The Coming EF-M Prime to be 50mm Equivalent for APS-C EOS M [CR2]

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
BillB said:
And if it is a mix of both, or if Canon wants to broaden the M's base... ?

Look at EF-S for how that works out. They tried to 'get fancy' with it with $600-$1000 lenses, and they haven't tried that again in ages.

My guess is if the EF-M lens requested is going to cost more than X, Canon has some analysis that says that the market is too small to support that ask, the risk to keeping people in EF-M instead of moving up to FF increases, etc. and they'll just point us to the adaptor.

The question is, what is X for EF-M? $500?

- A
 

Ditboy

EOS M6 Mark II
Dec 24, 2014
56
27
Keep in mind that the EOS M line is designed and built by the point-and-shoot G series group and not the DSLR side. That has been the problem all along. The two sides should compare notes, make a decent APS-C camera for serious shooters and use it to phase out the Rebel and SL line. Then come in with some nice M lenses to flush it out. I have four M5's and use them for 75% of my newspaper work. (I do have available DSLR's for the occasional sports) But basically the only Canon lens I use is the 22mm f2. I got tired of waiting for Canon and bought the Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster 35mm f/0.95 Mark II. I also have several of the EF-M lenses by Rokinon/Samyang. I also have been buying Canon FD lenses to use. They are all manual focus which isn't for everyone, but with over 40 years in the business, been there done that. I would still love for Canon to make an EF-M 35 prime that is AT LEAST 1.8, but preferably 1.4, but since it is the G Series people, I'm guessing a 1.4 will be deemed "too big" and they'll go with 1.8. Let's hope it has IS too. But, I already have 13 prime lenses from 8mm to 400mm in addition the EF-M 10-22, 18-55, 18-150 & 55-200. So, I'm moving forward no matter what Canon does. And I have my eye on the just announced Venus Optics Laowa 9mm f/2.8 which will be available in EF-M...
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Ditboy said:
The two sides should compare notes, make a decent APS-C camera for serious shooters and use it to phase out the Rebel and SL line.

Certain to happen, yes, but the question is when. Canon's very good at selling these Rebel SLRs and doesn't want to jeopardize that by going mirrorless in its bread and butter sales area too soon / too abruptly. It makes sense to sell a mirroless Rebel right alongside the regular Rebel for one generation as separate options, then, one generation later, only the mirrorless one is updated and the SLR at that price point becomes RIP. Canon then ratchets up one more price point higher in the line and does it again.

To simply convert the next Rebel to mirrorless with no mirrored version available is to sign up that market for EVF lag, less AF responsiveness, fast draining batteries, etc. and perhaps Canon has market research to suggest that if they did this, Nikon would scoop up their Rebel business with their equivalent SLRs.

- A
 

bf

EOS RP
Jul 30, 2014
251
14
ahsanford said:
BillB said:
And if it is a mix of both, or if Canon wants to broaden the M's base... ?

Look at EF-S for how that works out. They tried to 'get fancy' with it with $600-$1000 lenses, and they haven't tried that again in ages.

My guess is if the EF-M lens requested is going to cost more than X, Canon has some analysis that says that the market is too small to support that ask, the risk to keeping people in EF-M instead of moving up to FF increases, etc. and they'll just point us to the adaptor.

The question is, what is X for EF-M? $500?

- A
$399
 

rrcphoto

EOS R6
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
ahsanford said:
BillB said:
And if it is a mix of both, or if Canon wants to broaden the M's base... ?

Look at EF-S for how that works out. They tried to 'get fancy' with it with $600-$1000 lenses, and they haven't tried that again in ages.

My guess is if the EF-M lens requested is going to cost more than X, Canon has some analysis that says that the market is too small to support that ask, the risk to keeping people in EF-M instead of moving up to FF increases, etc. and they'll just point us to the adaptor.

The question is, what is X for EF-M? $500?

- A

the 18-150 came out at 599, the most expensive M lens to date.

if there is a price point canon's designing to that, would eliminate alot of lenses.
 

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
4,568
2,909
rrcphoto said:
ahsanford said:
BillB said:
And if it is a mix of both, or if Canon wants to broaden the M's base... ?

Look at EF-S for how that works out. They tried to 'get fancy' with it with $600-$1000 lenses, and they haven't tried that again in ages.

My guess is if the EF-M lens requested is going to cost more than X, Canon has some analysis that says that the market is too small to support that ask, the risk to keeping people in EF-M instead of moving up to FF increases, etc. and they'll just point us to the adaptor.

The question is, what is X for EF-M? $500?

- A

the 18-150 came out at 599, the most expensive M lens to date.

if there is a price point canon's designing to that, would eliminate alot of lenses.

I will gladly part with my 18-150 for another M Prime. In fact I'll sell it tonight if I could get 75% of what I paid for it.
 

