Patent: Lots of EF-M zoom optical formulas

Sep 17, 2014
106
70
#21
That is what I and many others want.
Small and light has to be slow and with plastic.
Many L lenses are plastic in a lot of the lens.
I personally am very happy with the new lenses as I am planning on getting the new M camera if it is an M5 replacement.
That is what has me holding off.
If I want big and heavy I will stick with my L lenses and the 7D or get an R with big fast lenses. But this is great for a second handy camera.
I am not saying make a 24-100 F2.8 with all metal construction.
Plastic build is fine if good quality plastic and at least a metal mount.

But:

The Fuji 18-55 2.8-F4 is 309g and very good build and image quality.
The Sony 16-70 F4 is 307g.

Neither is very expensive or heavy. Something like those 2 lenses could Canon build.
Not kit lenses with plastic mounts and F6.3 aperture.
 
Last edited:
Sep 17, 2014
106
70
#25
Out of curiosity, what is the fastest/smallest constant aperture zoom lens with at least 50mm of range, regardless of system?
Probably Sony 16-70 F4. Or the Olympus 12-40 F2.8. I think the Fuji 18-55 2.8--4 would also qualify when used at F4. All those lenses are pretty small and around 300g.
 
Aug 1, 2017
72
16
USA
#26
Probably Sony 16-70 F4. Or the Olympus 12-40 F2.8. I think the Fuji 18-55 2.8--4 would also qualify when used at F4. All those lenses are pretty small and around 300g.
For a system as small as the M, I don't mind a little more weight if it means all-metal build quality. That said, the Sony 16-70 f/4 isn't too far away in size from the longer Canon R 24-105 f/4, 2-5/8 x 3" (66.6 x 75 mm) versus 3.29 x 4.22” (83.5 x 107.3mm), respectively. Canon could easily make this for M. They only made two high-end zooms for regular aps-c: the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 15-85 variable, so hopefully they'll do the same for M.
 

pj1974

EOS 7D MK II
Oct 18, 2011
575
34
Adelaide, Australia
#27
EF-M lenses do have copy variation. Bryan’s (TDP) first copy of the M18-150 was terrible. I sent him images from mine, which is optically very good, he ordered another copy which was much better and that’s the one you see in his ISO 12233 shots.

As a rule, when you buy a lens test it! Checking for decentering isn’t difficult, and it’s a common cause of poor IQ that results from rough handling during shipment. There is also variation out of the factory, less with L lenses, more with consumer lenses, and even more with inexpensive lenses like Samyang/Rokinon.
Precisely. I have owned multiple copies of the same model lenses, usually in part because the first copy was poor. I have also used multiple copies of same model lenses (e.g. borrowed from friends). I have seen first hand on several occasions that sample variety does exist, sometimes significantly. Usually less so with more expensive lenses, but even that is not an exact science / formula.

Thankfully my current lenses that I rely on for critical sharpness, are good copies, and do not suffer from de-centering. My Canon EF-M 18-150mm is a sharp copy, as is my Canon EF-M 15-45mm, but I have seen poor copies in tests, and from other users. My EF and EF-S lenses likewise are good. I previously owned a 2nd hand copy of a 10-18mm which was significantly soft at the 10mm, but relatively ok at 18mm. My current copy is very sharp at 10mm, and suitable sharp at 18mm (at least just as sharp as the previous copy). As I use this lens mostly at 10mm, it was a no brainer to keep this one.

My current most used L glass (Canon 70-300mm L and the 100mm f/2.8 macro IS) are both very consistent and sharp across the frame. Very happy with them, but I have used a 70-300mm L which was notably less sharp at 300mm than mine is.

Len Rental's tests (thanks Roger) of multiple samples of the same model lenses is really insightful. The most recent Canon lenses (including the 70-200mm F/4 IS II and the 70-200mm f/2.8 III are particularly good examples of close tolerances and good sample to sample consistency for image quality- i.e. sharpness, etc)

But back to the point - of the potential new EF-M lenses, yes I would really like a EF-M 15-150mm lens, especially if it can be maintained in approximately the same size factor as the existing 18-150mm - though I realise that's pushing the laws of physics quite a bit! I love the 15mm on the wide end, compared to 18mm. That's one reason why I use my 15-85mm on my 80D / 7D, etc.

No need for 'fast glass' for all purpose / kit zooms, for the way I use EF-M lenses, with my M5. I prefer using primes for really fast glass, e.g. f2 and faster, when I need that.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
131
93
117
Williamsport, PA
#30
I am not saying make a 24-100 F2.8 with all metal construction.
Plastic build is fine if good quality plastic and at least a metal mount.

