EF-M 55mm f/1.3 Coming in 2013? [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/ef-m-55mm-f1-3-coming-in-2013-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/ef-m-55mm-f1-3-coming-in-2013-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Announcement on March 26, 2013?

</strong>I was recently told that a new 55mm f/1.3 lens would be announced on March 26, 2013. This is the first time I have ever seen an announcement date called this far off. Although, I tend to believe something is probably going to happen in March of 2013. I find it odd that Canon won’t be doing the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-firmware-adds-hdmi-af-upgrades/" target="_blank">announced firmware</a> for the 5D Mark III until April 2013, I’m not sure if that’s tied to other new products coming.</p>
<p>As for the lens, it wasn’t specified if it was EF or EF-M mount, I have just assumed it would be EF-M. For arguments sake, that would give an approximate field of view of 90mm f/1.3. A nice portrait lens for the new system.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[criza]

I tend to believe something is probably going to happen in March of 2013

But what?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I tend to believe something is probably going to happen in March of 2013

But what?

Well, last March, Japan had a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. What could top that?

 

[Stephen Melvin]

"For arguments sake, that would give an approximate field of view of 90mm f/1.3. A nice portrait lens for the new system."

Just to clarify, it would be the approximate equivalent of a 90mm f/2.0 FF lens. You have to take the crop factor into account when comparing apertures as well as focal lengths.

 

[facedodge]

Yeah... DOF would be about f/2 compared to full frame, but you still get the low light advantage of f/1.3 and you get the normal lens look too if that is something you like.

 

[hyles]

"For arguments sake, that would give an approximate field of view of 90mm f/1.3. A nice portrait lens for the new system."

Just to clarify, it would be the approximate equivalent of a 90mm f/2.0 FF lens. You have to take the crop factor into account when comparing apertures as well as focal lengths.

You are right if yuo think about Dept of field, but in term of shutter speed the aperture it is still faster (must admit that with crop you have to use faster speed to avoid shake).
Diego

 

[facedodge]

Tell you what... If they make this nice and compact, say about the size of the nifty fifty with an EF-M mount, then this would be very appealing for me.

I'd really like to have a camera with great IQ I can put in my wife's purse for parties and casual events.

 

[criza]

I tend to believe something is probably going to happen in March of 2013

But what?

Well, last March, Japan had a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. What could top that?

I don't know, but I had to laugh, black humor for the win..

 

[KyleSTL]

"For arguments sake, that would give an approximate field of view of 90mm f/1.3. A nice portrait lens for the new system."

Just to clarify, it would be the approximate equivalent of a 90mm f/2.0 FF lens. You have to take the crop factor into account when comparing apertures as well as focal lengths.

It only took 3 responses for someone to state the DOF-aperture comparison.

Yeah... DOF would be about f/2 compared to full frame, but you still get the low light advantage of f/1.3 and you get the normal lens look too if that is something you like.

And one more to correct the statement to not confuse people about the unchanged exposure triangle. Good job, CR commenters.

 

[criza]

Good job, CR commenters.

This means, no more comments necessary! Thank you all.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

"For arguments sake, that would give an approximate field of view of 90mm f/1.3. A nice portrait lens for the new system."

Just to clarify, it would be the approximate equivalent of a 90mm f/2.0 FF lens. You have to take the crop factor into account when comparing apertures as well as focal lengths.

You are right if yuo think about Dept of field, but in term of shutter speed the aperture it is still faster (must admit that with crop you have to use faster speed to avoid shake).
Diego

Actually, when you take noise into effect, you also have to decrease the effective aperture to get a valid comparison with a larger format. I can't do the math, but it's also roughly a stop.

That is, f/1.3 @ ISO 100 on APS-C really is comparable to f/2.0 @ ISO 200 on full frame. And f/1.3 @ ISO 100 on full frame would be comparable to f/1.0 @ ISO 50 on APS-C. (Roughly, with rounding, etc., etc., etc.)

b&

 

[Stephen Melvin]

"For arguments sake, that would give an approximate field of view of 90mm f/1.3. A nice portrait lens for the new system."

Just to clarify, it would be the approximate equivalent of a 90mm f/2.0 FF lens. You have to take the crop factor into account when comparing apertures as well as focal lengths.

You are right if yuo think about Dept of field, but in term of shutter speed the aperture it is still faster (must admit that with crop you have to use faster speed to avoid shake).
Diego

Actually, when you take noise into effect, you also have to decrease the effective aperture to get a valid comparison with a larger format. I can't do the math, but it's also roughly a stop.