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,107
406
Vancouver, BC
dak723 said:
windsorc said:
The second prime lens in 2 1/2 years for the EF-M mount. It doesn't look like Canon have any intention of creating a set of prime lenses for the M series cameras, at least, not anytime soon.

I think it is pretty simple. Will enough folks who own APS-C cameras - and especially the M5 - buy enough primes to make it worthwhile for Canon to make them? Since we haven't seen too much more than the standard zooms for EF-S, it seems that they already have that info - and the answer is no. I think there are a lot of folks like me - I haven't used a prime since my Olympus OM-1 was replaced by a Canon SLR in the mid 1990's. I have no interest whatsoever in getting a prime. The zoom lenses cover everything and do everything that I ever need. My guess is that the majority of folks who use crop cameras feel the same way (Canon rumors users are the exception). Their sales info and marketing research must tell them that primes are primarily for FF camera owners.

Pretty much that. A know a fair number of people who are "lite hobbyists" -- they buy a MILC or a DSLR, but really just use kit zooms and are quite happy with that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that market, and I'm not trying to be derogatory or elitist, or anything like that -- but even if they get talked into buying an inexpensive prime, like a 50/1.8STM, they never use it.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
Talys said:
Pretty much that. A know a fair number of people who are "lite hobbyists" -- they buy a MILC or a DSLR, but really just use kit zooms and are quite happy with that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that market, and I'm not trying to be derogatory or elitist, or anything like that -- but even if they get talked into buying an inexpensive prime, like a 50/1.8STM, they never use it.

exactly! Zooms rule supreme. Majority of "casual camera users" have a camera with a zoom mounted, because they hate being stuck with a fixed focal prime lens in their smartphones.

I have EF and EF-M primes and zooms ... and today 80% of my images are captured using EOS M [original] plus EF-M 18-55 kit lens. It always comes down to do i want "flexibility in framing a shot and options for perspectives" or only 1 possible focal length or having to carry along more than 1 lens ... and IQ-wise even small, compact zooms are "more than good enough" ... not much of an IQ sacrifice "in real life" vs. primes. Only real difference is (typically) 2 stops slower speed and less potential for subject isolation if/when desired.
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,676
588
S Florida
AvTvM said:
Talys said:
Pretty much that. A know a fair number of people who are "lite hobbyists" -- they buy a MILC or a DSLR, but really just use kit zooms and are quite happy with that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that market, and I'm not trying to be derogatory or elitist, or anything like that -- but even if they get talked into buying an inexpensive prime, like a 50/1.8STM, they never use it.

exactly! Zooms rule supreme. Majority of "casual camera users" have a camera with a zoom mounted, because they hate being stuck with a fixed focal prime lens in their smartphones.

I have EF and EF-M primes and zooms ... and today 80% of my images are captured using EOS M [original] plus EF-M 18-55 kit lens. It always comes down to do i want "flexibility in framing a shot and options for perspectives" or only 1 possible focal length or having to carry along more than 1 lens ... and IQ-wise even small, compact zooms are "more than good enough" ... not much of an IQ sacrifice "in real life" vs. primes. Only real difference is (typically) 2 stops slower speed and less potential for subject isolation if/when desired.

The fact that zooms are far more popular than primes is not a new revelation. The question is whether the market for faster primes for the M is large enough for Canon to be bothered to produce them. I would argue that a better lens selection for the M would lead to an even larger market share of camera sales for Canon by bringing in enthusiasts that want more than a hi-res point & shoot. Of course I have no data to back that up. I imagine that this upcoming prime's sales figures will be the "canary in the coal mine" for future M prime development. I can guarantee at least one sale :)
 

barryreid

I'm New Here
Feb 5, 2018
9
8
London, UK
Visit site
Given that there is a 22 a 22mm & a 28mm already isn't it somewhat ridiculous that the next prime available in EF-M could be a 32mm.

Surely a 50-60mm f/2 (IS, maybe) to pair up with the 22 f/2 would make for a more balanced approach.
 

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
barryreid said:
Given that there is a 22 a 22mm & a 28mm already isn't it somewhat ridiculous that the next prime available in EF-M could be a 32mm.

Surely a 50-60mm f/2 (IS, maybe) to pair up with the 22 f/2 would make for a more balanced approach.

I'm with you on that. A 50ish prime would also pair nicely with the 11-22 zoom. On the other hand, there is already the 50 f1.8, which can be adapted, and some people who post here feel quite strongly that the 28mm f3.5 doesn't meet the need for a fast normal prime. Then there are those who feel the need for lots of fast primes of unspecified focal length and resent Canon's failure to provide them.
 

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,107
406
Vancouver, BC
BillB said:
barryreid said:
Given that there is a 22 a 22mm & a 28mm already isn't it somewhat ridiculous that the next prime available in EF-M could be a 32mm.

