Ok, if canon want us to believe this system is still for real, give us some 2.8 standard zoom.
Upvote
0
Ok, if canon want us to believe this system is still for real, give us some 2.8 standard zoom.
definitely NOT needed for EOS M system. Get an EOS R and all the big, heavy, expensive f/2.0 and f/2.8 zooms you want.
Do you really consider our Tamron 17-50/2.8 being any big? Without at least 2.8 all-arounder, any system is doomed
I think a 17/18-50 f/2.8 could be made within EF-M physical parameters. This is the focal range where the short FFD makes a difference, a 17-50/55 is retrofocal to normal with an EF-S flange distance (and the mirror), but would not need to be retrofocal on the M. But I suspect the price would exceed US$500, which might be a strategic no-go for Canon. Perhaps if the M32/1.4 sells well, that will suggest to Canon a market appetite for a fast standard zoom.Do you really consider our Tamron 17-50/2.8 being any big? Without at least 2.8 all-arounder, any system is doomed
I think a 17/18-50 f/2.8 could be made within EF-M physical parameters. This is the focal range where the short FFD makes a difference, a 17-50/55 is retrofocal to normal with an EF-S flange distance (and the mirror), but would not need to be retrofocal on the M.
I think one of your other personalities (fullstop?) said this exact same thing.as users migrate to Canon R and RF lenses, there will be a lot of hardly used, mint condition EF lenses available second hand for little money.
Did you think we’d see an EF-M f/1.4 prime?In short: I don't think we 're ever going to see Canon EF-M f/2.8 zoom/s.
Did you think we’d see an EF-M f/1.4 prime?
EF-M 17-50 f/4.0 IS
definitely NOT needed for EOS M system. Get an EOS R and all the big, heavy, expensive f/2.0 and f/2.8 zooms you want.
Does not make sense.
I would like to replace 80D + EF-s 17-55 2.8, and the answer is EOS R?
I think it's possible. Not that a direct comparison is possible, but 2x 32mm f/1.4 is 64mm f/2.8. Given Canon's penchant for being slightly conservative with M lenses (e.g. M11-22 vs EF-S 10-18/22), we might see a 19-50/2.8 or some such.It is completely physically impossible to make a 17-50mm f2.8 with a 61-odd mm exterior diameter.
Does not make sense.
I would like to replace 80D + EF-s 17-55 2.8, and the answer is EOS R?
I think it's possible. Not that a direct comparison is possible, but 2x 32mm f/1.4 is 64mm f/2.8. Given Canon's penchant for being slightly conservative with M lenses (e.g. M11-22 vs EF-S 10-18/22), we might see a 19-50/2.8 or some such.