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

Sep 17, 2014
804
1,060
I don't get this. Why would we need to get over with it and not have an EF-M version which is 25% smaller and lighter, after some 10 years and several generations of EF-M bodies???


The EF-M 55-200 is great for weight at only 260g, while the 70-200 IS is 760g, quite heavy for M bodies, close to 1kg with the adapter. What i would like is a bit better lens optically and in build quality for maybe 100-150g more.

So a 55-200 with better IQ, maybe F 5.6, metal mount and weathersealing would be great.
 
Upvote 0

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
112
53
riker.hu
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.

Sorry, strongly disagree. EF-M bodies are capable of professional grade quality, they are awesome tools in good hands. They are capable of producing IQ of FF bodies 5-6 years ago. It is simply a profit decision, with better lenses, the EF-M line would even bite into FF sales. Same reason why there has never been pro EF-S lenses. Imagine what the 7D series would have done to FF. 10-20% drop?
Comparing the 55-200 to the 70-200 is a joke.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
112
53
riker.hu
The EF-M 55-200 is great for weight at only 260g, while the 70-200 IS is 760g, quite heavy for M bodies, close to 1kg with the adapter. What i would like is a bit better lens optically and in build quality for maybe 100-150g more.

So a 55-200 with better IQ, maybe F 5.6, metal mount and weathersealing would be great.

You just replied you own lines. The 55-200 is nowhere near the 70-200 in regards of quality and performance (IQ, AF speed, AF accuracy, IS, etc.) I'm not a pro lens designer but I imagine an EF-M 70-200/4 could be done with ~600g. 5.6 at 200mm is just not enough especially on an APS-C sensor. Maybe a 70-200/3.5-4.5 or 70-300/4-5.6?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

uri.raz

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2016
211
133
I don't get this. Why would we need to get over with it and not have an EF-M version which is 25% smaller and lighter, after some 10 years and several generations of EF-M bodies???

Why do you think an EF-M 70-200mm f/4 would be 25% smaller and lighter? The EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3's filter diameter is 52mm. Making it a stop+ faster should increase the front element's size to around where the EF 70-200mm f/4L lenses are (67-72mm), and there goes the size & weight saving.
 
Upvote 0
Good news!
I agree. Hope those lenses are small enough to fit the form factor of the M series bodies. Still a big disappointment that Canon has not added any new native lenses for the M series bodies since the 50mm. . The new M6mk 2 has the guts of the new Canon 90 D yet comes equipped with the cheap, slow, plastic kit lens with a f 6.3 aperture. Canon is cranking out new lenses for their R series it seems almost on a monthly basis. The M series appears to be an afterthought for Canon.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,338
16,816
f/6.3 is beginning to lose high resolution with the 32 Mpx sensor. It's the upper limit with which I will work with the 90D if I want good resolution as I can see the slight loss of resolution on going from f/4 to 5.6 and significantly so f/8. The resolution is still, of course, better than with a lower density sensor but to get the best from these high density sensors, you really need sharp lenses of f/4 or f/2.8 or better.
 
Upvote 0

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
3,128
1,402
UK
www.flickr.com
Sorry, strongly disagree. EF-M bodies are capable of professional grade quality, they are awesome tools in good hands. They are capable of producing IQ of FF bodies 5-6 years ago. It is simply a profit decision, with better lenses, the EF-M line would even bite into FF sales. Same reason why there has never been pro EF-S lenses. Imagine what the 7D series would have done to FF. 10-20% drop?

I didn't say they weren't. "Simply a profit decision" - whereas most business decisions are driven by something else?? :unsure: I don't think Canon cares whether you buy APS-C or FF (or compact cameras etc), so long as you buy their products - preferably the ones with the highest margin, but we don't know which those are. They will doubtless look at the sales figure breakdowns and research questionnaires, and determine which products to put out on that basis. I doubt very much there is an attitude that, as you imply, FF is sacrosanct and must be protected. Ditto the cinema line, another thing people repeat here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,365
635
I agree. Hope those lenses are small enough to fit the form factor of the M series bodies. Still a big disappointment that Canon has not added any new native lenses for the M series bodies since the 50mm. . The new M6mk 2 has the guts of the new Canon 90 D yet comes equipped with the cheap, slow, plastic kit lens with a f 6.3 aperture. Canon is cranking out new lenses for their R series it seems almost on a monthly basis. The M series appears to be an afterthought for Canon.
The Sigma lenses are existing models reworked for the EF-M mount, so it is easy enough to check their size. Sigma's rollout of these lenses would seem to cut both ways as far as the likelihood of Canon bringing out new lenses is concerned. On the one hand , the new Sigma lenses may encourage Canon to follow suit if they sell well. On the other, if they sell well, Canon may decide that it isn't worth the investment to compete with Sigma in the EF-M prime market beyond what the are doing now. With the 22mm and the 32mm EF-M, Canon already covers two key focal lengths for primes.
 
