New EF-M Prime Likely Coming Ahead of CP+ [CR2]

[slclick]

misleading image A ... adapted 50/1.8 STM is no suitable comparison.

No bias at work here, I'm just making do. I chose the 50 STM because no 50 prime exists for EF-M at that site.

My point being: no one seems to offer a compact 85-ish lens in dedicated crop mirrorless that I am aware of as it appears that it will not be a shorter lens than a compact 85 FF lens on an adapter, and the decision to make it crop-only would waive off any FF users from buying one. So it's possible the various camera/lens manufacturers see a 50 prime as working in a crop-only footprint, but they'll just leave 85s in a FF variant.

The only company that made their own was Fuji -- and they don't have FF business to fret over.

Could Canon make a compact EF-M 85? Sure. But it might be f/2.8 (as you have gathered) to be attractively small.

also beats me, why camerasize.com does not include EF 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 ... but - very compact for a FF lens - EF 85/1.8 lens is physically about 50% longer than EF 50/1.4.

I think that's because Canon were cheap SOBs when they made it -- it's an 85mm lens tucked into a 100mm body. See pic from TDP: it's virtually the same outer barrel and size as the 100 f/2, presumably done to save cost.

- A

Any 85 EF-M prime 2.8 and under, Canon has my money

 

[noncho]

If Canon were brave enough they would bring some prime that they don't have in EF/EF-s. Something like a small 70 2.0 or 120 2.8.
But they are not.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If Canon were brave enough they would bring some prime that they don't have in EF/EF-s. Something like a small 70 2.0 or 120 2.8.
But they are not.

If Canon were stupid enough they would bring some prime that the market has no interest in.

But they are not.

 

[noncho]

The market is eager to have 28 3.5 over any longer prime. And more F6.3 zooms. Absolutely!

 

[neuroanatomist]

The market is eager to have 28 3.5 over any longer prime. And more F6.3 zooms. Absolutely!

Yes, the market wants compact, affordable lenses for the M system.

Some CR forum members want large, expensive, 'pro' lenses for the M system...or expect Canon to defy the laws of physics and the principles of economics to make the latter into the former. Some CR forum members have a firm grasp of reality. To which group do you belong?

 

[AvTvM]

no, i don't want big, fat expensive CROP lenses. Neither for mirrorslappers nor for a mirrorless system. For a mirrorless crop system like EOS M i wnat compact lenses and accept moderate apertures. "Moderate" meaning f/4.0 for zooms and f/2.0-2.8 for primes. No f/1.4 or even f/1.2 clunkers at 1000 a click. That's where Fuji falls flat on their face. Big, junky lenses, priced like Canon L lenses .. .but only APS-C crop cr*p ... no way, not for me.

For me (and many others i know): if a lens is big, fat and expensive, it better be 100% *full frame* capable = serving state of the art 36x24mm sensors perfectly all the way into far corners.

Crop are wonderful too, as long as they are optically decent, as small and light as possible and as dirt-cheap as possible. Lenses like EF-M 22/2.0, EF-M 11-22 being perfect examples.

Many Canon EOS M users want a short, compact, moderately short-fast/portrait lens for EOS M system. More than enough WW choice. But no native prime longer than 22 mm is a joke. So Canon, just go ahead and launch that EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM ... USD/€ 349,- please.

 

[brad-man]

I want a choice. For many, size is the most important criterion. Sometimes it is for me as well. But I would like the option to be able to shoot my M5 in low light without a flash as well as use shallow depth of field when the need arises. I am not hoping for an f/2.8 standard zoom or f/1.4 primes, because those would be (in my opinion) too large. However, a few f/4 zooms and a handful of f/1.8-2 primes can be made small enough to not incur too much of a burden for me. The M5 is an enthusiast camera that isn't going to fit in anyone's pocket, so size is not all that matters. My girlfriend backs me up on this

 

[tron]

no, i don't want big, fat expensive CROP lenses. Neither for mirrorslappers nor for a mirrorless system. For a mirrorless crop system like EOS M i wnat compact lenses and accept moderate apertures. "Moderate" meaning f/4.0 for zooms and f/2.0-2.8 for primes. No f/1.4 or even f/1.2 clunkers at 1000 a click. That's where Fuji falls flat on their face. Big, junky lenses, priced like Canon L lenses .. .but only APS-C crop cr*p ... no way, not for me.

For me (and many others i know): if a lens is big, fat and expensive, it better be 100% *full frame* capable = serving state of the art 36x24mm sensors perfectly all the way into far corners.

Crop are wonderful too, as long as they are optically decent, as small and light as possible and as dirt-cheap as possible. Lenses like EF-M 22/2.0, EF-M 11-22 being perfect examples.

