a 50 (equivalent) double gauss lens is to make.

really? so you know the design of it already?

it will still have to be a 32mm focal lens lens design, regardless of equivalence. the fact that the 50mm lenses are double gauss has no bearing whatsoever to this conversation.

 

[rrcphoto]

Actual EF-M line :
- 5 Zooms
- Only 2 primes
- All 7 lenses are under 300g. (The sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM ART is 435g.)
- Only 1 is non-stabilized : the smallest one (22 pancake).
- All 7 lenses are STM type

Knowing Canon, they will stick to their product familly philosophy : Small, light and reasonably priced.

If the "no IS" is confirmed, I'd bet on another ultracompact/pancake lense.
STM seems obvious a this stage.
Aperture? f/1.4 seems a bit "out of the family" and has an impact on both cost and size/weight.

A good 32mm f/2 (f/1.8 maybe) pancake, as sharp as the 22mm seem a logical plan.

But it also depends on what will really be the M50. If it's a very video-centric camera, it could ask for really different EF-M lenses.

another thing to add is that every EF-M lens seems to be exactly the same diameter, if that continues that limits the aperture as well.

 

[Karlbug]

No IS would be a real shame. Right now I am using adapted EF-S 35mm f/2.8 and utilizing its IS for like 2-3 stops of lower ISO during evening shots. EF-M 32mm f/1.4 would mean 1 stop higher ISO than now. :'(

Personally this specification seems little odd to me based on other EF-M lenses. Most of them have something extra, something to sell the lens with. The 22 is ultra small, 28 has macro and LED light, 18-150 long reach, 11-22 is great for vlogging, 15-45 is collapsible... is the 1.4 aperture enough to sell the lens to masses, especially on 50mm equivalent that is not ideal for portraits?

 

[ahsanford]

really? so you know the design of it already?

Of course I don’t know what it is. But ask yourself a few questions:

1) Does Canon want ‘crop-specific’ and ‘high end’ to coexist? I would contend the answer is no. Just ask every EF-S user who has been frustrated at how few quick lenses have been offered in that mount.

2) Do you expect an EF-M lens like this to get a distance scale, mechanical FTM focusing, etc? I do not. EF-M thus far has been an entirely FBW system.

And I think this thing dies a horrible market death if it’s above a certain price, say $499. That tells me that this is mid-grade non-L EF quality (feature-wise) at best. So it could be delightfully small and sharp, but this will not be a high end instrument.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Personally this specification seems little odd to me based on other EF-M lenses. Most of them have something extra, something to sell the lens with. The 22 is ultra small, 28 has macro and LED light, 18-150 long reach, 11-22 is great for vlogging, 15-45 is collapsible... is the 1.4 aperture enough to sell the lens to masses, especially on 50mm equivalent that is not ideal for portraits?

I agree the platform has been innovative and feature-specific clever with its lens offerings.

But at some point the platform needs to grow up and simply offer something similar to what we have on other mounts. So the masses may not be clamoring for this lens, but a good number of the people on the forum here would snap it up on day one regardless of STM / Nano USM and the aperture.

...or this lens is being done for EF-M and not EF-S for a very special reason: some people here have suggested that Canon’s upcoming FF mirrorless might take a page out of Sony’s book and keep the same mount as crop. It is possible that all of the current EF-M lenses and this new one will fit/work on the new FF platform (albeit cropped). Maybe that’s why EF-M is getting what appears to be the special treatment over EF-S here?

(Or Canon might just ‘pull a 24 pancake / 35 macro’ here and just offer a close to the same variant of this lens in EF-S later.)

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

Makes sense. Doesn't the M5 have 5 axis electronic stabilization?

...for video. Not for stills.

- A

And three of the axes are digital, not optical/mechanical.

 

[hachu21]

Small? Yes.
STM? Highly likely.
Pancake? No. Not unless you consider the 50 f/1.8 stm a pancake.

