IBIS is likely coming to the EOS M lineup [CR2]

[Baron_Karza]

Hope this commitment to ef-m also means more lenses. 18-45mm f2.8, 55-135mm f2.8. 56mm f1.4, 11mm f1.4 please and thank you.

I'd go for that 18-45 and for sure the 11.

Hope we can at least get some most watering rumor going on about them soon!! ( *hint, hint * )

 

[derpderp]

why would they still want to develop lenses for a dead mount???? absolutely baffling

 

[Jethro]

why would they still want to develop lenses for a dead mount???? absolutely baffling

Well, given this thread is about the credible rumour of new M mount bodies (updated with IBIS), the mount seems to be far from dead, and developing new lenses isn't baffling at all.

 

[Boblblawslawblg]

why would they still want to develop lenses for a dead mount???? absolutely baffling

In what way is it dead? I keep hearing this, but the M50 is the best selling mirrorless camera so are you saying everything is dead? Are you saying this due to lens availability? The Sigma Primes are great, the Laowa 65mm Macro is super crisp, and the Tamron 18-200mm zoom is better than people give it credit. That’s just 3rd party lenses, the 11-22mm and 22mm are fun walk around lenses if you need it to be 1st party. All of the above can had for less than the cost of the new R5 body. ‍

Not all of us get paid to shoot, and not all of us have deep pockets. I’m never going to get any sort of ROI (I don’t shoot professionally) on an investment in the R system. It’s a luxury that maybe after I put my kids through school I can justify that type spend.

 

[Baron_Karza]

why would they still want to develop lenses for a dead mount???? absolutely baffling

If you want to know, just start by reading page 1 and onward

 

[PhotoGenerous]

What is missing that would be routinely needed by the typical market for M series cameras? I ask because most niche scenarios or pro scenarios are better covered by an EF->EF-M adapter as it stands.

I have the adapter, but in the end, the 50 1.8 STM is the only lens I use with it. I tried adapting other lenses, but after the novelty wore off of having a tiny camera attached to giant lenses, I mostly didn't like using it. I got the camera because it's small. That's how it's different from my DSLRs. Where the EF/S and EF-M lenses have near exact equivalents, the EF-M lens is much smaller, and I prefer that a lot.

As for what lenses, BakaBokeh made a pretty good list. There are only three primes from Canon right now, so the prime lens line up could be filled out a bit more. And if they're going to come out with a top of the line M camera with IBIS (and all the eye auto focus updates?) it would be nice if they had more than just the 11-22 and 22 that people rave about. Sharper, faster focusing Mark II versions of a lot of the current lenses would be nice.

 

[pj1974]

Fair enough, I don't really use Zooms for much. I bought the 55-200 first after getting the camera but it's turned out that 1) most of my pictures are events or street style, and 2) I am enjoying primes a lot more. So my 15-45 & 55-200 I rarely even have with me. I most commonly take out the Sigma 16mm and the Canon 32mm (or the EF 50 f/1.4 with Viltrox speedbooster) when I'm out. If I were doing nature photography I'd probably use zooms more though.

How is the 18-150? I've wondered for a while if that would be a way to simplify the 15-45/55-200 into a single lens.

I bought the M5 a few years back, and love it. It's notably more compact than any of my DSLRs. With the 15-45mm or 22mm prime, I can slip it in a very small pocket or part of a bag.

Having said that, I also do have the 18-150mm and it's a great lens. Optically better than any of Canon EF-S 18-135mm lenses (there are 3 of them). But yes, it makes the whole package a bit longer than the shorter lenses obviously.
However, for a single lens option with some reach, it works really well. And yes, I find it covers 90% of the shots that a 15-45mm and 55-200mm will do. (The extra 50mm between 150mm and 200mm is not that noticable.. and 24MP or 32MP images crop quite well).

I also have the Rokinon (Samyang) EF-M 12mm f/2 lens, and I use that for astro photography or as an UWA option too (it's a really good lens and amazingly compact for what it is) So at times I go out with those 2 lenses, the 12mm f/2 and 18-150mm. But for a 1 lens option, I go with the 18-150mm most often, or the 15-45mm when I need a truly compact zoom. Interestingly, my copy of the 15-45mm is very sharp.. I think some early adopters got poor copies, but I have owned 2 and both were very good in terms of resolution, colour rendition, etc).

Regarding the original theme of this post, I am very much looking forward to Canon putting IBIS in a future EF-M camera... it would breath even more life into my Rokinon 12mm f/2 as well as my Canon 22mm f/2 prime (another great lens).

