More Mentions of EF-M Prime Lenses [CR1]

[lw]

It would be a pity if after updating most of their EF primes to include IS, that they now revert back to offering non-IS* primes in EF-M

The M system will have a distinct disadvantage compared to other MILCs that have IBIS and hence can have small sized primes but still offer IS

*not that we know whether these have IS or not

 

[AvTvM]

It would be a pity if after updating most of their EF primes to include IS, that they now revert back to offering non-IS* primes in EF-M
The M system will have a distinct disadvantage compared to other MILCs that have IBIS and hence can have small sized primes but still offer IS
*not that we know whether these have IS or not

Yes, Canon seems to be determined to not offer a fully competitive mirrorless system any time soon.

Leaving out IS on EF-M prime lenses would [only] make sense, if EOS M4 and future Canon EOS M bodies came with Sony sensor units including "5-axis" IBIS.

Even last gen Sony sensor tech and AF as in A6000 would already be a major upgrade to Canon's current EOS M ecosystem. Such a Canon APS-C MILC would be pretty much, what i am after: body not bigger than EOS M3 or Sony A6000. Built-in EVF in left top corner, not G5X style "humpback" please. Better AF, IBIS, Canon UI, Canon RT flash transmitter built in ... along with optically good, compact and highly affordable EF-M lenses.

It ain't difficult, Canon!

 

[Proscribo]

Even last gen Sony sensor tech and AF as in A6000 would already be a major upgrade to Canon's current EOS M ecosystem.

I wonder how does Canon's DPAF compare to, for example A6000's AF system?

IMO it should be really obvious choice to Canon use DPAF in mirrorless body. ???

 

[Bernard]

It would be a pity if after updating most of their EF primes to include IS, that they now revert back to offering non-IS* primes in EF-M

The zooms have IS if that's a key feature for you.

I'm not sure who really needs IS in a fast wide prime on a camera that can do a clean (enough) ISO 3200. Are you shooting astro handheld or something?
It stands to reason that the vast majority of users would rather have a smaller size, lower cost, and higher optical performance of a non-IS lens.

EF lenses are different. They are already larger, so the IS mechanism isn't as much of a compromise.

 

[Luds34]

It would be a pity if after updating most of their EF primes to include IS, that they now revert back to offering non-IS* primes in EF-M

The zooms have IS if that's a key feature for you.

I'm not sure who really needs IS in a fast wide prime on a camera that can do a clean (enough) ISO 3200. Are you shooting astro handheld or something?
It stands to reason that the vast majority of users would rather have a smaller size, lower cost, and higher optical performance of a non-IS lens.

EF lenses are different. They are already larger, so the IS mechanism isn't as much of a compromise.

I feel the same. I'd rather have the smaller, cheaper, one less thing to break, non IS lenses on the M. Always a compromise. And adding IS, if it doesn't make it bigger, more expensive, then something else has to go, smaller aperture possibly.

IS in the zooms is probably a good compromise. One they are already bigger lenses so the whole "I want the most compact kit" is already out. And since they are slow lenses, adding IS is probably much easier with such a small aperture.

 

[ahsanford]

It would be a pity if after updating most of their EF primes to include IS, that they now revert back to offering non-IS* primes in EF-M

I'm not sure who really needs IS in a fast wide prime on a camera that can do a clean (enough) ISO 3200. Are you shooting astro handheld or something?

Short answer: IS is for reining in high ISO usage in poor light.

IS simply equals speed when you are running out of light (and the subject isn't moving). I'm shooting primes handheld at 6400 on my 5D3 all the time, and IS would let me walk that down to 800-1600. That's huge.

We have a bit of a cavalier attitude that sensors can handle anything from a noise perspective these days, but even on the great 5D3, despite manageable noise at high ISO, the color and DR goes to hell up there.

- A

 

[bseitz234]

How about some efs primes canon..

I'm in this camp, too. The weight of a 7d body doesn't bug me, so I'm unlikely to go mirrorless anytime soon, but I've grown to like the size/weight of the EF-S 24mm pancake over the 17-55... but I'd much rather have a few more options, and I think an EF-S 15 would make a nice complement to the likes of the 28 f/1.8 / 35 f/2 IS (normal on crop) and the 85 f/1.8 (135 equiv.) to give a nice trinity for EF-S...

 

[rrcphoto]

How about some efs primes canon..

they aren't going to be that dramatically different in size to the already existing 35/2 40/2.8, 28/2.8 options, 24/2.8 options that already exist.

for instance, canon's 35mm 2.0 IS USM is 77.9 x 62.6 mm the nikkor DX 35mm is 70 x 52,5 mm with no IS.