But:

The Fuji 18-55 2.8-F4 is 309g and very good build and image quality.
The Sony 16-70 F4 is 307g.

Neither is very expensive or heavy. Something like those 2 lenses could Canon build.
Not kit lenses with plastic mounts and F6.3 aperture.
If Canon would put IBIS in the new M body that would allow for a smaller yet faster lens. That would be nice.
 

Bob Howland

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 25, 2012
402
14
#32
The sensor in my G7X is 1", much smaller than APS-C, but the lens is 24-100 equivalent and at least 2 stops faster than any of the lenses being rumored. Canon has to do better, much better, with their M kit lenses.
 
Last edited:

schmidtfilme

Photographer / Documentary Filmmaker
Sep 5, 2012
82
4
Nuremberg
www.35photo.de
#33
EF-M lenses do have copy variation. Bryan’s (TDP) first copy of the M18-150 was terrible. I sent him images from mine, which is optically very good, he ordered another copy which was much better and that’s the one you see in his ISO 12233 shots.

As a rule, when you buy a lens test it! Checking for decentering isn’t difficult, and it’s a common cause of poor IQ that results from rough handling during shipment. There is also variation out of the factory, less with L lenses, more with consumer lenses, and even more with inexpensive lenses like Samyang/Rokinon.
Well the lens came with the kit. Maybe I should have returned the whole kit. Anyhow I would like to sell it and get a really good alrounder zoom instead.
 
Sep 10, 2018
140
84
#34
i am so happy i did not buy into the eos-m system.. all these slow a** lesens are so disappointing.

i would liked to stay in the canon system for aps-c (having the 5D MK4) but for aps-c canon has nothing i am interested in.

maybe if sigma would make lenses for eos-m.
 

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
1,038
240
49
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
#35
Fast lenses are very easy for the M mount seeing as it is larger than the Sony e mount.
No they aren't, the M mount and Sony E mount are essentially identical in size. The only "advantage" is that Canon APS-C sensors have a smaller crop (1.6x vs 1.5x) which possibly gives more flexibility for M lenses, but also means that a 15mm gives a wider field of view on a Sony E lens than a Canon M.
 
Jul 26, 2011
263
4
#36
All of those would almost certainly be outside of the design parameters Canon appears to have chosen for the EF-M lineup.
But clearly, from all of us asking for higher quality and faster lenses, there seems to be a need for such lenses too. All we need is a good fast wide angle to light telephoto (something like a 24-70 3.2 constant let’s say) and a telephoto (something like a 70-200 4.5 constant). Most of us would be willing to put up with bigger size and more weight obviously. I bet these two lenses would be the hottest sellers in the M system.
 

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
433
#37
But clearly, from all of us asking for higher quality and faster lenses, there seems to be a need for such lenses too. All we need is a good fast wide angle to light telephoto (something like a 24-70 3.2 constant let’s say) and a telephoto (something like a 70-200 4.5 constant). Most of us would be willing to put up with bigger size and more weight obviously. I bet these two lenses would be the hottest sellers in the M system.
I very much doubt that most M users would be willing or even interested in larger and heavier lenses. Canon no doubt has very detailed marketing analysis that indicates otherwise. The system is meant for those wanting a very small, very light and inexpensive system. That being said, with the introduction of the new R camera, it is unknown exactly how Canon will approach (or IF they will) those wanting a higher end APS-C system. Will their be larger M bodies? Will their be an APS-C R version? Or does Canon beleive that their is no future for high end APS-C? My guess is that all of these possibilites are on the table.

While some folks here have mentioned that they use larger lenses with adapter on their Ms, there are probably as many if not more folks (like me) that have tried and totally abandoned any attempt to out any EF or EF-S lens on an M. Even the M5 is totally uncomfortable with any wider, bigger or heavier lenses, in my opinion.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,578
633
#38
But clearly, from all of us asking for higher quality and faster lenses, there seems to be a need for such lenses too.
Who are ‘all of us’? ‘We’ on this forum are meaningless and irrelevant as far as Canon’s customer base is concerned.
 
Jul 19, 2011
226
32
#40
Who are ‘all of us’? ‘We’ on this forum are meaningless and irrelevant as far as Canon’s customer base is concerned.
Given, yes. But I don't think that my buying profile is shared by nobody else.

So there definitely is a market for faster glass in good build quality.
Not as big as the mediocre-performance-wide-zoom-range-plastic-mount
market, but certainly not irrelevant.