SIGMA again announces EF-M lenses, and mount conversion service

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,957
3,608
But with modern optics and a telescoping lens design, it doesn't need to be as long. And that's got a tangible value to it for a traveling photographer. A consumer-grade 100-400 style lens with a variable aperture to f/7.1 - while slow - would be plenty usable on sunny days for bird watching, etc., and would only require a front opening smaller than 58mm; bump that down to f/6.7 and you're still smaller than a 62mm front opening. A comparison between existing similar models, namely the EF-S 55-250 vs the EF-M 55-200, shows that with a few compromises (the EF-M lens is slower and has 50mm less range), the physical size of the lens can be decreased dramatically.

The question isn't whether or not it's possible. Only whether or not there's enough of a market for it that Canon could recoup the costs of engineering, tooling, and production, and whether or not something else in their lens lineup could take the place of that particular lens. To this point, Canon hasn't seemed to be in a hurry to build anything beyond the 200-250mm range for APS-C sensors anywhere in its line. This makes more sense for EF-S lenses, which have a size and form factor similar to their full-frame counterparts. For the EF-M line, where you'd think size makes a difference, the disparity in size between the EF-M 55-200 and the next steps up in focal length is much more damning.

Frankly, at this point, I am little bit confused as to what the advantages of APS-C are other than to exploit the sensor crop to get a little more "oomph" out of a telephoto lens - most all of which are built for full-frame anyhow. Especially with a smaller M-series body like my M50 - which is a great camera, don't get me wrong, and I am very happy with the results I've gotten. But the size advantage of lens engineering goes mainly into trying to negate the natural weakness of APS-C on the wide angle side of the focal length spectrum. And if I try to position myself with decent quality lenses that I can use on both full frame and APS-C cameras (as with my EF 16-35 f/2.8), I've negated any and all size advantage gained with the M series body.

These are interesting times in the photography world, that's for sure.
A 100-400mm with a maximum f/7.1 would be a waste of time and money, being well into the diffraction limited region for resolution for a 32 Mpx sensor and slow shutter speed and poorer AF. The big advantage for APS-C for those of us limited by "reach" is that we get a very high density sensor that we have to crop less than FF with a 1/4 of the number of pixels, which allows for higher frame rates and less demands on storage.
 

andrei1989

EOS RP
Sep 1, 2014
383
62
30
Seriously? You think a lens that needs to create an image for a large FF sensor and a lens that only needs to produce it to a considerably smaller sensor are the same size? Why do you think there's an EF-S 24/2.8 pancake but no EF? Or why is the EF-M 11-22 so much smaller than anything comparable?
you are comparing apples to oranges
wide angle lenses benefit from shorter flange distances and smaller sensors
telephoto lenses are only (mostly) constrained by aperture: the best example for this is for you to look at the fuji 100-400, a lens for mirrorless aps-c, the sony 100-400 for mirrorless FF and the canon ef 100-400, a lens for FF dslr. check the dimensions and tell us how much fuji benefits from the shorter flange and smaller sensor

the ef-s 24mm back element goes a very long way inside the camera, unlike the 40 mm pancake with which it shares the body
 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,560
495
UK
www.flickr.com
A 100-400mm with a maximum f/7.1 would be a waste of time and money, being well into the diffraction limited region for resolution for a 32 Mpx sensor and slow shutter speed and poorer AF.
It depends. I mean, no such lens is ever going to appear, and it would make no market sense to do so. But superzoom fixed lens cameras go well past the diffraction limit of their sensors and still sell - I guess to people who don't know or care about such things, and for whom the maximum 'reach' is all that matters.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,957
3,608
It depends. I mean, no such lens is ever going to appear, and it would make no market sense to do so. But superzoom fixed lens cameras go well past the diffraction limit of their sensors and still sell - I guess to people who don't know or care about such things, and for whom the maximum 'reach' is all that matters.
You are absolutely right about some superzoom cameras. One of the worst is the Nikon Coolpix 1000. The Sony RX10 III and IV are honest in that at the maximum FF equivalent of 600mm the aperture drops to f/4, which matches the DLA for the size of pixels.
 

koketso

EOS M5 | Sony A7
Jan 26, 2019
10
1
Johannesburg
Maybe this will spur Canon to add some more of their own.
There is an answer to this.

All of Canon's M glass has the same lens diameter. Basically, Canon has decided that their first-party lenses will be the same width and they left the rest up to Sigma, Tamron, and Samyang. Its not a solid plan as Sigma is only commiting now, and Tamron + Samyang (Rokinon) have only made one lens each.

But I believe Sigma is only coming to the party now because their Contemporary lenses were actually out-resolving Canon's M 18mp and 24mp cameras up until the new sensor in the 90D and M6MkII came out. There could be no other explanation.
 

OneSnark

Canon Fanboy
Aug 20, 2019
38
16
I have, perhaps, a dumb question.

While I am enthused about sigma producing decent fast primes for the EF-M line. . . .why is NOBODY producing F4 (or heaven forbid F2.8) zooms?
I know I could use EF glass on adapters; but frankly if I was wanted to go the adapter route; I would simply by a full frame RP body.

I would have thought there would have been a natural market for such F4 EF-M lenses.
I know of ONE guy who would pony up. :)
 

andrei1989

EOS RP
Sep 1, 2014
383
62
30
I know of ONE guy who would pony up. :)
one guy is not a market

canon keeps constant aperture zooms for their full frame cameras. there was only one exception, the 17-55 2.8
i would like to see some semi pro zooms for the M line too, but i won't hold my breath
 

Travel_Photographer

Travel, Landscape, Architecture
Aug 30, 2019
80
100
So I'm circling back to this older thread since I just received a rental Sigma 16mm F1.4 today to try on my M6 (along with an RF 35mm F1.8 IS for an RP).

