Canon EF-M 85/2.4 STM IS - stupid Canon, go make it!

[ahsanford]

Sorry, late to the thread here.

If I understand our resident anti-mirrorslapper crusader, AvTvM would like a lens that is simultaneously:

• Sharp
• Longer FL
• Pancake form factor
• Light weight
• Wide aperture
• Inexpensive
• Image stabilized
• Made expressly for Canon's lowest priority lens mount

Did I get that right? Because I believe APS-H (or Betamax for that matter) has a better chance of being resurrected than this lens has of being made.

With all due respect to AvTvM (whose nutty passion is honestly appreciated), EF-M needs something less exotic -- say, an integral viewfinder -- before a mythically improbable lens like this should be offered.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

i want as long FL as possible in a "pancake design" with f/2.8 or better.

What is the number one reason for getting an EOS-M camera? Small size!

And now you want a compact longer focal length lens to go with it?

A small lens on a small body because you want it to be compact?

Makes sense to me, but why are people arguing about this?

 

[romanr74]

when does stupid Canon finally come up with this lens? Aside from a fully competitive, kick-ass EOS M4 body, a short tele prime is the only thing I am missing for my EOS M setup.

I want it as compact as the Pentax HD 70/2.4 pancake ... which is a mirrorslapper lens, so a mirrorless version should not be bigger, even with a tiny STM-AF drive and tiny IS unit built in.
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/pentax-hd-pentax-da-70mm-f-2-4-limited-lens-review-23141

Plastic mount and no manual focus ring and gear would be perfectly fine with me. As light as possible. As compact as possible. As simple as possible. As cheap as possible. IQ as great as possible = like EF-M 22/2. 8)

WHY oh why not, stupid Canon?

since you are less stupid than canon just start your own company and build your own gear!

 

[Sporgon]

Neuro, I'd agree with you 99% of the time, but a nifty fifty on a crop Rebel is lethal for candids; try it sometime. Actually I find my shots from a cropped 50mm, IE 80 effective, a lot of times to be "better" than a 5D3 + 85 f/1.2, it just gives it a certain look. Now the latter stomps on the former btw, but, you shouldn't discount the former is my point.

I agree on this point, not specifically the EF 50/1.8 but over the years I've found I like the effect that a FF image circle 50 mil gives on crop. The dof / focus fall off / focus transition seems to be subtly different from the FF with 75 - 85. It's also easier to use well, or at least I find it so.

I'm honestly not sure how my questioning the utility of an f/2.4 lens for portraits on APS-C was misinterpreted as questioning the utility of a 50mm lens for portraits on APS-C. ??? My issue was with the f/2.4 aperture for which the OP is asking.

In a studio-type setting, with control of background, max aperture matters little (I typically shoot a 135mm lens on FF, which is the FL equivalent the OP discussed, at f/10 or narrower when using a backdrop). When I used APS-C regularly, I moved from the 85/1.8 to the 85/1.2L for more subject isolation in outdoor portrait shooting.

I shouldn't have included your quote in my reply because I agree on your comments regarding the 70 f/2.4 on crop, but that lens Mirror Mike referred to is a crop lens anyway, but Pentax do produce rather quirky lenses. Always have done in fact, a trace of the original DNA seems to still run in Pentax despite the fact that it's changed hands a number of times.

Sorry, late to the thread here.

If I understand our resident anti-mirrorslapper crusader, AvTvM would like a lens that is simultaneously:

• Sharp
• Longer FL
• Pancake form factor
• Light weight
• Wide aperture
• Inexpensive
• Image stabilized
• Made expressly for Canon's lowest priority lens mount

Well the lens he has suggested Canon is stupid for not building is certainly not inexpensive ! In the UK they are about £500. And it is not fast, nor any IS.

Pentax have always produced some odd focal focal lengths / apertures, for better or worse, and a 112 f/4 lens equivalent is definitely quirky !

Also, this lens is an all metal one with a rather nice smooth, well damped mechanical manual focus ring. I'm thinking AvTvM has never actually handled one of these.

 

[9VIII]

...
But just a simple 85mm wouldn't be pancake - it needs to have 85mm from sensor side principle plane to sensor. The only way to make it shorter is using a tele design which isn't impossible. But a lens length below 60mm (just in the case of f/2.4) is not realistic IMO.

The pentax is so cute because it uses 25mm more flange distance of the mirror slapper.
and using my EOS M ...
...