Surely a 50-60mm f/2 (IS, maybe) to pair up with the 22 f/2 would make for a more balanced approach.

I'm with you on that. A 50ish prime would also pair nicely with the 11-22 zoom. On the other hand, there is already the 50 f1.8, which can be adapted, and some people who post here feel quite strongly that the 28mm f3.5 doesn't meet the need for a fast normal prime. Then there are those who feel the need for lots of fast primes of unspecified focal length and resent Canon's failure to provide them.

I think they're both pretty important. Obviously, 50mm equivalent is a key FL.

And, the 50-60 would be your 85mm equivalent, so that is an important FL, with the benefit of the 50mm optical formula that's very space efficient (ie we can have a small, fast, EFM prime). Just look at the glass size of the first and last elements on a 50/1.8, and imagine that without all the plastic around it and a narrower barrel -- then reduce the diameter! :D

I'm suppose the Canon approach is to start wide, and work towards tele, and my only guess is that Canon thinks that a big chunk of the EF-M crowd prefers zooms, so those primes are a lower priority.
 

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
Talys said:
BillB said:
barryreid said:
Given that there is a 22 a 22mm & a 28mm already isn't it somewhat ridiculous that the next prime available in EF-M could be a 32mm.

Surely a 50-60mm f/2 (IS, maybe) to pair up with the 22 f/2 would make for a more balanced approach.

I'm with you on that. A 50ish prime would also pair nicely with the 11-22 zoom. On the other hand, there is already the 50 f1.8, which can be adapted, and some people who post here feel quite strongly that the 28mm f3.5 doesn't meet the need for a fast normal prime. Then there are those who feel the need for lots of fast primes of unspecified focal length and resent Canon's failure to provide them.

I think they're both pretty important. Obviously, 50mm equivalent is a key FL.

And, the 50-60 would be your 85mm equivalent, so that is an important FL, with the benefit of the 50mm optical formula that's very space efficient (ie we can have a small, fast, EFM prime). Just look at the glass size of the first and last elements on a 50/1.8, and imagine that without all the plastic around it and a narrower barrel -- then reduce the diameter! :D

I'm suppose the Canon approach is to start wide, and work towards tele, and my only guess is that Canon thinks that a big chunk of the EF-M crowd prefers zooms, so those primes are a lower priority.

It seems to me that for aps-c in general and EF-M in particular, the main Canon lens strategy has been to develop affordable (and slowish) zooms with very good IQ that are quite good for video (i.e. with STM). What I wonder is whether Canon thinks there is a need for more of these affordable EF-S and EF-M zooms, or whether they are thinking it is time for some more primes, even some pricier zooms. Of course, the answer could be none of the above and there aren't going be many more EF-S and EF-M lens designs coming out.
 

rrcphoto

EOS R6
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
slclick said:
rrcphoto said:
ahsanford said:
BillB said:
And if it is a mix of both, or if Canon wants to broaden the M's base... ?

Look at EF-S for how that works out. They tried to 'get fancy' with it with $600-$1000 lenses, and they haven't tried that again in ages.

My guess is if the EF-M lens requested is going to cost more than X, Canon has some analysis that says that the market is too small to support that ask, the risk to keeping people in EF-M instead of moving up to FF increases, etc. and they'll just point us to the adaptor.

The question is, what is X for EF-M? $500?

- A

the 18-150 came out at 599, the most expensive M lens to date.

if there is a price point canon's designing to that, would eliminate alot of lenses.

I will gladly part with my 18-150 for another M Prime. In fact I'll sell it tonight if I could get 75% of what I paid for it.

I wouldn't. Never. the 18-150 + DLO is a wickedly good combination.
 

rrcphoto

EOS R6
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
Talys said:
BillB said:
barryreid said:
Given that there is a 22 a 22mm & a 28mm already isn't it somewhat ridiculous that the next prime available in EF-M could be a 32mm.

Surely a 50-60mm f/2 (IS, maybe) to pair up with the 22 f/2 would make for a more balanced approach.

I'm with you on that. A 50ish prime would also pair nicely with the 11-22 zoom. On the other hand, there is already the 50 f1.8, which can be adapted, and some people who post here feel quite strongly that the 28mm f3.5 doesn't meet the need for a fast normal prime. Then there are those who feel the need for lots of fast primes of unspecified focal length and resent Canon's failure to provide them.

I think they're both pretty important. Obviously, 50mm equivalent is a key FL.

