Specs & Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out

[Random Orbits]

Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out

Looks like I will be getting everything: M5 MILC, EF-M 18-150, EF-M 14-45 and EF 70-300 IS. ;D

Interesting...

14*1.6 = 22
45*1.16 = 72
70*1.76 = 112
300*1.6 = 480

Excluding the 18-150 (doesn't really fit), that's 22-72 and 112-480.

Where's the coverage from 72-112 going to come from?

How often do you need to fill that gap? Filling all gaps makes a kit heavy, and the idea of the M is small and light, which is why all the M zoom lenses are slow. It would be akin to carrying a 24-70 and a 100-400.

 

[Antono Refa]

Images of two lenses we were the first to report were coming have finally leaked out. The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II shows the digital display we mentioned a few months ago, along with the new EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM.

<snip>

Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM

So Canon started making lenses that are f/6.3 on the long side, like 3rd party manufacturers?

 

[Etienne]

Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out

Just made this comparison gif for the other thread on these lenses.

Done using the rear lens caps for registration and scale, I have both styles on my desk.

The lens cap comparison is not even remotely valid. The EF-M cap is much wider than the EF cap, which is narrow until the lip which contacts the mount. Your estimate exaggerates the size difference

Disagree - the sizes look pretty much spot on to me. PBD takes their product comparison GIFs seriously, so I know I can depend on them!

Personally, I'd rather Canon came out with some really good primes with IS and nanoUSM. I'd prefer f/1.2, but would be ok with f/2 (which is more likely). Wishlist:

EF-M 15mm f/1.4 IS
EF-M 22mm f/1.2 IS
EF-M 50mm f/1.2 IS
EF-M 135mm f/2 IS

 

[Vivid Color]

Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out

Looks like I will be getting everything: M5 MILC, EF-M 18-150, EF-M 14-45 and EF 70-300 IS. ;D

Interesting...

14*1.6 = 22
45*1.16 = 72
70*1.76 = 112
300*1.6 = 480

Excluding the 18-150 (doesn't really fit), that's 22-72 and 112-480.

Where's the coverage from 72-112 going to come from?

The 15-45 is an EFM lens, whereas the 70-300 is likely an EF lens ...... most people will probably pair a 15-45 or 18-55 with the 55-200 EFM if using an EOS M body, so either a small gap or no gap.

Any gap is not really an issue .... we can zoom a bit with our feet ...... or can crop a bit ..... I remember back to starting photography when most lenses were primes, so there were significant "gaps", yet everyone managed fine.

My first SLR was a Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic that was fully manual except for the light meter. I had four primes, or, as they were called at the time, fixed focal length lenses: 28 mm, 55 mm, 105 mm, and 200 mm. I thought I had the whole range from 28 mm to 200 mm covered.

 

[andrei1989]

So Canon started making lenses that are f/6.3 on the long side, like 3rd party manufacturers?

not the first.. ef-m 55-200 and 15-45 are both 6.3

 

[JoeDavid]

There is no good reason for that lens to be slower than f5.6. It should be smaller anyway based on the image circle size. The only reason is that it is cheaper to manufacture. Another example of Canon creating a distinction between camera lines.

 

[andrei1989]

There is no good reason for that lens to be slower than f5.6. It should be smaller anyway based on the image circle size. The only reason is that it is cheaper to manufacture. Another example of Canon creating a distinction between camera lines.

smaller than? ???
it's smaller than the equivalent ef-s 18-135 which is 5.6..

 

[rrcphoto]

There is no good reason for that lens to be slower than f5.6. It should be smaller anyway based on the image circle size. The only reason is that it is cheaper to manufacture. Another example of Canon creating a distinction between camera lines.