That is, f/1.3 @ ISO 100 on APS-C really is comparable to f/2.0 @ ISO 200 on full frame. And f/1.3 @ ISO 100 on full frame would be comparable to f/1.0 @ ISO 50 on APS-C. (Roughly, with rounding, etc., etc., etc.)

b&

This bunch is much, much smarter than the guys over on Model Mayhem. Or, at least, better at reading comprehension.

 

[KyleSTL]

Actually, when you take noise into effect, you also have to decrease the effective aperture to get a valid comparison with a larger format. I can't do the math, but it's also roughly a stop.

That is, f/1.3 @ ISO 100 on APS-C really is comparable to f/2.0 @ ISO 200 on full frame. And f/1.3 @ ISO 100 on full frame would be comparable to f/1.0 @ ISO 50 on APS-C. (Roughly, with rounding, etc., etc., etc.)

b&

So the noise from a EOS D30 (2001) is one stop behind the 1D X? I don't think so. Everyone understands noise is in constant flux throughout models, formats, etc. So I think it is fair to leave noise out of the equation as it is not a constant like shutter speed and aperture. Given two models of camera it is fair to make a comparison on the level of noise and how many stops of advantage one has over another, but to make a blanket statement is not fair.

Here's the math:

FF crop factor: 1
APS-C crop factor: 1.6

f/1.3 * 1.6 = f/2.0 equivalent 90mm (for background blur of 55mm f/1.3 lens in FF terms)
f/1.3 / 1.6 = f/0.83 equivalent (although your point is misleading as an EF-M lens has a flange distance too short for a FF DSLR - and most likely an image circle to small to cover a full frame sensor)

All you need to do is multiply the aperture (or focal length) by the crop factor to go up in formats, and divide to go down.

 

[gn100]

Or could this be an EFS mount?

 

[tron]

I tend to believe something is probably going to happen in March of 2013

But what?

Well, last March, Japan had a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. What could top that?

Canon creating a DSLR with 120 DxO score maybe ;D ;D

 

[drjlo]

I'm really hoping for EF 55m f/1.3 (why not 1.2?). Call it L and charge $2000 if you want. As long as it's a bit sharper with a bit faster AF, I would buy it.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

So the noise from a EOS D30 (2001) is one stop behind the 1D X?

No, of course not. Don't be silly.

Forget digital for the moment and think of film.

Your favorite film has an effective one-stop ISO advantage with each increase in format size.

If you're happy with the grain you get from an 8" x 10" print from APS-C with ISO 50 Velveeta, you'll be equally happy with an 8" x 10" print from 135 format with ISO 100 Velveeta and with an 8" x 10" print from 645 format with ISO 200 Velveeta. Couple all those film and camera choices with a 50mm @ f/1.4, an 85mm @ f/2, and a 135mm @ f/2.8 respectively, adjusting shutter speed (but not composition / distance / framing / etc.) as needed, and you'll wind up with very closely comparable images from all three, with the only variable remaining being resolution.

Obviously, you can shoot your medium format camera with a 135mm f/1.4 lens and ISO 50 Velveeta and get an image that's comparable to what you'd get with an APS-C camera with a 50mm f/0.5 lens and ISO 12 Velveeta...which would be quite the trick!

Comparing a D30 with a 1DX is as silly as comparing Velveeta with Cojack; make the comparison instead between an EOS-M and a 6D.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Stone]

Considering the constant f1.3, I would think of this as a low light lens suitable for indoor use, but 55mm on an APS-C sensor is going to give a field of view equivalent to 88mm on a 35mm sensor. A bit too long for indoor shooting in all but the biggest rooms IMO and forget about full body portraits unless you've got quite a bit of distance from your subject available. I would have expected something in the 28-30 mm range first for the EOS-M mount, I think it would have been quite a bit more useful.

 

[RLPhoto]

Now this would be a cool lens. 8)

 

[KyleSTL]

Comparing a D30 with a 1DX is as silly as comparing Velveeta with Cojack.

In your hypothetical world, yes, I think your assertion is correct that a frame with a crop factor of 1.4x would have 1 stop worse noise (and 2x would be 2 stops, 0.7x would have a 1 stop advantage, etc). However we don't live in the world of film anymore and not all sensors are created equal at the pixel level and simply scale by overal size of the sensor.

But facedodge's statement is still true that the exposure triangle remains unchanged (f/2.8, ISO 400, 1/250 is the same no matter what format the camera is in) is still completely valid. I understand people pointing out the DOF different in formats in terms of equivalence, but I think stating the same thing in ISO would only serve to confuse less informed people attempting to understand the fundamentals of photography and the differences in formats.