Specs & Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out

[gmrza]

There is no good reason for that lens to be slower than f5.6. It should be smaller anyway based on the image circle size. The only reason is that it is cheaper to manufacture. Another example of Canon creating a distinction between camera lines.

smaller than? ???
it's smaller than the equivalent ef-s 18-135 which is 5.6..

I think this is an area where it may be worth holding back in respect of going for an EOS-M. If Canon is mainly going to bring out slow lenses with an EF-M mount, that devalues the proposition of the EOS-M.
I get it that a f/5.6 or f/4 lens would be bigger, but that may be a compromise that needs making. If I were to be saddled with EF-M lenses being so slow at the long end, I would be forced to use EF lenses with an adapter.
I would want to see Canon bring out some faster EF-M lenses before committing to buying an EOS-M.

 

[koenkooi]

Anyone know if the digital display will show the approximate distance to subject in focus?

Yes, with 99 % certainty .

Lets hope they add this to the exif data to be captured.

Hasn't canon been doing that for ages with compatible usm lenses? A while ago I made a plot for the distances used for my 100mm non-L macro: https://www.flickr.com/photos/koenkooi/17183246476

 

[andrei1989]

There is no good reason for that lens to be slower than f5.6. It should be smaller anyway based on the image circle size. The only reason is that it is cheaper to manufacture. Another example of Canon creating a distinction between camera lines.

smaller than? ???
it's smaller than the equivalent ef-s 18-135 which is 5.6..

I think this is an area where it may be worth holding back in respect of going for an EOS-M. If Canon is mainly going to bring out slow lenses with an EF-M mount, that devalues the proposition of the EOS-M.
I get it that a f/5.6 or f/4 lens would be bigger, but that may be a compromise that needs making. If I were to be saddled with EF-M lenses being so slow at the long end, I would be forced to use EF lenses with an adapter.
I would want to see Canon bring out some faster EF-M lenses before committing to buying an EOS-M.

yes, i have the same reluctance...i would switch to M if they had something like the 70-200 f/4 or equivalent and some fast(er) primes. i know there is the 22/2 but something like 35 and 50 would be nice. i like the fuji system a lot but i don't think canon will make the M line at that level...speaking of lenses of course..

 

[9VIII]

Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out

I'm just wondering why some people here think it should be stellar or even " the best telephoto ever made". Is there some new magic glass inside ? Most 70-300 4ish/5.6ish on the market fall into the "crappy zoom" category, with maybe the exception of the Canon 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 L IS, that is good to very good (for what it is). But very far from a true stellar lens like the 300 f2.8 L II. How come a plastic low end 70-300 could suddenly become the best 300 on the market ? That's a bit like comparing the Canon 50mm 1.8 to a Zeiss Otus.

I was using the term "best ever" in a bit of a broad sense, but it might not be too much of a stretch.
I don't expect Big White performance out of a kit zoom, except if you count the 400f4DO.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=338&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
That's still a $200 (grey market) lens being compared with something that costs many thousands of dollars.

The current 55-250IS STM has amazing sharpness, Canon is now putting better glass in their kit zooms than ever before.
Here it is compared with the original 100-400IS.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Given the crop factor on the 55-250STM, that's exactly the same field of view out of both lenses. Your basic modern plastic is almost as good as L glass from 18 years ago.

Now lets see what they can do at 300mm.

 

[weixing]

There is no good reason for that lens to be slower than f5.6. It should be smaller anyway based on the image circle size. The only reason is that it is cheaper to manufacture. Another example of Canon creating a distinction between camera lines.

smaller than? ???
it's smaller than the equivalent ef-s 18-135 which is 5.6..

I think this is an area where it may be worth holding back in respect of going for an EOS-M. If Canon is mainly going to bring out slow lenses with an EF-M mount, that devalues the proposition of the EOS-M.
I get it that a f/5.6 or f/4 lens would be bigger, but that may be a compromise that needs making. If I were to be saddled with EF-M lenses being so slow at the long end, I would be forced to use EF lenses with an adapter.
I would want to see Canon bring out some faster EF-M lenses before committing to buying an EOS-M.

yes, i have the same reluctance...i would switch to M if they had something like the 70-200 f/4 or equivalent and some fast(er) primes. i know there is the 22/2 but something like 35 and 50 would be nice. i like the fuji system a lot but i don't think canon will make the M line at that level...speaking of lenses of course..

Hi,
Mirrorless doesn't mean small lens. If your sensor is big, fast lens will also tend to be big also. Just look at Sony Mirrorless FF lens... just as big as DSLR FF lens.

Have a nice day.

 

[andrei1989]

There is no good reason for that lens to be slower than f5.6. It should be smaller anyway based on the image circle size. The only reason is that it is cheaper to manufacture. Another example of Canon creating a distinction between camera lines.

smaller than? ???
it's smaller than the equivalent ef-s 18-135 which is 5.6..

I think this is an area where it may be worth holding back in respect of going for an EOS-M. If Canon is mainly going to bring out slow lenses with an EF-M mount, that devalues the proposition of the EOS-M.
I get it that a f/5.6 or f/4 lens would be bigger, but that may be a compromise that needs making. If I were to be saddled with EF-M lenses being so slow at the long end, I would be forced to use EF lenses with an adapter.
I would want to see Canon bring out some faster EF-M lenses before committing to buying an EOS-M.

yes, i have the same reluctance...i would switch to M if they had something like the 70-200 f/4 or equivalent and some fast(er) primes. i know there is the 22/2 but something like 35 and 50 would be nice. i like the fuji system a lot but i don't think canon will make the M line at that level...speaking of lenses of course..

Hi,
Mirrorless doesn't mean small lens. If your sensor is big, fast lens will also tend to be big also. Just look at Sony Mirrorless FF lens... just as big as DSLR FF lens.

Have a nice day.

yes, that is true, as long as you keep the same lens design and just change the body to include the adapter...which sony did for its lenses..fuji, as far as i know, has different designs made for the shorter distance and the size of the sensor

we are going a bit off topic here..anyway, my point was that i would like to see more quality glass for the M, which i think can be done at a lower price point than EF lens..

 

[vscd]

Anyone know if the digital display will show the approximate distance to subject in focus?

Yes, with 99 % certainty .

Lets hope they add this to the exif data to be captured.

I doubt that. The only lens I own which was writing this in the EXIF Data was the Canon 85mm 1.2L II. The data was also only in the exifdata when the flash was turned on and fired, if I remember correctly.

 

[9VIII]

$549 for the new 70-300 ...

So not expecting that much of an IQ upgrade.

Except that Canon's last telephoto kit lens is keeping pace with lenses worth three times more than this.
At this point just about anything could happen.