 

[rrcphoto]

It would be a pity if after updating most of their EF primes to include IS, that they now revert back to offering non-IS* primes in EF-M

I'm not sure who really needs IS in a fast wide prime on a camera that can do a clean (enough) ISO 3200. Are you shooting astro handheld or something?

Short answer: IS is for reining in high ISO usage in poor light.

IS simply equals speed when you are running out of light (and the subject isn't moving). I'm shooting primes handheld at 6400 on my 5D3 all the time, and IS would let me walk that down to 800-1600. That's huge.

it's not that easy.

you still run into the fact that your shutter speed is simply too long.

any sort of motion you're limited to 1/focal approximately anyways to combat motion - or higher to around 1/60th of a second.

the only time IS and wide angle and low ISO come into handy is interiors such as churches museums, architecture etc .. things that don't actually move.

 

[ahsanford]

I'm not sure who really needs IS in a fast wide prime on a camera that can do a clean (enough) ISO 3200. Are you shooting astro handheld or something?

Short answer: IS is for reining in high ISO usage in poor light.

IS simply equals speed when you are running out of light (and the subject isn't moving). I'm shooting primes handheld at 6400 on my 5D3 all the time, and IS would let me walk that down to 800-1600. That's huge.

it's not that easy.
you still run into the fact that your shutter speed is simply too long.
any sort of motion you're limited to 1/focal approximately anyways to combat motion - or higher to around 1/60th of a second.
the only time IS and wide angle and low ISO come into handy is interiors such as churches museums, architecture etc .. things that don't actually move.

What part about the above was incorrect?

There are far more 'things that don't actually move' than interiors, and IS helps me capture them with a far lower ISO than if I didn't have IS, plain and simple.

- A

 

[SeppOz]

Urgently wanted: fully competitive, kick ass EOS M4.

+1.

But I'm not as hopeful as you are: I'll walk you back from 'fully competitive' to just 'having a viewfinder'.

- A

Wanted that as well. Got sick of waiting. Managed to pick up a Fuji X-T10 with 18-55 F2.8 to 4.0 lens new in for AUD $999 after cash backs. Looks like more of my spend will be in that direction.

 

[FunkyCamera]

Don't waste everyone's time with this foolish stuff Canon, mirrorless is for chumps.

 

[bseitz234]

How about some efs primes canon..

they aren't going to be that dramatically different in size to the already existing 35/2 40/2.8, 28/2.8 options, 24/2.8 options that already exist.

for instance, canon's 35mm 2.0 IS USM is 77.9 x 62.6 mm the nikkor DX 35mm is 70 x 52,5 mm with no IS.

OK, I'll rephrase: How about now that Sigma is putting out f/1.8 and f/2 zooms, Canon stops messing around with these f/2.8 primes? I understand keeping f/1.4 the realm of the L lenses, but f/2 would be nice...

 

[quiquae]

Would love for this to mean an EF-S 15mm f2 IS would also be released at some point.

Not gonna happen. At that focal length, the designs for EF-S and EF-M are going to be dramatically different due to the difference in back flange distances (EF-M will be much smaller and simpler).

 

[ahsanford]

OK, I'll rephrase: How about now that Sigma is putting out f/1.8 and f/2 zooms, Canon stops messing around with these f/2.8 primes? I understand keeping f/1.4 the realm of the L lenses, but f/2 would be nice...

Short answer -- it depends.

In EF-M: Looks like yes. Canon appears to be putting out faster primes without IS if this rumor is true: 15mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.8 are coming, and there already is a 22mm f/2.

In EF-S: Hell no. No EF-S primes for you unless the word pancake or macro is involved, and those will be f/2.8. If you want a fast prime here, hope an EF lens X 1.6 works for you, or get an EF-S prime from another company.

In EF: Depends on your FL. Review the chart. Canon has sort of staked out what max aperture it wants to offer and appears to be sticking to it. Consider: the 24/28/35 IS refreshes from a couple years ago retained their max aperture. So if you want f/2 or faster in a non-L prime, yes, you have it with the 28 (1.8) / 35 / 50 / 85 / 100 lenses.

- A

 

[bseitz234]

OK, I'll rephrase: How about now that Sigma is putting out f/1.8 and f/2 zooms, Canon stops messing around with these f/2.8 primes? I understand keeping f/1.4 the realm of the L lenses, but f/2 would be nice...

Short answer -- it depends.