Cheers

PJ

 

[jolyonralph]

why would they still want to develop lenses for a dead mount???? absolutely baffling

The only mount that is dead is EF (and EF-S). If the announcement about the 5D range being canned is true you can be pretty sure Canon won't launch any new EF or EF-S lenses in the future.

EF-M is far from a dead mount, it's Canon's highest-selling mount.

 

[bbb34]

EF (-S) is not dead. Just mature.

 

[blackcoffee17]

What is missing that would be routinely needed by the typical market for M series cameras? I ask because most niche scenarios or pro scenarios are better covered by an EF->EF-M adapter as it stands.

What im missing is a nice telephoto zoom which is smaller and lighter than an 70-200 F4 and does not need an adaptor. But just as sharp. Not the current mediocre 50-200.
Make it 50-150 and F4 or F4.5 for smaller size and weight but don't compromise in image quality.

 

[Mike9129]

I thought lens based stabilization was superior always and there was no value add with the IBIS what changed now?

I guess its handy for the lens' that dont have IS really more than the ones with it?

 

[docsmith]

Fair enough, I don't really use Zooms for much. I bought the 55-200 first after getting the camera but it's turned out that 1) most of my pictures are events or street style, and 2) I am enjoying primes a lot more. So my 15-45 & 55-200 I rarely even have with me. I most commonly take out the Sigma 16mm and the Canon 32mm (or the EF 50 f/1.4 with Viltrox speedbooster) when I'm out. If I were doing nature photography I'd probably use zooms more though.

How is the 18-150? I've wondered for a while if that would be a way to simplify the 15-45/55-200 into a single lens.

Sure. I am mostly a zoom shooter that uses primes to fill in specific niches. But, that is with L glass where the zooms have gotten so good. I am not saying we need "L" EFm zooms, although that would be nice, but something in the EFs 15-85 or EFs 17-55 IQ caliber range would be nice. Currently, I do like the 11-22, and 28 macro. Maybe I should pick up the primes you mention, but I prefer zooms.

That said, the 18-150 is one I do not have, but I know others that use it for exactly what you propose, I have heard it is good, but still in the same general level as the other EFm zooms.

I actually have invested a fair amount into the M-ecosystem (5 lenses, M6 II, EVFs, etc). It is good Canon is going to continue it. It has become my primary video set up and I even use it on the 500 f/4 (it does great, but not with TCs). I would absolutely consider buying a new "M1" type of camera, but before I invest more, I really would like to see some better zoom lenses. Maybe I could shift over to prime, but would prefer to have a kit based on good zooms and a few primes to fill specific needs, similar to my FF gear.

 

[mb66energy]

I'm not doing any video at this time, I wanted the physical protection and the easy mount point for my monopod. By chance it turns out it's a rally nice extension to the physical grip on the right side as well.

The initial revision was apparently easy to loosen as it was designed for the M5, the second revision, which I have, seems to stay firmly in place and hasn't loosened up in the few months since I got it. If I have one complaint though it's that the wifi button is partially blocked by it. I can still press it but it requires a little effort.

Thanks for the reply - so I will check if it is a second revision item if I order it!

I am starting with video and I need to fix my audio equipment. I would like to have very good mono (Videomic NTG) but some ambient stereo which can be processed later - all with 2 channels of internal audio recording via mid side stereophonie. There are bulky 2000 EUR / USD solutions but I am after a 300 bucks-small solution which doesn't exist. So I have to build it which isn't that simple. If I find my ideal solution maybe the hot shoe is sufficient for the mic setup. If not a good cage is the solution.

 

[CafeAvian]

With the announcement of the 600mm and 800mm f11, I think Canon has effectively allocated any enthusiast/prosumer wildlife photographers that used to be on APS-C DSLR to the RF system. There just needs to be a reasonably priced RF 70-300mm replacement. I think the M is really good for on the go photography that does not need significant magnification better than the RF due to being lightweight. The M is also ideally sized to replace point and shoot cameras for people that do not want to use cell phones via the M200.

Personally, I would prefer an RP-sized mirrorless camera body, APS-C sensor, M-mount sized wide/standard/telephoto lenses, and APS-C super telephoto lenses, but that probably isn’t going to happen from Canon.

 

[Etienne]

Just let M die ;p!

not one nice lens... and three different mounts at the same time is garbage... look at Sony and Nikon! They should go the way like before with EF(S).

Canons M line has/had a heavy slow development... no IBIS until now, slow lenses etc.
Want to see a m6II with dual card, nice weather sealing in a aps-c pro body WITH evf in body!