I agree. But even if an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM would come same size as EF-M 18-55 which is 60.9 mm Dia x 61 Length, I would be very happy. 8)

Talking to stupid Canon, one has to ask for the impossible ... in order to get anything at all. ;D

If you know that a Pancake would be impossible then don't go insulting the Pancake name with these Cupcake designs.
Maybe you could say EF-M 50mm f2.8 IS DO, but I'm betting that's the most Pancake we're going to get on EOS-M and it's not going to be cheap.

Canon should make Pancakes in as many focal lengths as they can, and an EF-S 85mm Pancake would be awesome, but it'll never happen on EF-M.

 

[neuroanatomist]

i want as long FL as possible in a "pancake design" with f/2.8 or better.

Makes sense to me, but why are people arguing about this?

Because he's not stating, "I want this lens," but rather, "I want this lens and Canon is stupid for not making it." The former statement is perfectly reasonable, but the latter statement is simply asinine.

 

[AvTvM]

Yes, Pentax has all sorts of ultra-/compact short tele lenses. Only stupid Canon - the self-declared number 1 - is not able to come up with them.


Pentax has

A) Pentax Telephoto SMCP-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited Series Autofocus Lens
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/388316-REG/Pentax_27980_Telephoto_SMCP_FA_77mm_f_1_8.html
the godfather of fast "cupcake"-size ;D tele primes!
That gooddamn thing is FF-capable, yet measures only 2.9 x 1.9" (7.37 x 4.83 cm), 49mm filter thread (!) and weighs 9.5 oz (269 g) despite all-metal construction and totally unnecessary well-dampened focus ring and associated manual focus gear cogwheels etc.
It is however, ridiculously expensive 750 USD/1000+ € ... and therefore only suitable for super-stupid retro-craving steam-punk hipsters. But it proves, how amazingly compact FF-capable short tele-primes can be built. Even if 25mm in length were added to get rid of the freaking mirror in front of a righteous sensor, it would still be cupcake small. 8)

B) Pentax smc DA 70/2.4 Ltd.
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/127-pentax-smc-da-70mm-f24-limited-review--test-report
APS-C only, 63x26mm (!), 49mm filter thread, Weight 130g
gorgeous Gorilla nipple. Twist the focus ring to your heart's delight! 8)
optically even better than the 77(1.8. And a much more affordable price. But not dirt cheap.
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/127-pentax-smc-da-70mm-f24-limited-review--test-report?start=2

C) current version successor to B: Pentax HD Pentax DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited Lens
same optical formula, but some sort of nano coating on some lens surface/s.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1002138-REG/pentax_21430_hd_pentax_da_70mm.html


I want C) from stupid Canon for EF-M mount. Preferably 85 mmor 80mm or 77. f-stop 2.8 or better is suffiecient for me and keeps things small, simple and cheap. Optically as good as the 22/2.0 please and pricewise similarly dirt-cheap = meaning: max. USD/€ 399, ideally 299.

I buy one, promiesed. And all 3-5 Neuros buy one too, I am sure, since they recognize great value as well. ;D

now, Canon, don't be stupid, go make that lens. Hurry up, I am waiting!

 

[AvTvM]

whenever I really want some item, I find it is in short supply. Much to my dismay, my taste seems to be extremely mainstream. If I want to buy something, millions of other people crave to have it too.

If for example i decide to back a project on kickstarter, it always turns out to be over-funded by a couple 100%.
If I bid on some item on ebay, it always attracts lot and lots of higher bids.
Whenever I get to a nice beach, it is beleaguered by millions of bloody tourists!

So, if I want a specific lens, there are gazillion others who want to get before me! Unfortunately!

So ... Canon is *very stupid* for not making an ultracompact EF-M tele prime.

 

[neuroanatomist]

:

 

[Rocky]

Canon should also make an ultra compact 22mm lens for the M. The existing 22/2.0 EF-M is a great lens, except that make the M's not pocketable with the lens on. I just hope that Canon will make a real pancake 22mm lens for Ms'. It can be expendable like the 11-22mm, The lens can be partially sunk into the body, like the Leica Elmer 50/2.8.I will even settle for f2.8 or even f4.0. With I.S. please.

 

[ahsanford]

If I want to buy something, millions of other people crave to have it too.

If for example i decide to back a project on kickstarter, it always turns out to be over-funded by a couple 100%.
If I bid on some item on ebay, it always attracts lot and lots of higher bids.
Whenever I get to a nice beach, it is beleaguered by millions of bloody tourists!

So, if I want a specific lens, there are gazillion others who want to get before me! Unfortunately!

So ... Canon is *very stupid* for not making an ultracompact EF-M tele prime.