The level of BS here is extreme.

it's smaller than the EF-S 18-135mm in all dimensions including filter size which is from 67mm to 55mm.

and there's no sensor size difference there. Nor with the Fuji 18-135mm,etc. As a matter of fact, there IS no 18-135mm being made that is NOT a APS-C or smaller sensor for the love of God..

it's the smallest APS-C 18-135mm being made and lightest. (quite possibly the cheapest if canon keeps to it's tradition on EF-M lenses being under $300)

and it's only 1/3 of a stop at the long end .. if you can't work around that .. you need to pick up a different hobby.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out

I'm just wondering why some people here think it should be stellar or even " the best telephoto ever made". Is there some new magic glass inside ? Most 70-300 4ish/5.6ish on the market fall into the "crappy zoom" category, with maybe the exception of the Canon 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 L IS, that is good to very good (for what it is). But very far from a true stellar lens like the 300 f2.8 L II. How come a plastic low end 70-300 could suddenly become the best 300 on the market ? That's a bit like comparing the Canon 50mm 1.8 to a Zeiss Otus.

I think the term "best" in this context means "best for me" and not "best for everyone". For some, pretty strong optics, cheap build, a good IS unit, low bag weight and a cheaper retail price is the golden ticket to photographic nirvana. For others (me included) we just go "mehh".

If I wanted a travel tele...I would choose a 100-400IIL or a 70-300L or even a 70-200 f4LIS and a 1.4x tele.
While the current 70-300mm IS lens is very good optically, it's not good enough with my opinion of sharpness. Although it's a lot better than most of the 70-300 "plastic fantastic" dross that is out there. None of them are as good as an L lens.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

There is no good reason for that lens to be slower than f5.6. It should be smaller anyway based on the image circle size. The only reason is that it is cheaper to manufacture. Another example of Canon creating a distinction between camera lines.

it's smaller than the EF-S 18-135mm in all dimensions including filter size which is from 67mm to 55mm.

it's the smallest 18-135mm being made.

and it's only 1/3 of a stop .. if you can't work around that .. you need to pick up a different hobby.

I think it's the first Canon "slower than f5.6" lens.

 

[rrcphoto]

There is no good reason for that lens to be slower than f5.6. It should be smaller anyway based on the image circle size. The only reason is that it is cheaper to manufacture. Another example of Canon creating a distinction between camera lines.

it's smaller than the EF-S 18-135mm in all dimensions including filter size which is from 67mm to 55mm.

it's the smallest 18-135mm being made.

and it's only 1/3 of a stop .. if you can't work around that .. you need to pick up a different hobby.

I think it's the first Canon "slower than f5.6" lens.

nope. the 15-45 EF-M and 55-200 are both 6.3

 

[Random Orbits]

Images of two lenses we were the first to report were coming have finally leaked out. The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II shows the digital display we mentioned a few months ago, along with the new EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM.

<snip>

Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM

So Canon started making lenses that are f/6.3 on the long side, like 3rd party manufacturers?

Please note that the lenses that have max apertures smaller than f/5.6 are EF-M lenses, and the Ms don't use a separate phase detect autofocus system. It is all done on the chip. The smaller max apertures also reduce the size of the lenses; not so much the length but the width, which makes the system much easier to carry than a EF-S or EF system.

 

[rrcphoto]

Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out

I'm just wondering why some people here think it should be stellar or even " the best telephoto ever made". Is there some new magic glass inside ? Most 70-300 4ish/5.6ish on the market fall into the "crappy zoom" category, with maybe the exception of the Canon 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 L IS, that is good to very good (for what it is). But very far from a true stellar lens like the 300 f2.8 L II. How come a plastic low end 70-300 could suddenly become the best 300 on the market ? That's a bit like comparing the Canon 50mm 1.8 to a Zeiss Otus.

I think the term "best" in this context means "best for me" and not "best for everyone". For some, pretty strong optics, cheap build, a good IS unit, low bag weight and a cheaper retail price is the golden ticket to photographic nirvana. For others (me included) we just go "mehh".

