Canon EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM Macro on the Way
- Thread starter ahsanford
- Start date
Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia
Something doesn't gel.
If a macro, why 28mm (equivalent to 44mm on full frame), which is short for a macro.
If a new prime, why so close to the solitary 22mm.
Why such a modest aperture?
I know the specs are close to the EF 50/3.5 macro, but it would not be a priority focal length/aperture for the EF-M line.
Something doesn't gel.
If a macro, why 28mm (equivalent to 44mm on full frame), which is short for a macro.
If a new prime, why so close to the solitary 22mm.
Why such a modest aperture?
I know the specs are close to the EF 50/3.5 macro, but it would not be a priority focal length/aperture for the EF-M line.
Upvote
0
HTML:
<p>According to Russian certification agency Novocert, Canon will be introducing an EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM lens in the coming weeks/months.</p>
<p>We <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/more-mentions-of-ef-m-prime-lenses-cr1/">expected to see a macro</a> and at least 2 more EF-M lenses to come before the end of 2016.</p>
<p> </p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
Upvote
0
Yeah, I would have preferred a longer macro for EF-M also, but don't completely write off this lens. I thought Sony's E 30mm f/3.5 Macro was too wide and too slow until I started using it. There's a niche for it.trulandphoto said:
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia
There are 'normal' macro lenses (~30mm) for other MILC platforms, and f/3.5 isn't surprising for a macro lens. The shorter FL keeps the lens small, in keeping with one of the raisons d'être of MILC. So, I think it makes sense, and a macro lens is an obvious gap in the EF-M lineup. In fact, if you compare to the EF-S lineup, it's really the only major gap except an f/2.8 standard zoom, and that's unlikely to happen for size reasons (which is also why the 15-xx and 55-xxx zooms aren't as long).
Frodo said:
There are 'normal' macro lenses (~30mm) for other MILC platforms, and f/3.5 isn't surprising for a macro lens. The shorter FL keeps the lens small, in keeping with one of the raisons d'être of MILC. So, I think it makes sense, and a macro lens is an obvious gap in the EF-M lineup. In fact, if you compare to the EF-S lineup, it's really the only major gap except an f/2.8 standard zoom, and that's unlikely to happen for size reasons (which is also why the 15-xx and 55-xxx zooms aren't as long).
Upvote
0
mpphoto said:
Yeah. I'll save my input on this lens til I see the reviews. but can't wait for the new m models!
Upvote
0
Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia
I agree with Frodo. It's too close to the wonderful 22mm. I do like the inclusion of an EF-M macro though.
edit: If it's a macro, shouldn't it have IS for the sake of lighting/shutter speed? Oops. I just noticed it does have IS so never mind...
I agree with Frodo. It's too close to the wonderful 22mm. I do like the inclusion of an EF-M macro though.
edit: If it's a macro, shouldn't it have IS for the sake of lighting/shutter speed? Oops. I just noticed it does have IS so never mind...
Upvote
0
trulandphoto
Upstate NY photographer and retired atorney
mpphoto said:
And I suppose there's always the EF-S 60 plus adapter which is a great lens.
I've had two M bodies and sold them both. Maybe back again in the future.
I'm enjoying my G1X and am looking for a mark II.
Upvote
0
Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia
This will not supplant the 22mm pancake. This is the 'EF-M Macro'. Every mount gets at least one, and as Neuro said, it was one of the final missing pieces of a basic starter set of lenses for EF-M.
- A
brad-man said:
This will not supplant the 22mm pancake. This is the 'EF-M Macro'. Every mount gets at least one, and as Neuro said, it was one of the final missing pieces of a basic starter set of lenses for EF-M.
- A
Upvote
0
Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia
I agree. I just don't get why they couldn't make it at least a 35mm. Would that really increase the size of the lens by that much? Two birds with one stone, so to speak.
ahsanford said:
I agree. I just don't get why they couldn't make it at least a 35mm. Would that really increase the size of the lens by that much? Two birds with one stone, so to speak.
Upvote
0
Woody said:
1) Because Canon wants its bigger ticket spenders living in the EF ecosystem.
2) Fuji has one mount, so higher end shooters living in the Fuji world need higher-end glass. Canon (stills) shooters have three mounts to choose from, the so high-end camp hasn't been the target of the brand (yet).
3) The mantra of EOS-M is (apparently) to keep it small. If they wanted us to bolt pickle jars on it, it might have a beefier grip. Also, who is going to buy a $1,000 higher end prime or f/2.8 zoom that is native to a mount that has no cameras with viewfinders?!
