35L II and New EF-M zoom coming on 8/14?

Sort by date Sort by votes
ahsanford

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,656
1,664
57,701
#1
CW/PR/Digicame believe that we have our two new lenses for next month:

http://digicame-info.com/2015/07/ef35mm-f14l-ii-usmef-m15-45mm.html

EF-M gets a 24-72 equivalent zoom... and they put STM on it. Classic. Probably should have expected it for a non-constant aperture lens like this, but the 24-70-ish equivalent had me hoping it might be USM.

And the 35L II looks like it's finally happening. If the 100-400 II was the White Unicorn, what do we call this long overdue follow-up? The Black Badger, perhaps?

- A
 
#2
I'm not sure what the point of an EF-M 14-55 is. The existing 18-55 matches well with the 11-22, and f/6.3 on the long end?? Perhaps the 14-55's advantage will be size (relative to the 18-55), but if I'm bringing the M, I'm either using the 22 f/2 alone or bringing all the lenses and a slight decrease in size in one lens won't make much of a difference.
 
Upvote 0
#3
Those would be reasonable releases...ok..wait...some people will be over the moon about the 35 L II. :)
The EF-m 15-45 is a bit odd as the current EF-m 18-55 is actually very nice for what it is. The primary benefit I could see from an 15-45 would be a size reduction.
 
Upvote 0
#4
As far as efm lens is concerned, I think a superzoom like tamron 18-200 would be nice. But tamron doesn't work on m3 and is not balanced well. It'd be nice to have a canon version with some weight reduction. And yes, there is nothing sexy about 15-45. To me it's not useful.

I'm not going to fantasize about efm primes. Probably won't happen.

35Lii... I wonder if it has IS and it's probably going to cost $2000...
 
Upvote 0
#5
Some time back I was really excited about a 35L II. That was before the 24-70/2.8L II came along... Now, my 35L gets used primarily for indoor ambient light shooting, so weather sealing isn't needed and it's plenty sharp for my uses. So, I suspect I'll pass on a 35L II if one comes along, other lenses are much higher on my priority list.

Random Orbits said:
I'm not sure what the point of an EF-M 14-55 is. The existing 18-55 matches well with the 11-22, and f/6.3 on the long end?? Perhaps the 14-55's advantage will be size (relative to the 18-55), but if I'm bringing the M, I'm either using the 22 f/2 alone or bringing all the lenses and a slight decrease in size in one lens won't make much of a difference.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if they use a retract-for-storage design like the 11-22 it could be smaller than the M18-55, else I don't expect a significant difference in size.

For those who don't have the M18-55, I can see the attraction - the difference between 24mm and 29mm (FF FoV) doesn't sound like much, but it is certainly noticeable.

With my M18-55, about 15% of my shots are above 45mm and about half of those are at 55mm. At the other end, 34% of my shots are at 18mm and most of them could have used a bit wider angle. So for me, I could see replacing my M18-55 with an M15-45 (likely ordered from Canada ::) ).
 
Upvote 0
#7
EF-M 15-45 does sound somewhat weird. Considering f/6.3 I'd also guess on a size-reduced "pancake" kit-zoom with small "parking position".


In most European countries EOS M3 is not sold "body only" but just as a kit with 18-55. Original M was only offered in kit with 18-55 (plus ST-90EX flash) or with 22/2 (plus EF/M adapter). Not very many M/M3 owners around who want a normal zoom kit lens and don't have the 18-55 yet.

I don't think I'd switch my 18-55 for a 15-45 since I need the longer end more often. If I need wider I use the excellent 11-22.

The EF-M lens I#d really want from Canon is an ultracompact EF-M 75/2.0 IS STM "pancake" tele - optically as good as the 22/2 and at a similar price.
 
Upvote 0
#8
Well if anything, I'll take the fact that perhaps Canon will put out more EF-M lenses. But I think if you asked 100x EOS M shooters what they wanted, none would say a new kit lens with a f/6.3 max aperture at the tele end...
 
Upvote 0
#9
mxma1 said:
Well if anything, I'll take the fact that perhaps Canon will put out more EF-M lenses. But I think if you asked 100x EOS M shooters what they wanted, none would say a new kit lens with a f/6.3 max aperture at the tele end...
Click to expand...

Yeah... all the clamor here was for fast primes and pancakes. Two slow normal zooms instead of one is... confusing. It absolutely wouldn't be USM though - USM is for premium lenses now; STM is for the consumer-grade ones. There won't be a USM EF-M for a while, if ever.

This also leaves me disappointed at no 70-300 IS STM announcement.
 
Upvote 0
#10
ahsanford said:
EF-M gets a 24-72 equivalent zoom... and they put STM on it. Classic. Probably should have expected it for a non-constant aperture lens like this, but the 24-70-ish equivalent had me hoping it might be USM.
Click to expand...

