Five new EF-M lenses for the EOS M lineup coming? [CR1]

[Architect1776]

Continue reading...

Wow, now we need a M5 MII with great specs and that might get my money, along with the incredible R5.

 

[Bob Howland]

++++ If the R5 is as rumored and has 1.3X and 1.6X crops, I plan to use it as a replacement for my 7D.

A.M: so.. it has not been rumoured but is a your understanding. Ok.

I have never heard of x1.3, x1.6 crops in 5DS either. Pardon my ignorance. Please enlighten me. Thank you.

5DS and crop mode - explain: Canon EOS-1D / 5D / 6D Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

 

[brad-man]

I can think of one good reason why the 52 would cost less than the 32 - it's rumored to be f/2 not f/1.4.

True. That in itself is odd. Why would it be f/2 and not 1.4 or at least 1.8? Price? Size? I would love to see some sales data indicating the "success" of the 32.

 

[mb66energy]

15mm sounds interesting because I find 24mm very wide. If it gets close and has IQ comparable to the EF-S 32 some 400 EUR are ok. - If it has IS I will add another EUR because it is a good vlogging lens.

 

[Ale_F]

Why is it important?

In video there are no solution for the exposure time.
High iso or large aperture.

 

[IcyBergs]

True. That in itself is odd. Why would it be f/2 and not 1.4 or at least 1.8? Price? Size? I would love to see some sales data indicating the "success" of the 32.

With the M line Canon has seemed to prioritize the compact design in their product releases. The 32 f/1.4 is still pretty light at 225g, a 52mm equivalent would probably come in close to what the Sigma 56 1.4 weighs, which is closer to 300g. Even though thats not that heavy in the scheme of things, its still about 30% heavier which isn't insignificant. There are other factors as well like the fact that all the M lenses have the same (exact or very similar) barrel diameter throughout the body of the lens.

The fastest lens prior to the 32 was the 22 f/2, so I think that the 32 is really the exception and at that normal focal length (45-65 35mm equivalent) lends itself to being the smallest/lightest for a fast aperture design. As you go wider and longer from there the lenses get bigger and heavier to maintain the same aperture since they'll require larger elements which will change the aesthetic that seems to be a priority with the M lens designs. So I'm not surprised by the f/2 rumors.

 

[brad-man]

With the M line Canon has seemed to prioritize the compact design in their product releases. The 32 f/1.4 is still pretty light at 225g, a 52mm equivalent would probably come in close to what the Sigma 56 1.4 weighs, which is closer to 300g. Even though thats not that heavy in the scheme of things, its still about 30% heavier which isn't insignificant. There are other factors as well like the fact that all the M lenses have the same (exact or very similar) barrel diameter throughout the body of the lens.

The fastest lens prior to the 32 was the 22 f/2, so I think that the 32 is really the exception and at that normal focal length (45-65 35mm equivalent) lends itself to being the smallest/lightest for a fast aperture design. As you go wider and longer from there the lenses get bigger and heavier to maintain the same aperture since they'll require larger elements which will change the aesthetic that seems to be a priority with the M lens designs. So I'm not surprised by the f/2 rumors.

Let's assume that's the case. If Canon is prioritizing size and weight, why didn't they make the 32 at f/2 so it could be smaller and lighter, like the 28? What would be the rationale for making the 32 an outlier? By the way, I'm glad they did as it is a wonderful lens. Would have been perfect if they included a little weather-sealing and IS.

 

[IcyBergs]

Let's assume that's the case. If Canon is prioritizing size and weight, why didn't they make the 32 at f/2 so it could be smaller and lighter, like the 28? What would be the rationale for making the 32 an outlier? By the way, I'm glad they did as it is a wonderful lens. Would have been perfect if they included a little weather-sealing and IS.

I think they did it for possibly 2 reasons:

1) They could
-As I stated the normal focal length range is the most ideal range to be able to deliver a light compact fast aperture design. Meaning technical requirements to design such a lens were within the bounds of the design (aesthetic) requirements.

2) There was strong demand
-I think plenty of M owners were buying up fast 3rd party glass (rokinon etc) and it made good business sense

 

[jazzytune]

That 18-45 sounds promising

Yes, although a constant 2.8 aperture would have been nice to have. But I understand that it's a compromise made to have a lens that's not too bulky.

 

[neonlight]

But no news about 600 DO etc.?
But unlikely to be able to afford it I suspect.
Was hoping for a 150-600 f/6.3 within reach, but have to see what the RF 100-500 looks like (image wise) before going R.

 

[dcm]

Yes, although a constant 2.8 aperture would have been nice to have. But I understand that it's a compromise made to have a lens that's not too bulky.

I was expecting a constant f/4 aperture in the small form factor - the 2.8 is a bonus.

I was quite happy with the constant f/4 zoom trio (17-40L, 24-105L and 70-200L) that I used with the APS-C EOS 550D/T2i and later a 6D. I think I could live with the same on EF-M.

 

[Ruiloba]

++++ If the R5 is as rumored and has 1.3X and 1.6X crops, I plan to use it as a replacement for my 7D.

