SIGMA again announces EF-M lenses, and mount conversion service
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
The important part is missing from the English text: these three Sigma lenses with EF-M mount will be available on the 18th of October.
www.sigma-global.com
キヤノン EF-Mマウント用 交換レンズ発売日決定のお知らせ | レンズ | プロダクト | ニュース | SIGMA | 株式会社シグマ
SIGMA の キヤノン EF-Mマウント用 交換レンズ発売日決定のお知らせ のニュースです。
Upvote
0
The 16mm is interesting, even though it's right in the middle of my 22/2 and Samyang 12/2 ... so not really needed.
The 56mm is the most exciting for me. I had sworn off buying any more lenses native to the mount, but this could be a nice portrait prime for the system, depending on price/size.
The 56mm is the most exciting for me. I had sworn off buying any more lenses native to the mount, but this could be a nice portrait prime for the system, depending on price/size.
Upvote
0
Of these three, I think I'd agree, the 56mm is most interesting.
I think I'm pretty much done buying EF-M lenses (I got three within the last week, all Canon offerings) for the moment. What I'm still missing (from the standpoint of a hypothetical someone who treats it like a coin collection and collects them all) are the two zooms and the 28mm macro. The zooms are covered by my 18-200 Tamron (unless someone has a good reason to say the Canon lenses are superior). And I personally don't have a use for a 28mm macro, but if someone put a gun to my head and ordered me to buy another Canon EF-M lens, that'd be the one I'd get.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I'd like to see Canon get past 200mm in the EF-M mount. Imagine a tiny little equivalent to the 100-400... I agree with the commenter who mentioned earlier that they were hoping for a nice compact travel system but it still hasn't surfaced. Canon has to date released more M series bodies (10) than EF-M lenses (8) in the seven years that the M line has been on the market. That's frustrating as hell for those of us that adopted it for its size.
Upvote
0
How many times do we have to say this... the M line is for small size, relatively low price, and the consumer market. I doubt there will be many if any wide aperture EF-M lenses, they are too niche for the intended audience. Sorry!
Similar to the above, but also - there was never an EF-S 70-200 f/4 or anything like it. There's little to be gained by making an APS-C version, and the market is probably too small for it to be worth their while.
And again but even more so.
Upvote
0
It (70-200mm f/4L) doesn’t look too terrible mounted on a M5. Surely weight balance is a negative but nothing someone couldn’t get over with time.
Attachments
Upvote
0
And yet even the most basic telephoto kit lenses in Canon's EF-S line exceed 200mm. An EF-M equivalent to the 75-300 would even be a quantum leap forward. Doesn't stop me from longing for, well, longer, of course. Hence my statement about imagining a tiny 100-400 equivalent. Doesn't make it any more likely. But still...
The M series cameras are capable of taking very good photos. I know that I'm not supposed to utter such blasphemy on the fan pages, but I ditched my old DSLR mainly because I found myself carrying my M3 a lot more often. But its an inarguable point that, in terms of lens selection, the M line is something of a bastard stepchild in Canon's lineup, as they've never really fully supported it beyond some very basic parameters.
In truth, Canon has given the entirety of the APS-C lineup the cold shoulder, and sold a bunch of cameras in spite of themselves. They've only produced 12 EF-S crop sensor-native lenses since 2003 (22 if you count multiple versions of the same lens), compared to 34 camera bodies. But they also had a good lineup of compact full-frame lenses to lean on as well. A great example would be the 75-300. I didn't realize until just now when I did some digging that they've never produced an EF-S equivalent. They were so common as the telephoto lens in twin lens kits for so long that I just expected that they were EF-S native.
I can't speak for everyone, but size certainly played into my decision to go solely with the M series. I am presently shooting mainly with an M50, which I have had GREAT success with. Most of the time, I shoot with my 16-35 f/2.8L, and try not to think too much about size. But there are times when size makes a difference for me. The EF-M lineup doesn't have a full frame infrastructure to fall back on beyond what's available in the EF lens lineup. And the size difference there is glaring. Canon COULD do more. And they haven't. Whether by laziness or (more likely) perceived lack of market, the end result is still the same.
The M series cameras are capable of taking very good photos. I know that I'm not supposed to utter such blasphemy on the fan pages, but I ditched my old DSLR mainly because I found myself carrying my M3 a lot more often. But its an inarguable point that, in terms of lens selection, the M line is something of a bastard stepchild in Canon's lineup, as they've never really fully supported it beyond some very basic parameters.
In truth, Canon has given the entirety of the APS-C lineup the cold shoulder, and sold a bunch of cameras in spite of themselves. They've only produced 12 EF-S crop sensor-native lenses since 2003 (22 if you count multiple versions of the same lens), compared to 34 camera bodies. But they also had a good lineup of compact full-frame lenses to lean on as well. A great example would be the 75-300. I didn't realize until just now when I did some digging that they've never produced an EF-S equivalent. They were so common as the telephoto lens in twin lens kits for so long that I just expected that they were EF-S native.
I can't speak for everyone, but size certainly played into my decision to go solely with the M series. I am presently shooting mainly with an M50, which I have had GREAT success with. Most of the time, I shoot with my 16-35 f/2.8L, and try not to think too much about size. But there are times when size makes a difference for me. The EF-M lineup doesn't have a full frame infrastructure to fall back on beyond what's available in the EF lens lineup. And the size difference there is glaring. Canon COULD do more. And they haven't. Whether by laziness or (more likely) perceived lack of market, the end result is still the same.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