Don't get me wrong -- I want what you want, but EOS-M isn't there yet.
In this order, I expect the following releases to EOS-M:
1) Round out the 'starter' set of lenses -- small pancake, wide zoom, standard zoom, tele zoom, and macro.
2) Offer an enthusiast-grade model with a viewfinder. We can argue about a Rebel sensor vs. the 80D sensor, how many AF points, etc. but I think we'd all agree an enthusiast model needs a @#$%ing viewfinder, and a good one at that.
3) If the enthusiast model sells well, then we might start seeing some nicer lenses -- f/2 and f/1.4 primes, lenses with USM or Nano USM, a really sexy f/2.8 standard zoom, etc.
- A
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Woody said:
Fuji is targeting a high-end niche market, possibly they believe they'll be unable to compete in the mass-market consumer segment – they're barely a blip on the BCN rankings for sales in Japan, dead last among all MILC makers. Canon's M system is clearly targeting the mass market, and f/1.4 primes aren't likely to sell well in that segment.
Upvote
0
Woody said:
The EOS M system gets compared with the Fuji quite often here but I feel this is a bit unfair. The two systems are targeted at different consumer levels. Even the M3 is fairly low down in the Canon Hierarchy despite it's beefier looks. Is an f/1.4 prime a priority for these types of camera? Personally I don't think so. I'd rather have something reasonably cheap and small just like the 22/2 and 11-22 that I own. I already have fast primes for my FF system like many others and the M is simply a back up or casual use camera. For that purpose it performs quite well indeed.
I'm not saying f/1.4 is completely unnecessary but I do think we need an EOS M body to match it. Also, at such a wide aperture focusing becomes tricky for the amateur user who (likely) has no experience in such things. I think even I've only shot at f/1.4 about twice in my life! It's not needed for the vast majority of shots of everyday things (cats, food, selfies etc).
Upvote
0
Given the very limited EF-M lens lineup, I can't quite see why a 28mm macro is such a priority. Surely a 31mm f/2 pancake would have been a better choice?
As for Fuji, I own both the 23mm f/1.4 and the 56mm f/1.2 and whilst both are great lenses, I would trade them for smaller and lighter f/1.8-2 versions if they were available. Apparently Fuji has recognised this and have dropped their plans for fast longer lenses to shift their focus onto developing further f/2 primes (if Fujirumors information is correct).
Fuji have perhaps realised that there are more than one type of buyer of mirrorless systems:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The social media orientated "want the shallow DoF look that I can't get from my smartphone" crowd (dare I say prodominantly {Asian} female?)
[*]The people who want a smaller and lighter system to complement their DSLRs and lenses (e.g. me at the moment)
[*]The all-in "mirror-slappers are dead" brigade, who want everything they had in their DSLR system but in mirrorless (and you could probably subdivide these into "switched to get lighter weight" and "switched because I prefer EVFs, on sensor AF, etc." -the former are probably more than a bit dismayed with Sony's current direction if they bought a first generation A7 series system...)
[/list]
Perhaps my list is not fully inclusive, but I fail to see which of these groups a 28mm macro serves. This leads me to question whether the team developing EOS-M really considering markets, or if they are purely engineering driven?
As for Fuji, I own both the 23mm f/1.4 and the 56mm f/1.2 and whilst both are great lenses, I would trade them for smaller and lighter f/1.8-2 versions if they were available. Apparently Fuji has recognised this and have dropped their plans for fast longer lenses to shift their focus onto developing further f/2 primes (if Fujirumors information is correct).
Fuji have perhaps realised that there are more than one type of buyer of mirrorless systems:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The social media orientated "want the shallow DoF look that I can't get from my smartphone" crowd (dare I say prodominantly {Asian} female?)
[*]The people who want a smaller and lighter system to complement their DSLRs and lenses (e.g. me at the moment)
[*]The all-in "mirror-slappers are dead" brigade, who want everything they had in their DSLR system but in mirrorless (and you could probably subdivide these into "switched to get lighter weight" and "switched because I prefer EVFs, on sensor AF, etc." -the former are probably more than a bit dismayed with Sony's current direction if they bought a first generation A7 series system...)
[/list]
Perhaps my list is not fully inclusive, but I fail to see which of these groups a 28mm macro serves. This leads me to question whether the team developing EOS-M really considering markets, or if they are purely engineering driven?
Upvote
0
Regarding this rumor - wouldn't the working distance of such a lens be quite short and difficult to use?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