Drop the mic, son. Surely this is the finest logical proof the internet has ever seen.

#therearenowords #godblessforums

- A

 

[Don Haines]

If I want to buy something, millions of other people crave to have it too.

If for example i decide to back a project on kickstarter, it always turns out to be over-funded by a couple 100%.
If I bid on some item on ebay, it always attracts lot and lots of higher bids.
Whenever I get to a nice beach, it is beleaguered by millions of bloody tourists!

So, if I want a specific lens, there are gazillion others who want to get before me! Unfortunately!

So ... Canon is *very stupid* for not making an ultracompact EF-M tele prime.

Drop the mic, son. Surely this is the finest logical proof the internet has ever seen.

#therearenowords #godblessforums

- A

You may be missing the obvious.... AvTvM is a trendsetter and millions of people are trying to emulate him

and in all seriousness, what if his tastes are more in line with the masses than the rest of us non-typical members of CR? Wouldn't that make his point more valid?

 

[3kramd5]

and in all seriousness, what if his tastes are more in line with the masses than the rest of us non-typical members of CR? Wouldn't that make his point more valid?

The question really is: are AvTvM's personal desires more representative of market demands than canon's own market research?

If so, his point ("Canon is *very stupid*") is valid.

Any takers that's the reality?

 

[AvTvM]

again, i am not saying EVERYBODY would buy an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM or similar compact tele prime. i am saying A WHOLE LOT of people would buy it. Enough to make it well worthwhiöe for Canon. Definitely more copies to be sold than eg an EF 800/5.6 or other exotic lenses which stupid Canon is producing. a compact short tele prime is definitely more needed für the EOS-M ecosystem than yet another version of a kit zoom (18-55 + 15-45 ... what for?) ...

 

[Mikehit]

i am saying A WHOLE LOT of people would buy it

Based on your experience in kickstarter. Hmm.
Take that logic stream of market research to the Dragon's Den and watch them pour the money in your direction.

 

[d]

...Definitely more copies to be sold than eg an EF 800/5.6 or other exotic lenses which stupid Canon is producing...

It would seem Canon disagree. Very timely ;D

http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-ef-1000mm-f5-6-is-do/

 

[neuroanatomist]

again, i am not saying EVERYBODY would buy an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM or similar compact tele prime. i am saying A WHOLE LOT of people would buy it. Enough to make it well worthwhiöe for Canon.

Well, you have your opinion. Canon has hard data – every time someone buys an EOS M, Canon asks what lenses they have, what lenses they plan to buy soon. They have data on millions of Rebel owners, at a similar market level to the M line, and what lenses they own and plan to buy. If they think it would be worthwhile, both intrinsically and measured against the opportunity cost of other R&D they would not do instead, they'll make such a lens. They haven't yet.

Canon has millions of data points from the entire world...and you have your opinion.

 

[rrcphoto]

I want C) from stupid Canon for EF-M mount. Preferably 85 mmor 80mm or 77. f-stop 2.8 or better is suffiecient for me and keeps things small, simple and cheap. Optically as good as the 22/2.0 please and pricewise similarly dirt-cheap = meaning: max. USD/€ 399, ideally 299.

right.

so you look at lenses designed for longer registration distances and assume that a lens for the same focal will be the same size, but with a far smaller registration distance.

what substances are you on anyways?

I need some of whatever it is to fully read your posts.

and btw it takes up to 7 or more years to take a lens from concept to production.

it may also be that you should stop thinking that canon can create and roll out a lens out of your mom's basement like you think they can.

 

[rrcphoto]

again, i am not saying EVERYBODY would buy an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM or similar compact tele prime. i am saying A WHOLE LOT of people would buy it. Enough to make it well worthwhiöe for Canon. Definitely more copies to be sold than eg an EF 800/5.6 or other exotic lenses which stupid Canon is producing. a compact short tele prime is definitely more needed für the EOS-M ecosystem than yet another version of a kit zoom (18-55 + 15-45 ... what for?) ...

where's your stats to back it up? I know i certainly wouldn't buy it.

 

[AvTvM]

again, i am not saying EVERYBODY would buy an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM or similar compact tele prime. i am saying A WHOLE LOT of people would buy it. Enough to make it well worthwhiöe for Canon. Definitely more copies to be sold than eg an EF 800/5.6 or other exotic lenses which stupid Canon is producing. a compact short tele prime is definitely more needed für the EOS-M ecosystem than yet another version of a kit zoom (18-55 + 15-45 ... what for?) ...

where's your stats to back it up? I know i certainly wouldn't buy it.

stats: you just don't count. there you go!