First impressions, it's definitely a quality lens. To cut right to one of the ongoing discussions about lens barrel diameter, I see no particular disadvantage to the wider diameter of this lens compared to the smaller (and identical) diameter of all the current EF-M lenses. If Canon produced wider diameter lenses for EF-M, I'd be fine with that.

That said, while this lens balances "fine" on my M6, it is definitely longer and heavier than I expected. Ergonomically, it doesn't feel quite as part of the camera as the EF-M lenses that I own do (22mm, 32mm, 15-45, and 55-200). Though it obviously wasn't designed specifically for Canon, but rather for Sony and Micro Four Thirds.

I did some indoor and outdoor side-by-side image quality tests with the 15-45mm set at 16mm, and both lenses set at F5.6 (I just picked a generally middle-ground aperture). Maybe the Sigma was a little sharper than the 15-45, but I'd have to really pixel peep at full-size to see it. That was just a preliminary couple of test scenarios, though, around the house, some flowers outdoors, etc. We'll see how it goes for the rest of my time with it.

If you need fast shutter speeds for moving subjects, then I can certainly see the appeal of this lens over the slower 15-45. For non-moving subjects, the image stabilization in the 15-45mm may more than make up the difference for the narrower aperture.

All four of my other EF-M lenses, including the 55-200mm, I would consider "walk around" lenses, meaning I'm happy to hike all day with them. I'm not sure I'd be happy walking around all day with this lens, given its weight and extra bulk. I'll give it a try and see how it feels. For me, being able to walk around all day with an M-series camera is a large part of the appeal. For those that don't prioritize that, the advantage of the faster shutter speeds may make this lens a worthwhile investment. I have it for ten days so we'll see how it goes.

Incidentally, I tried the RF 35mm F1.8 IS on my RP and that lens is *spectacular*. Wow. I've only had that rental one day but I'm definitely buying a new one. The F1.8 aperture combined with the image stabilization is incredible, and the lens is ridiculously sharp.

Photos of the Sigma on my M6:

Sigma_1.jpg



Compared to the 55-200 (slight distortion in the photo from my cell phone camera):


Sigma_3.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

SteveC

M50 & T6i
Sep 3, 2019
404
279
So I'm circling back to this older thread since I just received a rental Sigma 16mm F1.4 today to try on my M6 (along with an RF 35mm F1.8 IS for an RP).

First impressions, it's definitely a quality lens. To cut right to one of the ongoing discussions about lens barrel diameter, I see no particular disadvantage to the wider diameter of this lens compared to the smaller (and identical) diameter of all the current EF-M lenses. If Canon produced wider diameter lenses for EF-M, I'd be fine with that.

That said, while this lens balances "fine" on my M6, it is definitely longer and heavier than I expected. Ergonomically, it doesn't feel quite as part of the camera as the EF-M lenses that I own do (22mm, 32mm, 15-45, and 55-200). Though it obviously wasn't designed specifically for Canon, but rather for Sony and Micro Four Thirds.

I did some indoor and outdoor side-by-side image quality tests with the 15-45mm set at 16mm, and both lenses set at F5.6 (I just picked a generally middle-ground aperture). Maybe the Sigma was a little sharper than the 15-45, but I'd have to really pixel peep at full-size to see it. That was just a preliminary couple of test scenarios, though, around the house, some flowers outdoors, etc. We'll see how it goes for the rest of my time with it.

If you need fast shutter speeds for moving subjects, then I can certainly see the appeal of this lens over the slower 15-45. For non-moving subjects, the image stabilization in the 15-45mm may more than make up the difference for the narrower aperture.

All four of my other EF-M lenses, including the 55-200mm, I would consider "walk around" lenses, meaning I'm happy to hike all day with them. I'm not sure I'd be happy walking around all day with this lens, given its weight and extra bulk. I'll give it a try and see how it feels. For me, being able to walk around all day with an M-series camera is a large part of the appeal. For those that don't prioritize that, the advantage of the faster shutter speeds may make this lens a worthwhile investment. I have it for ten days so we'll see how it goes.

Incidentally, I tried the RF 35mm F1.8 IS on my RP and that lens is *spectacular*. Wow. I've only had that rental one day but I'm definitely buying a new one. The F1.8 aperture combined with the image stabilization is incredible, and the lens is ridiculously sharp.

Photos of the Sigma on my M6:

View attachment 187712


Compared to the 55-200 (slight distortion in the photo from my cell phone camera):


View attachment 187713
That doesn't seem that bad.

I have the Tamron 18-200 made for the M mount, and it too is a bit wider, perhaps more so than this is (it takes a 62mm filter). It certainly doesn't feel like a boat anchor.

Canon *could* bend a little on their diameter fetish, I think, without sacrificing portability (and even if it is sacrificed...it doesn't make the lenses already out there less portable).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Travel_Photographer

Travel_Photographer

Travel, Landscape, Architecture
Aug 30, 2019
80
100
That doesn't seem that bad.

I have the Tamron 18-200 made for the M mount, and it too is a bit wider, perhaps more so than this is (it takes a 62mm filter). It certainly doesn't feel like a boat anchor.

Canon *could* bend a little on their diameter fetish, I think, without sacrificing portability (and even if it is sacrificed...it doesn't make the lenses already out there less portable).
Agreed. I do like the lens a lot. If I had a need for faster shutter speeds at that focal length, I would definitely be happy snapping one up, knowing that it just wouldn't necessarily be for carting all over town.

I also agree that the more lens options the better. Just because a particular lens may not be the perfect fit for one person, doesn't make it that way for everyone else. Maybe for someone else it's their go-to lens! (y) (y)