Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]

[Woody]

Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]

If it's f/1.4, I'm in. If it's f/1.8, that may not far enough off the 22/2.

My sentiments precisely.

 

[slclick]

Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]

If it's f/1.4, I'm in. If it's f/1.8, that may not far enough off the 22/2.

My sentiments precisely.

This is being repeated however if we were talking FF would this point even come up considering the pretty large focal difference between 35 and 50? It really makes no sense to me just because it's the M mount that it is. 28 and 35, sure...40 and 50, I get that but semi wide to normal? What evs.....

 

[siegsAR]

I'm very happy Canon is adding another native EF-M lens. But this focal length(1.6x factor considered) doesn't have appeal to me;
my preferred walkaround prime fl(FF equiv.) is 35-45mm, 50 and above is a bit narrow. I had the 35mm f2 is on 6d before, it felt wide(ish); 50mm II on 6d, narrow.

Although there's the 22m already, I would love to see a native EF-M 24 and 28 mils further down the road, even if they start at f/2.

 

[bdbender4]

Sign me up! Personally I like the 50mm+/- equivalent focal length. F/stop, IS, whatever - it's not like we have a lot of other choices, eh? I do have the 22mm.

I have recently been using the nicely compact Fuji 35mm f/2 without IS with no problems. I just had to get back in the habit of watching the minimum shutter speed. My Fuji X-T20 is driving me nuts, though. Even though the Fuji lenses are very nice and very plentiful, the Fuji bodies, of which I have had several..... nuff said.

Got the M5 back out again today, before I saw this. Like I said, sign me up. 8)

 

[NorbR]

I'll probably be in the minority, but I'd prefer if it were f/1.8 or even f/2.

I can live with no IS, but then I'd want a lens that is small and light. Something in the spirit of the 22/2. Of course it will have to be bigger than that lens, but I'd hope for something in the same ball park, just a bit longer. And I don't think that would be possible with a f/1.4, because physics. Then it gets closer to the size of e.g. the Sigma 30mm DC, and that's already significantly bigger.

So a small, cheap 32mm f1.8 please. And keep the f/1.4 and f/1.2 for the future full frame line

 

[9VIII]

I feel like Canon would do well just to make another 22mm pancake in f1.4.

The biggest advantage of short flange systems is the focal length range from 18-35mm, so they should really be making their best lenses in that range.

Canon may as well never actually produce a 50mm lens for EF-M because it would be exactly the same as an EF-S design.

 

[Talys]

Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]

If it's f/1.4, I'm in. If it's f/1.8, that may not far enough off the 22/2.

My sentiments precisely.

This is being repeated however if we were talking FF would this point even come up considering the pretty large focal difference between 35 and 50? It really makes no sense to me just because it's the M mount that it is. 28 and 35, sure...40 and 50, I get that but semi wide to normal? What evs.....

In my opinion, the major difference between a 22/2 and 32/1.8 prime lens is NOT the field of view, because there are relatively few places where you can't just move to capture more or less of the frame; and if that mattered so much, you'd just pop on a zoom, of which there are good choices in the that FL for EF-M.

The real difference between the two is the perspective. 22 and 32 are massively different in perspective, and using one or the other will just create a different image, if you have objects that you're capturing that are at different distances from you.

 

[ahsanford]

Canon may as well never actually produce a 50mm lens for EF-M because it would be exactly the same as an EF-S design.

...but EF-M will be around a lot longer than EF-S, right? At some point the Rebel mirrors will go away...

In that light, perhaps a 50 prime for EF-M isn't so crazy.

- A

 

[Talys]

Canon may as well never actually produce a 50mm lens for EF-M because it would be exactly the same as an EF-S design.

...but EF-M will be around a lot longer than EF-S, right? At some point the Rebel mirrors will go away...

In that light, perhaps a 50 prime for EF-M isn't so crazy.

- A

but... but... what EF-S 50mm?

Edit: oh, nvm. You mean, 50mm equivalent. I get it, now 8)

Yes, I agree. I think that EF-M is here to stay for a long time, and a 35mm crop (prime) makes a lot of sense. So does a EF-M 50mm / 1.4 or 1.8, too, IMO.

 

[mb66energy]

I feel like Canon would do well just to make another 22mm pancake in f1.4.

The biggest advantage of short flange systems is the focal length range from 18-35mm, so they should really be making their best lenses in that range.

