EF-M Lens 2021 or future...

elias723

Elias Martinez Photography
Jan 10, 2020
16
11
29
Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico
So... I am wedding photographer, my first camera is the R6 and the M6 mark ii is my backup camera. I love the quality of the M6mark2 and the Efm 32mm 1.4... I already have some Canon L glass like Rf 85mm 1.2L DS and Ef 35mm 1.4L ii but i need some good quality native lens for the M series. I have already two bad experience using adaptor to EF lens so right now I will sell my EF lenses and buy only Rf L lens or future good quality Efm. Anyone know if will be soon release native lenses for EFM?
 

Attachments

  • 20210324_140544.jpg
    20210324_140544.jpg
    481.9 KB · Views: 72

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,583
1,899
Hamburg, Germany
At this point, there is no reliable information about the EF-M ecosystem's future available.

Some things point to it disappear, some to the opposite.

Just be aware that each opinion you'll get on this is speculation and currently waiting for Canon to reveal more of their mirrorless plans is the only way to learn more. Unfortunately, the pandemic seems to have slowed that down a lot.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,199
2,070
Joules answer is pretty spot on.

There are some third party native EF-M lenses out there. I use a Tamron 18-200mm myself, but there are some primes made by other companies including a 56mm, and I sense you'd be more interested in those.
 

elias723

Elias Martinez Photography
Jan 10, 2020
16
11
29
Juana Diaz, Puerto Rico
Joules answer is pretty spot on.

There are some third party native EF-M lenses out there. I use a Tamron 18-200mm myself, but there are some primes made by other companies including a 56mm, and I sense you'd be more interested in those.
I already have the Sigma 56mm 1.4... Im not interested in any zoom without constant aperture.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,583
1,899
Hamburg, Germany
I already have the Sigma 56mm 1.4... Im not interested in any zoom without constant aperture.
Well, the EF-M mount was never going to get a constant aperture zoom in any case. Although not part of any official marketing I'm aware of, they have committed to making each lens the same outer diameter. And that restricts them to only very limited lens parameters. This commitment to size does not work well for constant aperture zooms like f/4 oder f/2.8.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,199
2,070
Well, the EF-M mount was never going to get a constant aperture zoom in any case. Although not part of any official marketing I'm aware of, they have committed to making each lens the same outer diameter. And that restricts them to only very limited lens parameters. This commitment to size does not work well for constant aperture zooms like f/4 oder f/2.8.

In fact, I have difficulty seeing what they could make that they don't already make, and stay within that diameter. (Other than of course, 25mm or 30 mm or something else like that wedged in between two existing lenses.)

Oh, sure they could make a 300 mm f/8...maybe. Maybe it'd have to be f/11.

Fortunately adapters don't bother me and neither does the Tamron zoom, which is native EF-M. (I couldn't even tell you its f-stop range without going and looking.) I'm even willing to be seen in public with an EF 100-400 II L (with adapter) on the M6-II.

(Edit: f/3.5 to f/6.3)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

HaroldC3

EOS 90D
Jul 6, 2014
120
42
I already have the Sigma 56mm 1.4... Im not interested in any zoom without constant aperture.
Then you’re in the wrong ecosystem. Sony or Fuji is where you should look if you want to stay with APS-C. Personally, I went to Fuji after shooting the M system since the original M and the last was an M6 for 3 years. I even tried a EOS R for two months but it was just too bulky and heavy and I was never happy processing the images from it. All that to say there are a lot of choices out there now. The M system is one where if you aren’t happy with what they currently offer don’t hold out hope for something new as it’s anyone’s guess as to the future of the M.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,199
2,070
I already have the Sigma 56mm 1.4... Im not interested in any zoom without constant aperture.
A zoom with a constant aperture? Really? You'd take a 4.0 over a 2.0-4.0?

Because realistically, that's the sort of choice you'd be offered. Sure, they could make the 2.0-4.0 into a constant 2.0 (by making the lens much, much larger) but then one would wonder why they couldn't make the short end a higher aperture with all that glass.

I suspect (and I'm going to put this out there, in the hopes that if I am wrong someone will correct me, because I really do want to know) that they make constant aperture zooms by crippling the short end.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,726
2,325
I suspect (and I'm going to put this out there, in the hopes that if I am wrong someone will correct me, because I really do want to know) that they make constant aperture zooms by crippling the short end.
It depends on the lens design. The things to keep in mind are that 1) the aperture = FL/f-number is the formula for a ‘thin lens’ (a useful model to understand optics, but real lenses are complex designs), and 2) that thin lens equation applies not to the physical aperture but to the virtual aperture (aka entrance pupil, the image of the physical aperture as viewed looking through the front element).

So, for a lens like a 70-200/2.8 the physical aperture is actually ~25mm (70/2.8), with zooming optics in front of the physical aperture. A wide zoom like a 16-35/2.8 is essentially a 16/2.8 with the reverse-zooming optics behind the physical aperture. So in those cases there’s no crippling, but maybe you’re not getting as much glass as you thought... ;)

However, for a wide-to-tele zoom like a 24-70/2.8, the physical aperture is ~25mm (70/2.8) and the iris diaphragm is connected to the zooming mechanism with a cam such that the iris is closed as the FL is shortened. So in that case the short end is ‘crippled’, without the cam you’d have a variable aperture zoom of 24-70mm f/0.96-2.8. But ‘crippled’ only in the sense of maximum aperture – the aberrations at 24mm f/0.96 would be extreme because the optics aren’t designed to correct them, possibly bad enough to render the image unusable and certainly bad enough to contravene the L designation.
 

Avenger 2.0

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 30, 2017
74
59
I think the EF-M series will die a silent slow dead. You can see it with the M50 II, which is just a firmware update.
I sold most of my native EF-M lenses now while they are still worth anything.
But will keep my M50 with EF adapter. That way I'm able to use my (Sigma) EF-S lenses since there isn't (yet) any crop R body.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,199
2,070
I think the EF-M series will die a silent slow dead. You can see it with the M50 II, which is just a firmware update.
I sold most of my native EF-M lenses now while they are still worth anything.
But will keep my M50 with EF adapter. That way I'm able to use my (Sigma) EF-S lenses since there isn't (yet) any crop R body.

Well the good news is, none of those EF-M lenses were hugely expensive to begin with. I suppose, though, that "expensive" is in the eye of the beholder, but given that I've dropped over $2,000 (US) on other lenses, that makes the EF-M ones seem not so bad. Enough that I'm willing to own them for a few years and not be too concerned about whether I can get money back from them, I've gotten value enough just from using them.

I'm certainly very glad I can adapt my 100-400 EF mark II to EF-M cameras...that being, after all one of those $2000 lenses.

I'm not seeing any reason to dispose of any of my EF-M gear, that's for certain (if I did, it might be the two primes I have, or that 15-45 kit lens; I use them a lot less). I'm much more likely to take my M6-II on an airline trip than my R5, that's for sure. (On a road trip, I have a lot more room for things.)
 

canonmike

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 5, 2013
243
173
I'm much more likely to take my M6-II on an airline trip than my R5, that's for sure. (On a road trip, I have a lot more room for things.)
A most appropriate commentary, dictated by size and weight constraints, not to mention convenience, I'm sure and I concur.
 
<-- start Taboola -->