If EOS-M users theoretically got to choose exactly 2 lenses to add to the native EF-M lineup, which ones would make the cut?
Pick 2: Your next most desired EF-M lenses
- Thread starter andrewflo
- Start date
A canon response to the samyang 12mm f2.0... perhaps not: we already have that, maybe a pancake short tele... see Pentax's 75mm for inspiration..
I personally don't see the point of dedicated telezooms etc, just adapt the fine ef-s or ef lenses that already exist, the size advantage is lost anyway, i wuld rather see canon concentrate on lenses that play to the unique strengths of the m system if they are going to make dedicated lenses.
Do folks who have a 5d3 and an m3 really want to be bothered buying 2x 50s or 2x 85s?
Gateway to the EOS system is the m's unique strength no. 1 (or if you just want mirrorless, the latest gf's or alphas are better)
Compact form is the whole point of sacrificing the mirror and viewfinder, so why buy lenses like telezooms that can never be truely compact?
Just an opinion.
I personally don't see the point of dedicated telezooms etc, just adapt the fine ef-s or ef lenses that already exist, the size advantage is lost anyway, i wuld rather see canon concentrate on lenses that play to the unique strengths of the m system if they are going to make dedicated lenses.
Do folks who have a 5d3 and an m3 really want to be bothered buying 2x 50s or 2x 85s?
Gateway to the EOS system is the m's unique strength no. 1 (or if you just want mirrorless, the latest gf's or alphas are better)
Compact form is the whole point of sacrificing the mirror and viewfinder, so why buy lenses like telezooms that can never be truely compact?
Just an opinion.
Upvote
0
I picked 50mm and 85mm.
The system needs primes. Small, fast primes. It has the zooms it needs, mostly pretty good albeit slow zooms. f/2.8 zooms don't really belong to the M system, at least not as a priority. Big lenses on small cameras don't make much sense.
If I had 3 choices I'd have picked a macro as well. I don't do much of it so it didn't make the cut for me, but it would certainly be a nice addition to the system.
The system needs primes. Small, fast primes. It has the zooms it needs, mostly pretty good albeit slow zooms. f/2.8 zooms don't really belong to the M system, at least not as a priority. Big lenses on small cameras don't make much sense.
If I had 3 choices I'd have picked a macro as well. I don't do much of it so it didn't make the cut for me, but it would certainly be a nice addition to the system.
Upvote
0
Something like a 30 to 32mm fast pancake. (I'm trying for a 50mm equivalent, if I did the math right)? The point being to having a "normal" range walk around lens that would take advantage of the diminutive system. The 22mm is the right size, but too wide for my taste. The 18-55 is ok, but no longer really compact (not pocketable). I love using my 70-200 F4 L with the M(3), but don't see the point in having a native (M) lens with that range (or the equivalent range, for that matter).
Upvote
0
28mm is roughly a standard lens on aps-c, equivalent to mid forties, the diagonal of 135 film.
Upvote
0
I would love to have a 70-200 f2.8 IF it's small and cheap as M system! I know it's impossible. For that lens, a FF body makes more sense.
Fisheye and ultra wide ... Samyang has already offered it.
I would like to have an affordable compact 50ish lens of around f2. Besides, a longer macro like 100f2.8.
Fisheye and ultra wide ... Samyang has already offered it.
I would like to have an affordable compact 50ish lens of around f2. Besides, a longer macro like 100f2.8.
Upvote
0
I want and nearly got this week a 500mm f4 mk1, I'd only use it now and then but at 4k I am struggling to justify it, however I could happily own it for what it is and I am sure I'd get most of my money back IF I needed the cash, please don't talk me into it... what a fine lump of glass it is..
Upvote
0
frankly i see primes as being idiotic. if i want a small package the last thing I want to be doing is swapping between two or three primes with a mirrorless camera that exposes the sensor to dust, dirt,etc every time i swap a lens.
it certainly needs a 18-135 somewhat collapsible zoom, a macro and really some better ranging zooms such as a 18-200 but small (even if it has to go to 6.3).
it certainly needs a 18-135 somewhat collapsible zoom, a macro and really some better ranging zooms such as a 18-200 but small (even if it has to go to 6.3).
Upvote
0
With the cheapo 40mm & 50mm EF lenses, I'm not convinced there's a rush for midrange primes - I'd suggest two things would suit the EOS-M system, a pancake zoom of about 20-40mm range without IS and similar size to the 22mm prime, the second being a better zoom with IS covering something like 15-85 would be excellent.
I don't see a range of 2.8 zooms or dedicated fast primes until the EOS-M range has matured to three cameras - a cheapo plastic job at 2/3rds the price of the current M3, a continued mid-range development of the M3 and a higher end semi-pro style unit at a decent premium over the M3 - only then do I see a 2.8 version of the 18-55mm and 55-150mm ranges, plus dedicated fast primes such as a 10mm (16mm), 32mm (50mm), 55mm (85mm) etc mini primes that offer a real alternative to Fuji
I don't see a range of 2.8 zooms or dedicated fast primes until the EOS-M range has matured to three cameras - a cheapo plastic job at 2/3rds the price of the current M3, a continued mid-range development of the M3 and a higher end semi-pro style unit at a decent premium over the M3 - only then do I see a 2.8 version of the 18-55mm and 55-150mm ranges, plus dedicated fast primes such as a 10mm (16mm), 32mm (50mm), 55mm (85mm) etc mini primes that offer a real alternative to Fuji
Upvote
0
Same here, a wider prime for video. Something in the 17 to 19 range.
The M is my "walking around" camera, and I often use it for short videos. Having a wider lens then the 22 (while still smaller than the zooms) would be great for hand-held shots.
Other than that, the system needs a better 18-55. Mine isn't tack sharp when compared to the 22 and to adapted full-frame primes. Has anyone else noticed this, or do I have a dud? It's good enough for snapshots, but not for real prints.
The M is my "walking around" camera, and I often use it for short videos. Having a wider lens then the 22 (while still smaller than the zooms) would be great for hand-held shots.
Other than that, the system needs a better 18-55. Mine isn't tack sharp when compared to the 22 and to adapted full-frame primes. Has anyone else noticed this, or do I have a dud? It's good enough for snapshots, but not for real prints.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