And, the 50-60 would be your 85mm equivalent, so that is an important FL, with the benefit of the 50mm optical formula that's very space efficient (ie we can have a small, fast, EFM prime). Just look at the glass size of the first and last elements on a 50/1.8, and imagine that without all the plastic around it and a narrower barrel -- then reduce the diameter! :D

I'm suppose the Canon approach is to start wide, and work towards tele, and my only guess is that Canon thinks that a big chunk of the EF-M crowd prefers zooms, so those primes are a lower priority.

the zooms are tiny, optically good, cheap - it's really hard to say no to that, and they are far more liberating than a few primes at some medium focal ranges.
 

dak723

EOS R
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
435
Talys said:
dak723 said:
windsorc said:
The second prime lens in 2 1/2 years for the EF-M mount. It doesn't look like Canon have any intention of creating a set of prime lenses for the M series cameras, at least, not anytime soon.

I think it is pretty simple. Will enough folks who own APS-C cameras - and especially the M5 - buy enough primes to make it worthwhile for Canon to make them? Since we haven't seen too much more than the standard zooms for EF-S, it seems that they already have that info - and the answer is no. I think there are a lot of folks like me - I haven't used a prime since my Olympus OM-1 was replaced by a Canon SLR in the mid 1990's. I have no interest whatsoever in getting a prime. The zoom lenses cover everything and do everything that I ever need. My guess is that the majority of folks who use crop cameras feel the same way (Canon rumors users are the exception). Their sales info and marketing research must tell them that primes are primarily for FF camera owners.

Pretty much that. A know a fair number of people who are "lite hobbyists" -- they buy a MILC or a DSLR, but really just use kit zooms and are quite happy with that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that market, and I'm not trying to be derogatory or elitist, or anything like that -- but even if they get talked into buying an inexpensive prime, like a 50/1.8STM, they never use it.

It is not just "lite hobbyists" who use zooms and have no interest in primes. I would consider myself a "serious
hobbyist" who sells some of his photos. Since I shoot primarily landscapes, I have no need for fast lenses and it is far more important to get the composition right, so zooms are the way to go for me. And clearly, many others as well. I would be very surprised if Canon didn't have a lot of data on which market buys primes, and my guess it would be mostly FF users. If the data indicated that APS-C users would buy primes, I think we would have seen many more EF-S primes since that mount came out.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
dak723 said:
It is not just "lite hobbyists" who use zooms and have no interest in primes. I would consider myself a "serious
hobbyist" who sells some of his photos. Since I shoot primarily landscapes, I have no need for fast lenses and it is far more important to get the composition right, so zooms are the way to go for me. And clearly, many others as well. I would be very surprised if Canon didn't have a lot of data on which market buys primes, and my guess it would be mostly FF users. If the data indicated that APS-C users would buy primes, I think we would have seen many more EF-S primes since that mount came out.

Sure, but what confounds this is that there is a staggering spread of FF glass that also bolts on these EF-S bodies. So Canon has a very profitable reason not to offer these in crop -- they could sell more EF lenses and possibly nick some folks to migrate up to FF.

In other words, primes might be a huge hit for EF-S and EF-M users and we'd never know -- because the primes they are using are EF.

So I recommend looking to Fuji for a moment for a slice of alternate reality on what Canon might have done. In the absence of an FF platform behind it, what did Fuji do? They went all-in on crop and put out a boatload of fast primes. EF-S/EF-M body owners would looooooove even a small slice of purpose-built-for-crop primes like that.

- A
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-02-05 at 10.19.44 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-02-05 at 10.19.44 AM.png
    56.9 KB · Views: 421

rrcphoto

EOS R6
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
ahsanford said:
So I recommend looking to Fuji for a moment for a slice of alternate reality on what Canon might have done. In the absence of an FF platform behind it, what did Fuji do? They went all-in on crop and put out a boatload of fast primes. EF-S/EF-M body owners would looooooove even a small slice of purpose-built-for-crop primes like that.

to be quite honest, maybe some EF-S/EF-M owners would love that.

Me? to be perfectly honest - outside of an estoric ultra fast ultra wide prime for astro-landscape, I have zero use for specific primes as most of my images with the M are landscape, travel, and if I want to throw out the background on an image, most times the .33x magnification on every EF-M lens will take care of the background nicely.

as it is with 4K there's a tiny vocal group that shouts from the rooftops about necessities, but the silent majority simply uses what they have - which is usually a zoom.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,821
4,271
ahsanford said:
...what did Fuji do? They went all-in on crop and put out a boatload of fast primes. EF-S/EF-M body owners would looooooove even a small slice of purpose-built-for-crop primes like that.

What fraction of the overall EF-S/EF-M market do you believe would looooooove such lenses enough to actually buy them?
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
neuroanatomist said:
ahsanford said:
...what did Fuji do? They went all-in on crop and put out a boatload of fast primes. EF-S/EF-M body owners would looooooove even a small slice of purpose-built-for-crop primes like that.

What fraction of the overall EF-S/EF-M market do you believe would looooooove such lenses enough to actually buy them?

Goodness, I don't mean gen pop soccer moms and hockey dads, I mean 'we, the enthusiasts of the world'. No idea if it would make a return on the investment for Canon.

- A