The Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM confirmed again

[ahsanford]

One can easily adapt the classic EF 50 f/1.4 USM lens onto a Canon MILC.

Anyone here think we'll get a Canon EF-M 50mm F/1.4 IS STM sometime soon? Personally I think that would be a killer portrait lens.

Annnnd I misread your post, Josh, apologies. You actually want an EF-M 50 prime to make an 80mm FF equivalent. My fault. (With IS.)

Yeah, they might do something like it someday (see my prior post), but:

• f/1.4 is a different kettle of fish for an 80-85ish FF equivalent lens. The physics gods seem to have dictated that you can make tiny (FF) 50mm f/1.4 prime but not the same is true for 35 1.4 or 85 1.4 on either side of it:

​

​

(35L II - 50 1.4 USM - 85L IS)​

Part of this below is of course much more complicated L lens optical designs, but in general it's a really uncanny thing: 50s can be uniquely small and fast. So if Canon were to do this for EOS-M, I'd bet it would be a 53 f/1.8 STM or something like that.​

• It may not be soon. As I mentioned in the post above, this is new territory for Canon, and they very well may play wait and see. As some EF folks can attest, sometimes Canon starts an experiment that looks like a sexy new line of glass and then they just stop making more.

- A

 

[fullstop]

possible minimum size for lenses is at focal length equal or close to flange focal distance.

EF-M has 18mm FFD. EF-M 22 can be tiny.

EF has 44mm FFD, so EF 40/2.8 can be tiny and EF 50/1.8 as well.

size of longer focal length lenses is dependent on size of entry pupil needed for desired max. aperture, which determines minimum diameter of front element.

so all other things equal a 85/1.4 will be a lot bigger than a f/1.8 and even more so than a 85/2 or f/2.8.

that's why i would like to see an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM, because it "should be possible" in a compact lens body, sized similar to EF-M 18-55 kit lens. especially since there is no other way to get that FOV and aperture (with AF) on EOS M system. EF 85/1.8 plus adapter is a lot bulkier (and without STM and IS).

 

[jolyonralph]

I think we won't see a new low-cost 50mm f/1.4 lens in a while for either EF-M or EF mount for the simple reason that the 50mm f/1.8 STM is too good!

 

[Josh Leavitt]

Annnnd I misread your post, Josh, apologies. You actually want an EF-M 50 prime to make an 80mm FF equivalent. My fault. (With IS.)

• It may not be soon. As I mentioned in the post above, this is new territory for Canon, and they very well may play wait and see. As some EF folks can attest, sometimes Canon starts an experiment that looks like a sexy new line of glass and then they just stop making more.

- A

I'm hopeful Canon will recognize the potential of fast EF-M glass. Of course, much of Canon's design philosophy will be greatly influenced by the decision of the mount for their new mirrorless full-frame systems. If they keep the EF mount for FF mirrorless, I'd be inclined to think that Canon may become more daring with EF-M lenses and really push for delivering Fuji competitors in the world of fast primes. The EOS M cameras would be the only compact mirrorless system from Canon in that case, so they would have a huge opportunity to appeal to the enthusiast and pro market segments interested in compact systems. But... If Canon goes the way of Nikon and creates a whole new mount for FF mirrorless, I see my dreams of fast EF-M glass going up in smoke. I can't imagine Canon would run the risk of cannibalizing a compact FF mirrorless lens sales by creating a Fuji rival lens system in APS-C.

I guess we'll know more when Canon announces their plans next month (if the September 5th announcement is the real deal).

 

[amorse]

I think we won't see a new low-cost 50mm f/1.4 lens in a while for either EF-M or EF mount for the simple reason that the 50mm f/1.8 STM is too good!

Wasn't there a rumour just the other day that two new 50mm lenses are coming? I think those were for full frame mirrorless, so maybe not EF and maybe not low-cost I guess?

 

[Etienne]

I think we won't see a new low-cost 50mm f/1.4 lens in a while for either EF-M or EF mount for the simple reason that the 50mm f/1.8 STM is too good!

The 50mm f/1.8 STM is ok, definitely not "too good."
There's plenty of room for a new FF 50 f/1.4

 

[Stuart]

Would this look good and work on a FF mirrorless new model camera?

 

[brad-man]

Would this look good and work on a FF mirrorless new model camera?

This lens is an EF-M mount for M cameras. While it is "possible" that the new FF mirrorless camera will have the same mount, I think it is highly unlikely.

 

[herion]

Would this look good and work on a FF mirrorless new model camera?

"Does this lens make my camera look fat?"

 

[mb66energy]

so, no IS ? looking at rumored product name

ah yes ... and why should a f/1.4 APS-C crop "normal FOV" lens cost more than 199 bucks?

EDIT: all scaling data is meant for the glass elements, not the lens system! Lens mount size obviously must not be scaled!

If you scale the EF-M 22 linearily by a factor of 1.4 you will see

• an increase in diameter by a factor of 1.4,
• the lens surfaces to polish and coat grows by a factor of 2 and
• the volume increases by a factor of 1.4**3 = 2.8

If you scale the focal length by a factor of 1.4 (from 22 to 32), the total increase of the data between 22 2.0 and 32 1.4 is ...

• diameter by a factor of 2
• lens surfaces by factor of 4 and
• volume by a factor of 8

The rest of the lens (mount, diaphragm, electronics, housing) will scale by a factor of 2 or so. Handling of lenses and parts will be the same if the number of elements stays the same.

While the f/2.0 22mm costs roughly 200 EUR/$ I think 350 EUR/$ is a very reasonable pricing if the lens has very good IQ @f/1.4 and exceptional IQ beyond!

The only sad thing for me is: I like 40mm or 50mm much much more on APS-C ... so still waiting.

 

[fullstop]

hehe, i do not pay for "volume of lens tube".
While your considerations look mathematically fine, I still don't believe the sum of it justifies 3x price for a crop 32/1.4 vs. a crop 22/2. ;-)

 

[neuroanatomist]

"Does this lens make my camera look fat?"

The 85/1.2L II made my 1D X look fat. I put the lens on a diet and it slimmed down by half a stop.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you scale the focal length by a factor of 1.4 (from 22 to 32), the total increase of the data between 22 2.0 and 32 1.4 is ...

• diameter by a factor of 2

All EF-M lenses to date, from 11mm to 200mm, have had the exact same diameter.

 

[rrcphoto]

All EF-M lenses to date, from 11mm to 200mm, have had the exact same diameter.

yeah, that really looks like a canon design decision with the EF-M mount, which probably limits what lenses they can develop for it.

my wish of a F/4 holy trinity is probably not going to happen with a 60.9 / 61mm lens diameter and a max of a 55mm filter thread

 

[mb66energy]

All EF-M lenses to date, from 11mm to 200mm, have had the exact same diameter.

That's problem with non-unique names for things:
I meant lens element diameter (German: Lens) and not lens with enclosure diameter (German: Objektiv including lens elements) - thought, it was obvious from my writing in terms of scalings for the lens elements alone - but it was not, thanks for the hint!