Many Canon EOS M users want a short, compact, moderately short-fast/portrait lens for EOS M system. More than enough WW choice. But no native prime longer than 22 mm is a joke. So Canon, just go ahead and launch that EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM ... USD/€ 349,- please.

You can build a small system just slightly different: EOS 200D (SL2) EF-S10-18 IS STM EF-S18-55 IS STM (or another one) EF-S24 2.8 STM. Then you can add the EF40 2.8 STM and/or the EF85 1.8 and/or the EF50 1.8 STM and/or the EF35mm 2.0 IS. All small, with decent IQ and affordable. My opinion. Not EOS M series but close.

 

[slclick]

f/2 for M primes is my quite reasonable asking. f/2.8 for zooms might be a stretch in order to keep price and size down so I'll hold off opining on that area.

 

[BillB]

f/2 for M primes is my quite reasonable asking. f/2.8 for zooms might be a stretch in order to keep price and size down so I'll hold off opining on that area.

Could you list in priority order which native EF-M F2.0 primes you would like to see?

 

[noncho]

The market is eager to have 28 3.5 over any longer prime. And more F6.3 zooms. Absolutely!

Yes, the market wants compact, affordable lenses for the M system.

Some CR forum members want large, expensive, 'pro' lenses for the M system...or expect Canon to defy the laws of physics and the principles of economics to make the latter into the former. Some CR forum members have a firm grasp of reality. To which group do you belong?

I sold my M system due the lack of native primes.
Nobody asked for large, pro, F1.2 lenses here, but for normal F2 primes.
70 2.0 could be very small, I remember for example the old Pentax 70 2.4 - very small and nice for DSLR 1.5 crop.

It's ugly to tell that people want too much, when they want normal things. This is the reality.

 

[slclick]

f/2 for M primes is my quite reasonable asking. f/2.8 for zooms might be a stretch in order to keep price and size down so I'll hold off opining on that area.

Could you list in priority order which native EF-M F2.0 primes you would like to see?

85, 50 ish


That's my personal preference since I like the 85 and 135 FF perspective. I do not think that will be a Canon marketing priority. I bet a 35 f/2 will be next.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The market is eager to have 28 3.5 over any longer prime. And more F6.3 zooms. Absolutely!

Yes, the market wants compact, affordable lenses for the M system.

Some CR forum members want large, expensive, 'pro' lenses for the M system...or expect Canon to defy the laws of physics and the principles of economics to make the latter into the former. Some CR forum members have a firm grasp of reality. To which group do you belong?

I sold my M system due the lack of native primes.
Nobody asked for large, pro, F1.2 lenses here, but for normal F2 primes.
70 2.0 could be very small, I remember for example the old Pentax 70 2.4 - very small and nice for DSLR 1.5 crop.

It's ugly to tell that people want too much, when they want normal things. This is the reality.

People can want and wish all they want. But as my ol' Irish Da used to say, "Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which fills up first."

In general, consumers prefer zooms...and Canon tends to give the masses what they want for a mass-market system.

I do think we'll see some wide/normal primes for the EF-M mount in the future, but not too many, and not too fast (35/2, 50/2.8, maybe an 85/4 but I doubt it).

 

[BillB]

f/2 for M primes is my quite reasonable asking. f/2.8 for zooms might be a stretch in order to keep price and size down so I'll hold off opining on that area.

Could you list in priority order which native EF-M F2.0 primes you would like to see?

85, 50


That's my personal preference since I like the 85 and 135 FF perspective. I do not think that will be a Canon marketing priority. I bet a 35 f/2 will be next.

85, 45-50ish, and 30-35ish seems about right me also. All three are available in an adaptable EF mount, although only the 35mm has IS. I lean toward the 45-50ish length because I think it pairs well with either the 22mm or the 11-22 zoom. Others want something equivalent to FF 50mm.

So the question becomes which focal length does Canon think will bring in some money if they make it in an EF-M mount..

 

[slclick]

f/2 for M primes is my quite reasonable asking. f/2.8 for zooms might be a stretch in order to keep price and size down so I'll hold off opining on that area.

Could you list in priority order which native EF-M F2.0 primes you would like to see?

85, 50


That's my personal preference since I like the 85 and 135 FF perspective. I do not think that will be a Canon marketing priority. I bet a 35 f/2 will be next.

85, 45-50ish, and 30-35ish seems about right me also. All three are available in an adaptable EF mount, although only the 35mm has IS. I lean toward the 45-50ish length because I think it pairs well with either the 22mm or the 11-22 zoom. Others want something equivalent to FF 50mm.