Probably not worth going the USM route for Eos M, given that any advantage of a faster motor will be far outweighed by a slower AF detection system...

neuroanatomist said:
Some time back I was really excited about a 35L II. That was before the 24-70/2.8L II came along... Now, my 35L gets used primarily for indoor ambient light shooting, so weather sealing isn't needed and it's plenty sharp for my uses. So, I suspect I'll pass on a 35L II if one comes along, other lenses are much higher on my priority list.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I do use it for shallow DoF environmental portraiture, but I doubt that situation will present itself too frequently in the midst of a downpour in my case! The current 35L has the additional advantage of matching my other two primes for filter size.

neuroanatomist said:
With my M18-55, about 15% of my shots are above 45mm and about half of those are at 55mm. At the other end, 34% of my shots are at 18mm and most of them could have used a bit wider angle. So for me, I could see replacing my M18-55 with an M15-45 (likely ordered from Canada ::) ).
Click to expand...

Again, agreed. I don't have the EF-M 18-55. If I were to get a zoom for my Eos M, I would prefer the 15-45.
 
Upvote 0
#13
so where are the tests on this 35L II lens....
how long do I have to wait......??

why the big delay?

...............................

sorry ...had to do that......

////////

I believe....
it.... HAS TO... come out ....beating...the sigma 35 'A'.....
and if it does...I will switch ...Sigma to Canon
 
Upvote 0
#14
bf said:
Ef-m 15-45 sounds a pointless release to me!
Click to expand...

Not if it is significantly more compact than the current EF-M 18-55....

Plus, the extra 3mm on the wide end could make a really big difference in terms of general walkaround use. Often I find 18mm to be not wide enough (especially since the M's form factor "forces" you to hold the camera out in front of you, shrinking the FOV further)...

As for the new 35L, finally. Don't know if it's something I'll spring for, but I had the original at one point and other than the softness/PF below F2, it was a great performer.
 
Upvote 0
#15
I bought a 35 prime before I bought a 50 (Both Sig ARTs) and after getting the 50, I almost never touched the 35 anymore. What excites me about the Canon 35L II is that it bodes well for a 50L II perhaps in the next year or so. I expect this new 35 to be fantastic (on par with the ART but with more pleasing bokeh) and the 50 to be perhaps the same or better. When that happens, I'll likely sell my two ART primes and buy the Canon 50L II. Really looking forward to seeing some reviews from the gang at LensRentals and Digital Picture.
 
Upvote 0
#16
If I didn't already have the 18-55, I would consider the M 15-45. But, unless it has a significant advantage over the 18-55 (size or IQ) I will pass. The extra 3mm on the wide end would be nice at times, but not sure I want to go from 55 to 45 on the long end. Even though I have an EF-M adapter, I almost never use it since when I use the M, I'm looking for small size and portability.
 
Upvote 0
#17
Missed the good discussion today while traveling!

1) 15-45 = 24-72 = makes perfect sense to me, if it were a nice 15-45 f/4 IS USM. But this variable aperture nonsense and another STM lens is another reason to not take EF-M seriously. Adapters are weaksauce -- I want native glass optimized for the mount to be no bigger than needed. And as I guy who only shoots stills, STM stands for 'Shots To be Missed' because of the lower focusing speed compared to USM.

2) I contend the 35L II is an important product offering. It simultaneously represents:

  • ...the first like for like product (same FL, same aperture) as the Sigma Art Series. I know Canon doesn't formally 'respond' to third party manufacturers, but folks will naturally compare the performance and value of this new lens against the stellar Sigma 35 Art.

  • ...the first L prime (that's not a big white) since the 100L in 2009. Will we see fancy pants coatings? An ultralight design? Something new?

  • ...the first lens to be released in the 50 MP era.

So it's a big deal, I argue. I'm also curious to see if Canon offers us a $2k prestige lens or a competitive $1250 lens.

- A
 
Upvote 0
#18
bholliman said:
If I didn't already have the 18-55, I would consider the M 15-45. But, unless it has a significant advantage over the 18-55 (size or IQ) I will pass. The extra 3mm on the wide end would be nice at times, but not sure I want to go from 55 to 45 on the long end. Even though I have an EF-M adapter, I almost never use it since when I use the M, I'm looking for small size and portability.
Click to expand...

+1 on the blue stuff. Kit 18-55 lenses are 28.8mm in the FF equivalent, so I think there's a huge change between ~29 and 24mm.

After all, there's a reason Canon offered that 15-85 EF-S lens -- the kit lens handcuffed folks quite a bit on the wide end.

- A
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ahsanford
New EOS M Camera & Lens Make an Appearance
Replies
150
Views
73K
AvTvM
A
Canon Rumors
A New L Zoom is Coming [CR2]
Replies
48
Views
28K
zim
zim
Canon Rumors
  • Locked
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
Replies
54
Views
43K
Pi
Pi
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu