It's actually 22mm in EF-m and 24mm in EF-s. I have both. The 24mm EF-s and 40mm EF are externally indistinguishable from each other except for the lettering on the (very short) barrel. Just like the 40, the 24 EF-s punches way above it's weight class in terms of IQ. It's quite excellent for the money and focuses down to 6 inches. The 22mm EF-m is also very good optically, and not expensive. I doubt that Canon would have much problem making a pancake 40 RF at f/2.8. From what I've gathered about the 35mm IS STM in RF (which I also have) is most of the size is actually the image stab. They could easily add one more slider switch to switch the one control ring between manual focus or control ring on a 40 RF pancake. Both of the pancakes have minimal lens elements, and I doubt the back flange distance is really that much of an issue, otherwise, how would they make any long lens with even EF flange distance that could focus to infinity? If it were, then a 22mm EF-m pancake would be a real problem, and it's almost exactly the same length as the other two pancake primes. Heck, I'd even be OK with a prime that was 1/4 inch longer than the current pancake primes if they needed to do that. I just love the 40mm field of view on full frame and want a reasonably small and light prime with at least f/2.8
Rumors are slow, let’s talk RF lens wish lists
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
It's actually 22mm in EF-m and 24mm in EF-s. I have both. The 24mm EF-s and 40mm EF are externally indistinguishable from each other except for the lettering on the (very short) barrel. Just like the 40, the 24 EF-s punches way above it's weight class in terms of IQ. It's quite excellent for the money and focuses down to 6 inches. The 22mm EF-m is also very good optically, and not expensive. I doubt that Canon would have much problem making a pancake 40 RF at f/2.8. From what I've gathered about the 35mm IS STM in RF (which I also have) is most of the size is actually the image stab. They could easily add one more slider switch to switch the one control ring between manual focus or control ring on a 40 RF pancake. Both of the pancakes have minimal lens elements, and I doubt the back flange distance is really that much of an issue, otherwise, how would they make any long lens with even EF flange distance that could focus to infinity? If it were, then a 22mm EF-m pancake would be a real problem, and it's almost exactly the same length as the other two pancake primes. Heck, I'd even be OK with a prime that was 1/4 inch longer than the current pancake primes if they needed to do that. I just love the 40mm field of view on full frame and want a reasonably small and light prime with at least f/2.8
After my 3rd race using the R5, I can tell you right now that the lens that I really NEED the most, is a new 135L and it MUST be compatible with the teleconverters. The 135L has long been my top low light motorsports lens and I have always valued its size, weight, and functionality with the teleconverters. Sadly, there's really no way around it - the 135L is not a very good performer on the R5 and R6. Not being able to use this lens at the top frame rates these cameras deliver, as well as no supporting the best performance from the viewfinder is really unfortunate. I have also discovered that face and eye detection don't appear to work as well either on this lens.
For me, this is a practical want and more along the lines of an actual need. It's the only EF lens I own that really suffers on this camera and when I travel for work, I favor taking this lens and the 100-400 over using that room for my 70-200. I guess if this doesn't end up coming to fruition, I will just pick up an RF 70-200 and sell off my EF 70-200.
For me, this is a practical want and more along the lines of an actual need. It's the only EF lens I own that really suffers on this camera and when I travel for work, I favor taking this lens and the 100-400 over using that room for my 70-200. I guess if this doesn't end up coming to fruition, I will just pick up an RF 70-200 and sell off my EF 70-200.
I don't know the f# of your 135L lens, but I hope Canon comes out with a RF 135mm f2 (or f1.8)L IS lens in the near future. I'd love to have a fast 135mm lens, but I also want it to be reasonable to hold and carry around which is why I'd prefer the 67mm aperture of the f2 most, while I'd accept the 75mm aperture of the f1.8. While I could afford the cost, anything faster than that would be too big and heavy for me to want to carry around, as I am not using it for professional work.
I recently picked up the RF 70-200... man... that thing is a magic lens. Unless you absolutely have to have a faster aperture, I’d get that over waiting for an RF 135. the RF version packs relatively small and light, and while you won’t get quite as much reach as a 135 with teleconverters, it’s f/2.8 all the way.
Ah, 24 not 28.
Yeah, had I not been mistaken about that, my thinking would have led me directly to what you said; sensor to flange distance makes little difference, because the difference between 22 and 24 is not nearly so much as between 22 and 28.
I could still imagine them coming out with a 35mm pancake, but 40 is in my current humble opinion more likely. But unless it totally kicks the ass of the EF-40, I probably won't get it, and I suspect enough people who already own EF-40s think like that that Canon has it fairly low on their priority list (which is a shame, because it would be a very compact package).
And by the way, given the mistake I made it's probably not that surprising that I own the EF-M 22mm and the EF-40mm, but not the EF-S 28-I-mean-24mm. In fact I've even posted pictures here taken with the 40 on an R5, since on release day the 40 was the widest thing I had in a full frame lens (I fixed that the very next day).
yeah, 40 in full frame and 24 in AP-C are my two most shot lenses for general walk around stuff. 24 in canons crop is almost exactly the same field of view as 40 in full frame, which incidentally works out great if shooting video on an RP. Shoot 1080 full frame with the 40, but in the instances where you need the extra detail, put the 24 on and shoot 4K in the crop mode. Both are 2.8, so no real need to change the lighting, or camera to subject distance, and you can do quite a lot with just two small lenses, if shooting YouTube content. It’s super simple and just works.
After thinking about it, you're absolutely right. I have a wedding this weekend and I will be selling my 70-200 and 135L for the RF 70-200.
8-15mm fish eye, 10-24mm (IS?) wide, 24-105mm IS, 100-500mm IS, all in f2.8, and cost less than 1000$ each.. you did say WISH list
I forgot that... thanks!Please add the classics: small and light at the same time as cheap and f/2.8
I want a L-series pancake-lens. Imagine a 28 mm f/2.5 L USM in about the same size as the EF 40.
This would be the perfect walk around lens for street photography and travel, when you want to keep a low profile. Weather sealed and with high quality optics and fast AF. Of course f/2.0 would be a dream, but I don't think that's possible in a lens of this size. Maybe even f/2.5 isn't.
This would be the perfect walk around lens for street photography and travel, when you want to keep a low profile. Weather sealed and with high quality optics and fast AF. Of course f/2.0 would be a dream, but I don't think that's possible in a lens of this size. Maybe even f/2.5 isn't.
How would that possibly work? EF lenses, in general, are built to give a fixed image circle which is just big enough to cover the area of the FF sensor. By shifting the lens sideways by large amounts you just shift the image circle by large amounts away from the center of the sensor so one side of the sensor is not illuminated at all.
I actually had the same thought that Rpmsol had, and of course had the same thing pointed out to me.
BUT...maybe there's no reason an EF->EF-M adapter couldn't be built like this--it would turn an a full frame EF lens into a tilt-shift APS-C lens.
The only way I could think of to make this useful for a normal EF lens is to focus on the "tilt" part of this. If you tilt the lens downward so that you can focus closer on the (lower) ground and focus further on the (upper) mountains & sky then you would turn the FF size image circle into an ellipse, while also shifting the image ellipse off-center (down) a lot. (If I get the effective directions reversed then please let me know as I haven't used a TS lens and am assuming it works this way) So you'd also have to "shift" the lens up to re-center the image ellipse onto the sensor. I could see this to be *very* useful for those who want to add this functionality to the normal EF lens line.
What do you think?
Fotodiox of Shift / tilt adapters fame do have the normal EF - EF-M adapter. I wonder if one day they might make the shift / tilt version. I'm not sure how useful tilt would really be on an APS-C size sensor though, but the shift / rise / fall would be interesting ! I think it would be a little limited in movement though.
Most of my tilt shift interest is close focusing, which generates a larger image circle. At infinity focus, the tilt would be interesting, but significant shift would be a problem.
I used to have an old film SLR with no electrical contacts to the lens, and took great images with the lens disconnected from the camera. my right hand held the camera and my left hand was the tilt/shift/focus mechanism. The light leakage generated a dreamy low contrast look. I really enjoyed using the technique with flowers at very close focus distances.
For me I’d love some UWA primes like a 14mm or 16mm f/2.8. Samyang has managed to make their small so I’m sure Canon could do the same. On the zoom side, a 15-35 f/4 would definitely be welcomed too.
I’d really like them to release a 35mm, 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 primes that are both smaller and cheaper compared to their f/1.2 counterparts. Canon could make the f/2 and f/1.8 versions the more budget orientated ones, the f/1.4 ones the more mid range enthusiast lenses and the f/1.2 lenses the more pro oriented lens.
I’d really like them to release a 35mm, 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 primes that are both smaller and cheaper compared to their f/1.2 counterparts. Canon could make the f/2 and f/1.8 versions the more budget orientated ones, the f/1.4 ones the more mid range enthusiast lenses and the f/1.2 lenses the more pro oriented lens.
Similar threads
<-- start Taboola -->