So the question becomes which focal length does Canon think will bring in some money if they make it in an EF-M mount..

I have used my 40 pancake and 50 STM however a native lens will always be faster and more precise and use the complete focusing (MF & peaking) capabilities of the M5. It's pretty interesting (and Dustin will back this up) how the 40 performs so sluggishly on the M5, even for an STM lens. Too bad, I LOVE that pancake. The 50 STM is pretty snappy.

 

[AvTvM]

You can build a small system just slightly different: EOS 200D (SL2) EF-S10-18 IS STM EF-S18-55 IS STM (or another one) EF-S24 2.8 STM. Then you can add the EF40 2.8 STM and/or the EF85 1.8 and/or the EF50 1.8 STM and/or the EF35mm 2.0 IS. All small, with decent IQ and affordable. My opinion. Not EOS M series but close.

Yes, one could. But i dont want no stinking low level mirrorslapper with dinky tunnel-vision viewfinder ... which is still a lot bulkier than a well-designed, hi-end APS_C mirrorless camera.

And i already got many of the lenses you suggest. The ones with STM AF drive [40/2.8, 50/1.8 STM] I sometimes use with adapter on my EOS M. Non-STM age-old design EF lenses like EF 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.0 do not work very well AF-wise when adapted to EOS M in my experience.

There is no denying that an ultra-compact, short portrait-tele is sorely missing in Canon's EF-M lens lineup. Enough choice for ultra-wideangle and wide-angle lenses and f/6.3 zooms, but no native lens above 22mm faster than f/5.6 ... it sucks!

EF-M 70/2.0 IS STM or EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM ... bring it on, stupid Canon!

 

[slclick]

You can build a small system just slightly different: EOS 200D (SL2) EF-S10-18 IS STM EF-S18-55 IS STM (or another one) EF-S24 2.8 STM. Then you can add the EF40 2.8 STM and/or the EF85 1.8 and/or the EF50 1.8 STM and/or the EF35mm 2.0 IS. All small, with decent IQ and affordable. My opinion. Not EOS M series but close.

Yes, one could. But i dont want no stinking low level mirrorslapper with dinky tunnel-vision viewfinder ... which is still a lot bulkier than a well-designed, hi-end APS_C mirrorless camera.

And i already got many of the lenses you suggest. The ones with STM AF drive [40/2.8, 50/1.8 STM] I sometimes use with adapter on my EOS M. Non-STM age-old design EF lenses like EF 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.0 do not work very well AF-wise when adapted to EOS M in my experience.

There is no denying that an ultra-compact, short portrait-tele is sorely missing in Canon's EF-M lens lineup. Enough choice for ultra-wideangle and wide-angle lenses and f/6.3 zooms, but no native lens above 22mm faster than f/5.6 ... it sucks!

EF-M 70/2.0 IS STM or EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM ... bring it on, stupid Canon!

Is there any way you could modify your desires from Canon to not mimic Trumps tweets? Thanks

 

[brad-man]

You can build a small system just slightly different: EOS 200D (SL2) EF-S10-18 IS STM EF-S18-55 IS STM (or another one) EF-S24 2.8 STM. Then you can add the EF40 2.8 STM and/or the EF85 1.8 and/or the EF50 1.8 STM and/or the EF35mm 2.0 IS. All small, with decent IQ and affordable. My opinion. Not EOS M series but close.

Yes, one could. But i dont want no stinking low level mirrorslapper with dinky tunnel-vision viewfinder ... which is still a lot bulkier than a well-designed, hi-end APS_C mirrorless camera.

And i already got many of the lenses you suggest. The ones with STM AF drive [40/2.8, 50/1.8 STM] I sometimes use with adapter on my EOS M. Non-STM age-old design EF lenses like EF 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.0 do not work very well AF-wise when adapted to EOS M in my experience.

There is no denying that an ultra-compact, short portrait-tele is sorely missing in Canon's EF-M lens lineup. Enough choice for ultra-wideangle and wide-angle lenses and f/6.3 zooms, but no native lens above 22mm faster than f/5.6 ... it sucks!

EF-M 70/2.0 IS STM or EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM ... bring it on, stupid Canon!

Is there any way you could modify your desires from Canon to not mimic Trumps tweets? Thanks

You better not mess with him. He's a very stable genius with tremendous insights in the corporate world...

 

[AvTvM]

Is there any way you could modify your desires from Canon to not mimic Trumps tweets? Thanks

negative. just love political incorrectness. 8)

 

[slclick]

Is there any way you could modify your desires from Canon to not mimic Trumps tweets? Thanks

negative. just love political incorrectness. 8)

Well, you picked the most incorrect to emulate.