If I wanted a travel tele...I would choose a 100-400IIL or a 70-300L or even a 70-200 f4LIS and a 1.4x tele.
While the current 70-300mm IS lens is very good optically, it's not good enough with my opinion of sharpness. Although it's a lot better than most of the 70-300 "plastic fantastic" dross that is out there. None of them are as good as an L lens.

you combine the cheaper lenses with DPP's DLO and you get very close to L quality.

 

[JoeDavid]

If they go to f8 it could be even smaller. I don't have a problem with the math, it's just not a system for me. Low light performance suffers the smaller you go. If you are willing to use the required higher ISO settings then good for you but it begins to negate the benefits of the larger sensor over say the 1" sensor size.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out

The expectation is (obviously) for use with the EF-M mount cameras where the tripod mount comes via the EF to EF-M adapter.

Why would that be an concern for this specific lens?

It does not have a tripod ring mount because it will be light enough not to need it. Nothing more.

+1. That new 70-300 is going on a lot more current 6D / future 6D2 bodies than it will go on an EOS-M rig.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

Only 80 grams heavier...

And same single UD element..

I'm now very suspicious of any improvement in IQ.

it's not the same:
New: 17 elements 12 group one UD lens
Old: 15 elements, 10 groups, one UD

 

[ahsanford]

So Canon started making lenses that are f/6.3 on the long side, like 3rd party manufacturers?

not the first.. ef-m 55-200 and 15-45 are both 6.3

The reason (one would presume): tradtional EF / EF-S lenses require an SLR focusing setup, and as Neuro has pointed out a few times, Canon caps max aperture at f/5.6 to work on all EF / EF-S mount bodies -- i.e. Canon does not want to field AF lenses that do not have working AF on some bodies (without a teleconverter).

Third parties don't seem to care and have offered f/6.3 max aperture lenses that worked on EF / EF-S bodies.

But with mirrorless, the AF comes straight off the sensor and will resolve with an f/6.3 lens. That's likely why EF-M has made the exception to the f/5.6 rule.

- A

 

[vscd]

It seems the 70-300 (or 75-300) lenses are the inventionline on Canon. back in 1996 or so it was the first one with Image Stabilization, now it has a LCD Display. There was even a (bad) DO-Line of it.

 

[rrcphoto]

So Canon started making lenses that are f/6.3 on the long side, like 3rd party manufacturers?

not the first.. ef-m 55-200 and 15-45 are both 6.3

The reason (one would presume): tradtional EF / EF-S lenses require an SLR focusing setup, and as Neuro has pointed out a few times, Canon caps max aperture at f/5.6 to work on all EF / EF-S mount bodies -- i.e. Canon does not want to field AF lenses that do not have working AF on some bodies (without a teleconverter).

Third parties don't seem to care and have offered f/6.3 max aperture lenses that worked on EF / EF-S bodies.

But with mirrorless, the AF comes straight off the sensor and will resolve with an f/6.3 lens. That's likely why EF-M has made the exception to the f/5.6 rule.

- A

yes. there's someone that says that DPAF sensor in the 5D Mark IV is having no problems focusing down to F/11.

so 6.3 is pretty easy once you move away from PDAF.

the light loss of 5.6 to 6.3 is negligible.

heck, it's a 300g lens. it's the heaviest EF-M at that.

I think people that have never picked up and played with an EF-M and it's lenses pooh pooh this more .. they just see specs.. combine this and the 11-22mm at 220g and you have a pretty credible lens kit for 520g and a total weight under 1kg.

 

[Josh Denver]

Anyone noticing Canon is drastically changing their lens design aesthetic? Outer design that is.

Their new lenses are ''slick''. They have different ''colour''. The Zoom rings are ''metalic'', the texture is lowered, making it one slick piece design, much like Tamron newest lenses actually.

It's hard to explain look:

-The new 18-135mm

-The new 50mm

-The new 70-300mm

-The new 24-105mm