Upvote 0

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
112
53
riker.hu
Why do you think an EF-M 70-200mm f/4 would be 25% smaller and lighter? The EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3's filter diameter is 52mm. Making it a stop+ faster should increase the front element's size to around where the EF 70-200mm f/4L lenses are (67-72mm), and there goes the size & weight saving.

Seriously? You think a lens that needs to create an image for a large FF sensor and a lens that only needs to produce it to a considerably smaller sensor are the same size? Why do you think there's an EF-S 24/2.8 pancake but no EF? Or why is the EF-M 11-22 so much smaller than anything comparable?
 
Upvote 0

uri.raz

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2016
211
133
Sigma's rollout of these lenses would seem to cut both ways as far as the likelihood of Canon bringing out new lenses is concerned. On the one hand , the new Sigma lenses may encourage Canon to follow suit if they sell well.

I wouldn't bet money on that.

Sigma released a 20mm f/1.4 lens for Canon EF. Canon didn't follow suit.

The big brand lens manufacturers (Sigma, Nikon, Zeiss, etc) released an uber 5Xmm f/1.4 lens. Canon hasn't followed suit.

Sigma is making a 12-24mm lens since '03. IIRC, Sigma got to upgrade the lens once before Canon released the EF 11-24mm f/4L over a decade later, and then upgraded it again shortly after.
 
Upvote 0

uri.raz

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2016
211
133
Seriously? You think a lens that needs to create an image for a large FF sensor and a lens that only needs to produce it to a considerably smaller sensor are the same size?

AFAIK, above a certain focal length & aperture size, yes. I'm sure there are other members on the forum who can explain this better than me.

Why do you think there's an EF-S 24/2.8 pancake but no EF? Or why is the EF-M 11-22 so much smaller than anything comparable?

Because for short focal lengths and slow apertures its easy to make smaller lenses for smaller sensors, while for telephotos it isn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,411
1,430
Turku, Finland
Seriously? You think a lens that needs to create an image for a large FF sensor and a lens that only needs to produce it to a considerably smaller sensor are the same size? Why do you think there's an EF-S 24/2.8 pancake but no EF? Or why is the EF-M 11-22 so much smaller than anything comparable?

A 70–200mm f/4 lens must have an entrance pupil 200mm/4=50mm in diameter by the very definition. Telephoto and wideangle optics have different engineering constraints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
A 70–200mm f/4 lens must have an entrance pupil 200mm/4=50mm in diameter by the very definition.

But with modern optics and a telescoping lens design, it doesn't need to be as long. And that's got a tangible value to it for a traveling photographer. A consumer-grade 100-400 style lens with a variable aperture to f/7.1 - while slow - would be plenty usable on sunny days for bird watching, etc., and would only require a front opening smaller than 58mm; bump that down to f/6.7 and you're still smaller than a 62mm front opening. A comparison between existing similar models, namely the EF-S 55-250 vs the EF-M 55-200, shows that with a few compromises (the EF-M lens is slower and has 50mm less range), the physical size of the lens can be decreased dramatically.

The question isn't whether or not it's possible. Only whether or not there's enough of a market for it that Canon could recoup the costs of engineering, tooling, and production, and whether or not something else in their lens lineup could take the place of that particular lens. To this point, Canon hasn't seemed to be in a hurry to build anything beyond the 200-250mm range for APS-C sensors anywhere in its line. This makes more sense for EF-S lenses, which have a size and form factor similar to their full-frame counterparts. For the EF-M line, where you'd think size makes a difference, the disparity in size between the EF-M 55-200 and the next steps up in focal length is much more damning.

Frankly, at this point, I am little bit confused as to what the advantages of APS-C are other than to exploit the sensor crop to get a little more "oomph" out of a telephoto lens - most all of which are built for full-frame anyhow. Especially with a smaller M-series body like my M50 - which is a great camera, don't get me wrong, and I am very happy with the results I've gotten. But the size advantage of lens engineering goes mainly into trying to negate the natural weakness of APS-C on the wide angle side of the focal length spectrum. And if I try to position myself with decent quality lenses that I can use on both full frame and APS-C cameras (as with my EF 16-35 f/2.8), I've negated any and all size advantage gained with the M series body.

