SIGMA again announces EF-M lenses, and mount conversion service

[SteveC]

maybe we are tired of this blind defense of small size.
if fuji can, so does canon.

There is, after all, nothing that says they can't decide to extend things, and aim M series at more than just that bottom-level market. It's metaphysically possible--but they haven't decided to go for it. This is what I was trying to say in the other thread: It's purely a human decision that limits the potential of the M series--a decision to chase one market segment and only that segment with this line.

I'm just glad there are adapters.

 

[SteveC]

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.

I did borrow a 100-400 and put it on my M50 when there was a zoo/demo day. Then found myself too close to anything to take a picture, so I swapped it for an 85mm 1.8.

 

[jolyonralph]

Anyone have an opinion of the Sigma 56mm F 1.4 vs a Canon EF 50mm F 1.4 with the EF to EF-M adaptor? The Sigma is $479 new. The Canon is $150-$250 used and $349 new so I'm leaning towards getting a used one.

The EF 50mm f/1.4 is a 1993 design, great for the 35mm film cameras of the day, but sorely lacking when compared to modern lens designs. I don't need to see the Sigma to say that it's probably going to be a better lens. [And I'm saying this as someone who dislikes Sigma lenses and swore never to buy another!]

 

[flip314]

maybe we are tired of this blind defense of small size.
if fuji can, so does canon.

Fuji is great if you want crop lenses that cost as much as FF.

 

[SouthpawSD]

The EF 50mm f/1.4 is a 1993 design, great for the 35mm film cameras of the day, but sorely lacking when compared to modern lens designs. I don't need to see the Sigma to say that it's probably going to be a better lens. [And I'm saying this as someone who dislikes Sigma lenses and swore never to buy another!]

Yea, I dumped the 1.4 for the 1.8 STM and I use it with the standard adapter and with the speedster. Much better lens.

 

[SouthpawSD]

Fuji is great if you want crop lenses that cost as much as FF.

Also, their telephoto lenses for their APSC mirrorless are not at all designed with small form factor, as far as I see.

 

[illadvisedhammer]

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.

There is a tiny equivalent to he 100-400, it’s the EF-S 55-250. 400 we at the long end, great diameter and balance on the m with the adapter, feels great to walk around with that combo all day on an M. I had the 70-300 and got rid of it when I tried the 55-250 stm with no regrets. It’s not just that the 55-250 was sharper (I’m confident the 70-200 is better still, but 55 is much better at the short end on aps-c. There’s I think some wisdom in the 70 low end on FF, and it’s missed on a smaller sensor. I’d love to see if Canon could make a 300 4.5 that could be a much lighter almost 500 equivalent on an M. 56 1.4 is highly appreciated, will get it when finances allow

 

[BillB]

Also, their telephoto lenses for their APSC mirrorless are not at all designed with small form factor, as far as I see.

Not sure how you design telephoto lenses for a small form factor unless you reduce the maximum aperture. Pretty much, a 70-200 f4 is a 70-200 f4, whether for FF or aps-c.

 

[SteveC]

There is a tiny equivalent to he 100-400, it’s the EF-S 55-250.

It's not "equivalent" to a 100-400 used on an APSC. (If he's like me, he's used to the way an actual 400mm works on an APSC and a 250 wouldn't be remotely like that. As far as I'm concerned APSC is "normal" (because it's what I'm used to) and Full Frame has a pad factor of 1.6, so a 100-400 lens is equivalent to 160-560 on a full frame.)

In fact an argument can be made it's not really equivalent to a 100-400 used on a full frame. crop/=more focal length, pad/=less focal length.

 

[SteveC]

Not sure how you design telephoto lenses for a small form factor unless you reduce the maximum aperture. Pretty much, a 70-200 f4 is a 70-200 f4, whether for FF or aps-c.

True. The one break you get is the image circle doesn't have to be as wide, so that means you don't have to jack around with it as much to make the "flat" part of the image larger. That's probably fewer and simpler elements to the lens (someone who understands optics can correct me if I'm wrong). Which (maybe?) could make the lens shorter. But there's no getting around having to have a diameter bigger than <focal length>*<f-number>; e.g., 400 mm f/4 = 400 * 1/4 = 100mm.

 

[Woody]

Canon's very own EF-M 32mm f/1.4 is optically way way better and much lighter than Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

 

[melgross]

You should do stand up comedy. That’s a good one.

Yeah, well, when there’s no competition, Canon can sit back. But Canon, like Nikon, Sony and others, wants people to buy their own glass, and that’s why this could spur Canon on.

 

[hazydave]

I've been surprised at how slow Canon has been to produce EF-M lenses. The current line up appears to be good quality, but personally I would like to see some more F/2.0 or larger primes.

Canon pretty much regards the EOS M system as consumer-only. It's a shame, they have some nice offerings in bodies, but no high end glass. Sigma does make some Art lenses designed for APS-C. That's what they should offer for the EOS M!

 

[BillB]

Yeah, well, when there’s no competition, Canon can sit back. But Canon, like Nikon, Sony and others, wants people to buy their own glass, and that’s why this could spur Canon on.

Canon wants to make money, and the question is whether there is any money for Canon in making more aps-c primes. Sigma can spread costs and build volume with marketing the same lens with different camera mounts, and Sigma may be willing to chase smaller volume than Canon. So, as always, we shall see what happens.

 

[BillB]

Canon pretty much regards the EOS M system as consumer-only. It's a shame, they have some nice offerings in bodies, but no high end glass. Sigma does make some Art lenses designed for APS-C. That's what they should offer for the EOS M!

There is plenty of high quality EF glass, all of which can be adapted to M cameras.

 

[strathmore9]

This is really tempting me to upgrade from 77D, but I want an M body with a 90D shutter speed.

 

[SwissFrank]

Anyone have an opinion of the Sigma 56mm F 1.4 vs a Canon EF 50mm F 1.4 with the EF to EF-M adaptor?

The Canon **EF** 50mm's are all pretty bad for sharpness. I've had all but the STM, which I think is the same as the MkI 50/1.8 that I have had. Also the 50/1.8 has a 5-bladed aperture whie the 1.4 might be 6-bladed, both pretty old-fashioned.

 

[SwissFrank]

There is plenty of high quality EF glass, all of which can be adapted to M cameras.

Doesn't really matter, though: the EF lenses are 2-3x bigger, heavier, and more expensive than they would be if they only produced the EF-M's required image circle. Yes they technically work, if you happen to own some, but no they're not a practical alternative to the Fujifilm with its little primes. https://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/xf_lens/roadmap

I wish Canon sold a similar line for EF-M. I replaced my EF and EF-M outfits with an RF, and as much as I love the sharpness of the 50/1.2 and other lenses, I could see selling it and getting the Fuji outfit.

 

[SwissFrank]

Sigma can spread costs and build volume with marketing the same lens with different camera mounts, and Sigma may be willing to chase smaller volume than Canon.

Also Sigma doesn't have SLRFF and MILFF product lines to cannibalize as a serious set of EF-M super-amateur/pro lenses would do to Canon.

 

[AlanF]

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.

That's what Sony says.