A.M: so.. it has not been rumoured but is a your understanding. Ok.

I have never heard of x1.3, x1.6 crops in 5DS either. Pardon my ignorance. Please enlighten me. Thank you.

My EosR has 1.6x crop mode so the R5 should have it

 

[SecureGSM]

My EosR has 1.6x crop mode so the R5 should have it

alright. If R5 is a 45 MP camera, in x1.6 crop mode it becomes a 17.6MP aps-c rig which is at 12 FPS mechanical shutter is, arguably, a reasonable substitute for a 7 series rig unless a heavy cropping was involved.

 

[mb66energy]

I think they did it for possibly 2 reasons:

1) They could
-As I stated the normal focal length range is the most ideal range to be able to deliver a light compact fast aperture design. Meaning technical requirements to design such a lens were within the bounds of the design (aesthetic) requirements.

2) There was strong demand
-I think plenty of M owners were buying up fast 3rd party glass (rokinon etc) and it made good business sense

You wrote about the reasons of the existence of the EF-M 32mm - and yes, both are true IMO. I would like to add two further reasons:

3) A statement that Canon takes the EF-M system serious to keep those non-professionals in the Canon ecosystem who have professional "requirements" in terms of IQ ... maybe until a FF mirrorless solution is available (which is the case).

4) Maybe it is a side product of the RF 50mm in terms of general lens design. Both seem to be "full of glass" to get optimum IQ so development cost has been comparably low.

For me the EF-M 32 is "THE" single lens solution I like most - not only because its IQ - but also because of the 1:4 max. reproduction ratio. This is strong advantage compared to other solutions like Sigma and I hope the other lenses have similar capabilties.

 

[Danglin52]

Are you happy with your Sigma lenses, I was thinking of getting one or both.

I have never bought anything but Canon EF or EF-M lenses until I purchased the Sigma 56mm f1.4 as my first 3rd party lens. Very good build and IQ. Seems reasonably fast at AF.

 

[Danglin52]

Wow, now we need a M5 MII with great specs and that might get my money, along with the incredible R5.

I am hopeful the lens rumor is true because it seems to be an indication that Canon is putting more resources on M AND we might see a beefed up M5II. Not sure it would happen, but I would buy a M5 II with similar spect so th Fuiji X-T4 without even waiting for the reviews. My only challenge is that I would like to shift to R5 & RF lenses if the specs hold and that would mean I might still have to deal with the multiple lens mount issue. The m5 II could be a backup (7d II style camera?) to my 1dx II, but wouldn't work in that mode with the R5. At the end of the day I could stick with my EF lenses + adaptor for the R5 and m5 II if necessary. I really like the M6 II with the exception of the external EVF / durability and would really like a higher Quilty / faster refresh m5 II internal EVF + rugged body with weather sealing. And yes, I am willing to accept a little bigger/heavier body.

 

[Richard CR]

alright. If R5 is a 45 MP camera, in x1.6 crop mode it becomes a 17.6MP aps-c rig which is at 12 FPS mechanical shutter is, arguably, a reasonable substitute for a 7 series rig unless a heavy cropping was involved.

add bird AF and it toasts the 7D series camera bodies for birders,etc.

 

[Richard CR]

Continue reading...

As i mentioned on my post about this .. it seems like a fantasy wish list to me.

It'd be nice, but I really doubt it. I can't see Canon taking critical resources off the RF mount - it's full on RF mount until they get done the ecosystem. There's just no people left to design and roll out EOS-M (or EF) lenses. Every one of those lenses takes a designer off RF lenses.

The EOS-M system ticks along just fine without those lenses.

Now the counter to that is...

I guess if Canon feels they want to sell a M6II or a M5II .. then they may feel lenses are holding the system back from those cameras (rightly so).

So that's the only reason I could even think of that would make Canon decide to develop these lenses.

 

[Antono Refa]

Does this mean an APS-C EOS R just got a lot less likely?

I expect the 7D replacement to come in EOS R mount, as

1. The EOS-M line is made of small, light, consumer cameras & lenses, while a large portion of 7D owners use white super telephotos.

2. The EOS-R line is the pro line, and the 7D is definitely one.

3. The advantage of the 7D over the 1DX is reach, so I don't see Canon dropping the 7D line altogether.

4. Canon could release a twofer 50MP FF camera that would function as both a 5DS replacement when shooting with the full sensor, and a 7D replacement by shooting high fps from a 20MP crop. It can see some sense in it, just don't think its the probable scenario.

 

[koenkooi]

As i mentioned on my post about this .. it seems like a fantasy wish list to me.

It'd be nice, but I really doubt it. I can't see Canon taking critical resources off the RF mount - it's full on RF mount until they get done the ecosystem. There's just no people left to design and roll out EOS-M (or EF) lenses. Every one of those lenses takes a designer off RF lenses. [..]

It could also be the case that Canon has already done the design work on all these EF-M lenses ages ago and is just waiting for the right moment to schedule a production run.