Canon may as well never actually produce a 50mm lens for EF-M because it would be exactly the same as an EF-S design.

That is not the only solution. You can use a tele design (positive front group, negative rear group) to make it shorter - the negative group near the sensor is possible because of the lack of a mirror. Think about an EF-M 1.8 50 with the size of the current EF-S 1.8 50. So you have ~20mm less (which is the adapter length).

About tele design: It is comparable to teleconverters which enlarge the effective focal length by e.g. a factor of 2 without increasing the physical length of the lens itself. All teleconverters have the total effect of a negative lens. In a e.g.

Personally I would prefer a 50mm lens 1.8 or 1.4 with IS, 1:4 max reprod. ratio in a relatively compact package.

 

[AvTvM]

not interested. 22/2.0 covers it for me. Will only spend money with Canon, if and when they bring a short tele for EF-M ... e.g. EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM.

 

[AvTvM]

Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]

If f1.4, will the lens be like, attaching an EF 35mm 1.4 L to Eos M?

No. It will be like attaching a slightly larger version of the ancient pre IS EF 35mm f/2. My guess is it will be about as big as the EF 50 f/1.4 USM, which is to say not that big at all.

Sigma made an EF-S image circle 30mm f/1.4 and it was not that big if memory serves.

- A

As an EF-M lens it will definitely not be as big as EF 50/1.4 ... after all it is crop only, not FF image circle. It will have same barrel diameter as all other EF-M lenses. Sizewise similar to 22/2.0, just a bit longer and a bit larger front element [55 or 58mm filter diameter].

I expect it to be F/1.8, very compact, optically as good as 22/2.0 and also "very affordable" ... or even "dirt cheap".

 

[9VIII]

I feel like Canon would do well just to make another 22mm pancake in f1.4.

The biggest advantage of short flange systems is the focal length range from 18-35mm, so they should really be making their best lenses in that range.

Canon may as well never actually produce a 50mm lens for EF-M because it would be exactly the same as an EF-S design.

That is not the only solution. You can use a tele design (positive front group, negative rear group) to make it shorter - the negative group near the sensor is possible because of the lack of a mirror. Think about an EF-M 1.8 50 with the size of the current EF-S 1.8 50. So you have ~20mm less (which is the adapter length).

About tele design: It is comparable to teleconverters which enlarge the effective focal length by e.g. a factor of 2 without increasing the physical length of the lens itself. All teleconverters have the total effect of a negative lens. In a e.g.

Personally I would prefer a 50mm lens 1.8 or 1.4 with IS, 1:4 max reprod. ratio in a relatively compact package.

Good point, and the definition of “telephoto” is that the lens length is shorter than the focal length (800mm lenses are not 800mm long).
If I remember correctly this principle is generally limited but the throat diameter, which is maybe less of a concern on Mirrorless but eventually you also run into the angle of incidence problem anyway.
An 85f1.4 pancake would probably lose a couple of stops of light to pixel vignetting on the corners.

 

[mb66energy]

I feel like Canon would do well just to make another 22mm pancake in f1.4.

The biggest advantage of short flange systems is the focal length range from 18-35mm, so they should really be making their best lenses in that range.

Canon may as well never actually produce a 50mm lens for EF-M because it would be exactly the same as an EF-S design.

That is not the only solution. You can use a tele design (positive front group, negative rear group) to make it shorter - the negative group near the sensor is possible because of the lack of a mirror. Think about an EF-M 1.8 50 with the size of the current EF-S 1.8 50. So you have ~20mm less (which is the adapter length).

About tele design: It is comparable to teleconverters which enlarge the effective focal length by e.g. a factor of 2 without increasing the physical length of the lens itself. All teleconverters have the total effect of a negative lens. In a e.g.

Personally I would prefer a 50mm lens 1.8 or 1.4 with IS, 1:4 max reprod. ratio in a relatively compact package.

Good point, and the definition of “telephoto” is that the lens length is shorter than the focal length (800mm lenses are not 800mm long).
If I remember correctly this principle is generally limited but the throat diameter, which is maybe less of a concern on Mirrorless but eventually you also run into the angle of incidence problem anyway.
An 85f1.4 pancake would probably lose a couple of stops of light to pixel vignetting on the corners.