Nonsense.

The 22 f/2, 32 f/1.4 and 11-22 IS are great lenses. They make the M system the best small, light, portable APS-C system available (except for video, which is mediocre in all M cameras to date). All they need is a 50 or 60mm f/1.4.

 

[drama]

Nonsense.

The 22 f/2, 32 f/1.4 and 11-22 IS are great lenses. They make the M system the best small, light, portable APS-C system available (except for video, which is mediocre in all M cameras to date). All they need is a 50 or 60mm f/1.4.

Agree on this. Looking at pricing, there's a sweet spot for a sub 1k flagship APS-C mirrorless, and something at around the 6-700 mark that uses that glass and perhaps one or two other new lenses. Tons of life in the system yet, and if marketed properly a useful feeder into their RF full frame system.

 

[Stichus III]

The 22 f/2, 32 f/1.4 and 11-22 IS are great lenses. They make the M system the best small, light, portable APS-C system (...)

I mostly agree. When coupled with the M5 and M6 (ii) it makes for a fun, small, light, and surprisingly powerful system. That being said, the EOS M lineup is lagging behind the competition. Canon needs to update the M5 with a modern sensor, DPAF 2, IBIS, an articulated screen and competitive video specs.

On another note: anyone suggesting that it is a good idea to use full frame lenses on small EOS M style bodies, must not have much experience doing this in practice. The crop factor, the size and the weight of full frame lenses offer a quick reality check. In my experience (and paradoxically) only full frame long lenses have lots of practical value on an EOS M style body, due to the crop factor. The EF 70-300L adapted to my EOS M5, gives me a whole lot of reach, but at the same time the system becomes painfully unbalanced.

 

[photonius]

I feel like Canon will push APS-C Mirrorless using the EOS M system. A flagship camera and some nice lenses will serve the system well.
My guess is this is a better way for Canon, rather than putting out crop lenses on the RF mount.
Just my guess though.

But then, why not release the 600mm and 800mm f11 consumer lenses also for EOS M?

 

[photonius]

It is about having a system without compromises.

In EF-M, they can make truly small, compact crop lenses. They couldn't be so small in RF, due to the much wider throat. The current lenses are essentially just as wide as the mount and if you never have helt one in your hands I highly recommend trying them. I was shocked to see how small they really are, compared to the impression I got from pictures.

Also, this way, we don't need to get into the messy boundary between high end APS-C and low end FF lenses, where equivalency makes for some redundant designs. They don't need to make a 17-55 mm 2.8 when you can just buy a 24-105 mm 4.0 L. With the RP showing that Canon can approach APS-C body pricing already, and future sales numbers likely reducing fixed cost per unit further, I find it easy to think of APS-C as something that is only needed for very compact cameras and lenses now. And the EF-M mount is just perfect for that.

The messy boundary problems remain even more so, when you have two mounts. Now there is no 17-55 f2.8 on EF-M, and maybe there never will. So, you are saying that if I have EOS-M, but want a better standard zoom lens, I have to also buy a FF camera with 24-105 lens?
The EF / EF-S universe made a lot more sense, since on the APS-C bodies, one could mount the whole lens range, which is not possible with EOS-M, Canon has to maintain two lens ranges.... And like with EF/EF-S, guess where most effort goes. Yes, the throat is larger on RF, but it's actually the same size as EF/EF-S. And Canon was able to make a compact dSLR with the SL line. If one takes away the mirror box, I think even with RF one can be quite compact. Admittedly, not quite as compact as EOS-M, but then, Canon painted themselves into a corner with the two incompatible mounts.

 

[Joules]

The messy boundary problems remain even more so, when you have two mounts. Now there is no 17-55 f2.8 on EF-M, and maybe there never will. So, you are saying that if I have EOS-M, but want a better standard zoom lens, I have to also buy a FF camera with 24-105 lens?

Well, if you are interested in a 17-55 2.8 on crop, what you really want is a lens to get blurry backgrounds and decent low light performance, right? An equivalent lens on FF will do that for you. And you are fine with paying the money and weight associated with that. So what is the point of using such a lens on the M system, that is explicitly about small, lightweight and affordable lenses? Why pollute a clean system with compromised options?

It makes perfect sense to me to separate the shrinking market into the size and weight enthusiasts and the picture quality and ergonomics enthusiasts. There may be an overlap there, but as I said: the market is shrinking. Only the users who are numerous enough will get what they want without paying more than they might like.