These are interesting times in the photography world, that's for sure.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,338
16,816
But with modern optics and a telescoping lens design, it doesn't need to be as long. And that's got a tangible value to it for a traveling photographer. A consumer-grade 100-400 style lens with a variable aperture to f/7.1 - while slow - would be plenty usable on sunny days for bird watching, etc., and would only require a front opening smaller than 58mm; bump that down to f/6.7 and you're still smaller than a 62mm front opening. A comparison between existing similar models, namely the EF-S 55-250 vs the EF-M 55-200, shows that with a few compromises (the EF-M lens is slower and has 50mm less range), the physical size of the lens can be decreased dramatically.

The question isn't whether or not it's possible. Only whether or not there's enough of a market for it that Canon could recoup the costs of engineering, tooling, and production, and whether or not something else in their lens lineup could take the place of that particular lens. To this point, Canon hasn't seemed to be in a hurry to build anything beyond the 200-250mm range for APS-C sensors anywhere in its line. This makes more sense for EF-S lenses, which have a size and form factor similar to their full-frame counterparts. For the EF-M line, where you'd think size makes a difference, the disparity in size between the EF-M 55-200 and the next steps up in focal length is much more damning.

Frankly, at this point, I am little bit confused as to what the advantages of APS-C are other than to exploit the sensor crop to get a little more "oomph" out of a telephoto lens - most all of which are built for full-frame anyhow. Especially with a smaller M-series body like my M50 - which is a great camera, don't get me wrong, and I am very happy with the results I've gotten. But the size advantage of lens engineering goes mainly into trying to negate the natural weakness of APS-C on the wide angle side of the focal length spectrum. And if I try to position myself with decent quality lenses that I can use on both full frame and APS-C cameras (as with my EF 16-35 f/2.8), I've negated any and all size advantage gained with the M series body.

These are interesting times in the photography world, that's for sure.
A 100-400mm with a maximum f/7.1 would be a waste of time and money, being well into the diffraction limited region for resolution for a 32 Mpx sensor and slow shutter speed and poorer AF. The big advantage for APS-C for those of us limited by "reach" is that we get a very high density sensor that we have to crop less than FF with a 1/4 of the number of pixels, which allows for higher frame rates and less demands on storage.
 
Upvote 0

andrei1989

EOS RP
Sep 1, 2014
392
85
33
Seriously? You think a lens that needs to create an image for a large FF sensor and a lens that only needs to produce it to a considerably smaller sensor are the same size? Why do you think there's an EF-S 24/2.8 pancake but no EF? Or why is the EF-M 11-22 so much smaller than anything comparable?

you are comparing apples to oranges
wide angle lenses benefit from shorter flange distances and smaller sensors
telephoto lenses are only (mostly) constrained by aperture: the best example for this is for you to look at the fuji 100-400, a lens for mirrorless aps-c, the sony 100-400 for mirrorless FF and the canon ef 100-400, a lens for FF dslr. check the dimensions and tell us how much fuji benefits from the shorter flange and smaller sensor

the ef-s 24mm back element goes a very long way inside the camera, unlike the 40 mm pancake with which it shares the body
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
3,128
1,402
UK
www.flickr.com
A 100-400mm with a maximum f/7.1 would be a waste of time and money, being well into the diffraction limited region for resolution for a 32 Mpx sensor and slow shutter speed and poorer AF.

It depends. I mean, no such lens is ever going to appear, and it would make no market sense to do so. But superzoom fixed lens cameras go well past the diffraction limit of their sensors and still sell - I guess to people who don't know or care about such things, and for whom the maximum 'reach' is all that matters.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,338
16,816
It depends. I mean, no such lens is ever going to appear, and it would make no market sense to do so. But superzoom fixed lens cameras go well past the diffraction limit of their sensors and still sell - I guess to people who don't know or care about such things, and for whom the maximum 'reach' is all that matters.
You are absolutely right about some superzoom cameras. One of the worst is the Nikon Coolpix 1000. The Sony RX10 III and IV are honest in that at the maximum FF equivalent of 600mm the aperture drops to f/4, which matches the DLA for the size of pixels.
 
Upvote 0

koketso

EOS M5 | Sony A7
Jan 26, 2019
41
18
Johannesburg
Maybe this will spur Canon to add some more of their own.
There is an answer to this.

All of Canon's M glass has the same lens diameter. Basically, Canon has decided that their first-party lenses will be the same width and they left the rest up to Sigma, Tamron, and Samyang. Its not a solid plan as Sigma is only commiting now, and Tamron + Samyang (Rokinon) have only made one lens each.

But I believe Sigma is only coming to the party now because their Contemporary lenses were actually out-resolving Canon's M 18mp and 24mp cameras up until the new sensor in the 90D and M6MkII came out. There could be no other explanation.
 
Upvote 0