Moderate tele constructions are no problem, but a 85 1.4 pancake would be a great challenge. Using a 20mm focal length positive group and some negative group would lead to large problems. You need 20mm f/0.6 to make a 1.4 80mm with the negative rear group. I think your argument is correct.

And 20mm f/0.6 results in a 32mm diameter lens with 50dpt - use diamond with it's high refractive index and you have a chance that the lens is not a sphere with a lot of spherical aberrations

 

[9VIII]

Canon may as well never actually produce a 50mm lens for EF-M because it would be exactly the same as an EF-S design.

...but EF-M will be around a lot longer than EF-S, right? At some point the Rebel mirrors will go away...

In that light, perhaps a 50 prime for EF-M isn't so crazy.

- A

but... but... what EF-S 50mm?

Edit: oh, nvm. You mean, 50mm equivalent. I get it, now 8)

Yes, I agree. I think that EF-M is here to stay for a long time, and a 35mm crop (prime) makes a lot of sense. So does a EF-M 50mm / 1.4 or 1.8, too, IMO.

No I meant a straight up ordinary 50mm lens, which as you point out would be equally pointless to do in EF-S (besides being able to optimize sharpness for the smaller image circle).
As discussed above there might be potential for something like an EF-M 50mm DO lens, but I wouldn’t count on compact designs on focal lengths much longer than that (especially not with a wide aperture).

In general I wouldn’t count on EOS-M having much of a future though. If Canon ever does make a short flange 35mm mount it would supplant EF-M immediately, we’ll see how Nikon plays it with their new Z mount, if it ends up being popular I can’t see Canon sticking with EF-M forever (besides it sticking around as the extension of the P&S division that it is).

Given how often we hear about curved sensor patents it’s pretty clear that Canon is working on something beyond EOS-M.
I have little doubt that whatever they come up with next will re-establish Canon as the top photography brand in all categories.

 

[Rocky]

My personal perspective: Canon has already made a mistake for not putting IS in the 22/2.0. There has been quite a few occasions that I wished the 22/2,0 has IS. It will be a bigger mistake of not to put IS in the new 32mm EF-M lens. The 32mm EF-M will not have the same design as the 50 mm EF due to the shorter flange distance of the M camera. Just like the 22/2 EF-M does not share the same design as the 35/2.0 EF lens.

 

[mb66energy]

My personal perspective: Canon has already made a mistake for not putting IS in the 22/2.0. There has been quite a few occasions that I wished the 22/2,0 has IS. It will be a bigger mistake of not to put IS in the new 32mm EF-M lens. The 32mm EF-M will not have the same design as the 50 mm EF due to the shorter flange distance of the M camera. Just like the 22/2 EF-M does not share the same design as the 35/2.0 EF lens.

I fully agree: While the EF f/2 22 is a great lens the lack of IS reduces the universality of this lens dramatically. After learning the benefits of IS with the f/4 70-200 I will never buy another lens without IS. Except it is a specialty lens like tilt-shift e.g.

 

[rrcphoto]

Given how often we hear about curved sensor patents it’s pretty clear that Canon is working on something beyond EOS-M.
I have little doubt that whatever they come up with next will re-establish Canon as the top photography brand in all categories.

I really doubt curved sensors are going to go here.

stacked sensors IMO, are pretty much a given though.

stacked sensors will give canon's mirrorless a boost it needs to really kick it up a notch for the dr zealots that still for some reason lurk in the dark shadows and for AF performance, and possibly to do things such as sony's liveview EVF display.

 

[okaro]

Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]

In my opinion, the major difference between a 22/2 and 32/1.8 prime lens is NOT the field of view, because there are relatively few places where you can't just move to capture more or less of the frame; and if that mattered so much, you'd just pop on a zoom, of which there are good choices in the that FL for EF-M.

The real difference between the two is the perspective. 22 and 32 are massively different in perspective, and using one or the other will just create a different image, if you have objects that you're capturing that are at different distances from you.

A major difference is bokeh. 32 mm f/1.4 has twice the aperture size of 22 mm f/2.0 so it has also twice the maximum blur. Making a second 22 mm would make absolutely no sense.

 

[ritholtz]

I think, Canon M series has enough lens for me to switch to Mirrorless. Time to make a switch with next batch of M cameras. Though few lens in numbers, seems to cover most of the needs of end users.