In EF-M: Looks like yes. Canon appears to be putting out faster primes without IS if this rumor is true: 15mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.8 are coming, and there already is a 22mm f/2.

In EF-S: Hell no. No EF-S primes for you unless the word pancake or macro is involved, and those will be f/2.8. If you want a fast prime here, hope an EF lens X 1.6 works for you, or get an EF-S prime from another company.

In EF: Depends on your FL. Review the chart. Canon has sort of staked out what max aperture it wants to offer and appears to be sticking to it. Consider: the 24/28/35 IS refreshes from a couple years ago retained their max aperture. So if you want f/2 or faster in a non-L prime, yes, you have it with the 28 (1.8) / 35 / 50 / 85 / 100 lenses.

- A

...which still leaves us with nothing wider than normal (faster than f/2.8) on crop. Given the number of crop DSLRs compared to EOS Ms that are out there, it would seem to be at least an equal market. If they're putting in that effort for the M, I'd think it would be relatively easy to repackage as EF-S, given the same size sensors...

 

[Haydn1971]

Pondering this recently, although I feel that more EF-M specific glass is a good thing, personally beyond my current 22mm and 18-55mm I'm not seeing me add anything more other than perhaps the 11-22mm. What I really want are more midrange primes to compliment my lovely L zooms - I've got the 35mm IS, would like to extend to a trinity of a 50mm IS and 85mm IS and potentially replace my 16-35mm L with a wider prime 15/14mm perhaps as I hardly ever use my 16-35 at anything but 16mm. All of which, if as compact as my 35mm IS could be put to good use on my EOS-M kit - so for me, yes please, more EF-M primes, but also more EF IS primes too !

 

[brad-man]

OK, I'll rephrase: How about now that Sigma is putting out f/1.8 and f/2 zooms, Canon stops messing around with these f/2.8 primes? I understand keeping f/1.4 the realm of the L lenses, but f/2 would be nice...

Short answer -- it depends.

In EF-M: Looks like yes. Canon appears to be putting out faster primes without IS if this rumor is true: 15mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.8 are coming, and there already is a 22mm f/2.

In EF-S: Hell no. No EF-S primes for you unless the word pancake or macro is involved, and those will be f/2.8. If you want a fast prime here, hope an EF lens X 1.6 works for you, or get an EF-S prime from another company.

In EF: Depends on your FL. Review the chart. Canon has sort of staked out what max aperture it wants to offer and appears to be sticking to it. Consider: the 24/28/35 IS refreshes from a couple years ago retained their max aperture. So if you want f/2 or faster in a non-L prime, yes, you have it with the 28 (1.8) / 35 / 50 / 85 / 100 lenses.

- A

...which still leaves us with nothing wider than normal (faster than f/2.8) on crop. Given the number of crop DSLRs compared to EOS Ms that are out there, it would seem to be at least an equal market. If they're putting in that effort for the M, I'd think it would be relatively easy to repackage as EF-S, given the same size sensors...

Canon wants crop shooters to "upgrade" to FF, so they starve the crop prime market. They don't appear to have the same goal with mirrorless. That's good for their fledgling mirrorless system users, not so good for SLR crop shooters. The marketing department rules.

 

[LonelyBoy]

A 15mm EF-M = a 24mm prime in FF. Lovely, but who the hell was asking for this?

EOS-M has an ultrawide zoom and an adjacent wide prime with the 22mm f/2. Surely a native sized portrait lens or macro lens was a bigger need for the platform, right?

And why does EOS-M go with faster max aperture small primes without IS, while EF gets slower max aperture primes with IS? Everything about this seems inconsistent.

- A

You keep talking about wanting a portrait lens for the M - do you really intend to do serious portraiture with the M? Do you think a lot of other people would? I'm genuinely curious; it seems like a purpose for which the size advantage of the M wouldn't help at all. Why not use any Canon DSLR instead?

 

[AvTvM]

I also want a compact, light, moderate tele lens in EF-M mount. For "unserious" quick portraits on the fly (not in studio), for street use, for concerts/events [where DSLRs are either "forbidden" or simply too bulky], for urbexing when I think it is not advisable to take really expensive cameras and lenses along to a specific location] and for general walk-around tele use.

Beyond 55mm focal length @ f/5.6 on the EF-M kit lens the only currently available native EF-M lens is the EF-M 55-200/4.5-6.3. I'd like a EF-M short tele prime - around 85mm - a few stops faster [anything between f/2.0 and f/2.8], smaller size and with IS. Adapted EF 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 is already a bit on the large side on an M and they have no IS.