- A

I agree a 50mm really pancake seem difficult, but Something more like the EF 40mm f/2.8 is maybe possible?
As you pointed out, some designs are jumping from one mount to another.
We didn't see little brothers for this 40mm yet. maybe a jump from FF to APSC is not that simple.

 

[ahsanford]

Small? Yes.
STM? Highly likely.
Pancake? No. Not unless you consider the 50 f/1.8 stm a pancake.

- A

I agree a 50mm really pancake seem difficult, but Something more like the EF 40mm f/2.8 is maybe possible?

Sure, it could be delightfully small, but prior crop 30-ish f/1.4 lenses still have some size to them.

See my prior TDP link on how big the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art was. It’s small, but it’s no pancake. And neither is the Fuji 35 f/1.4. Both appear to be about as big as the Canon EF 35 f/2 IS.

But who knows? Perhaps Canon pulls a rabbit out of a hat and comes up with something amazingly tiny. We’ll see.

- A

 

[Act444]

If it’s a 1.4 I’ll likely go for it...but at 1.8 I’d rather it have IS if it’s to distinguish itself enough from the 22/2.

Bottom line: the EF-M system needs more fast lenses.

 

[hachu21]

If it’s a 1.4 I’ll likely go for it...but at 1.8 I’d rather it have IS if it’s to distinguish itself enough from the 22/2.

22mm => 35mm equivalent field of view
32mm => 50mm equivalent field of view

As primes both have their own use-cases.

 

[ahsanford]

If it’s a 1.4 I’ll likely go for it...but at 1.8 I’d rather it have IS if it’s to distinguish itself enough from the 22/2.

22mm => 35mm equivalent field of view
32mm => 50mm equivalent field of view

As primes both have their own use-cases.

+1. I live in the 24 to 50 mm full frame equivalent space, and I disagree with those who say that a 22 and 32 on crop are not that different.

In broad strokes, I see the 15 crop / 24 FF for landscape work, the 18-22 crop / 28-35 FF as a killer general purpose focal length, and a 32 crop / 50 prime as the shortest focal length that gets you large aperture work that really pops.

In fairness, everybody uses these lenses a little differently. But my take is the more primes the better.

- A

 

[Act444]

If it’s a 1.4 I’ll likely go for it...but at 1.8 I’d rather it have IS if it’s to distinguish itself enough from the 22/2.

22mm => 35mm equivalent field of view
32mm => 50mm equivalent field of view

As primes both have their own use-cases.

I realize that; should probably have clarified I was speaking on a more personal needs level.

 

[bhf3737]

Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]

If f1.4, will the lens be like, attaching an EF 35mm 1.4 L to Eos M?

A close lens with similar spec is Fujifilm 35mm f1.4 that has 52mm filter size, approx. 2.56 x 2.16" (65 x 55 mm) dimensions and 187g weight. Something similar in size to EF-M 11-22mm. It is not a big lens but not a pancake either.

 

[TTran]

EF-M 32mm f/1.4 plus a 4K (full width) APS-C body will be an instant buy for me. Until then I'll just keep using the 80D with the 35mm f/2 IS USM

 

[rrcphoto]

Small? Yes.
STM? Highly likely.
Pancake? No. Not unless you consider the 50 f/1.8 stm a pancake.

- A

I agree a 50mm really pancake seem difficult, but Something more like the EF 40mm f/2.8 is maybe possible?
As you pointed out, some designs are jumping from one mount to another.
We didn't see little brothers for this 40mm yet. maybe a jump from FF to APSC is not that simple.

yes you have.
the 22 EF-M and the 24mm EF-S are the little brothers.

the common tessar like design of the pancake lenses are built around the registration distance of the lens elements to the sensor.

the EF-S 24mm cheats because it has a large ingress, and minimizes distortion because it's APS-C and not full frame.

 

[brad-man]

I would be surprised if the lens is f/1.4, and shocked if it doesn't have IS. Eight months is too long to wait to find out. I'm impatient [CR4]

Now what about that f/4 standard zoom?