The EOS M lineup will be addressed later in 2020 [CR1]

[SteveC]

Good point, but unless Canon breaks their self-imposed design rule of having all EF-M lenses use the same diameter - this won't happen. I suspect this is why the EF-M 52mm is only an F/2 instead of f/1.8.

I can't find any reference to an EF-M 52 mm.

 

[SteveC]

The EF-M 18-55 is still available.

For whatever reason B&H doesn't seem to carry it. But it does sound like a worthwhile lens.

 

[epic.one]

They definitely have their share of lenses with 52 mm threads. I count the 18-55 and 55-200.

But the 11-22 and 18-150 are 55 mm threads. The 22 mm, 28 mm macro, and 32 f/1.4 are 43 mm threads. The 15-45 is 49 mm thread.

Sorry, meant to say the physical diameter of the lens - as in physical measurement - not the front element filter thread. That EF-M 52mm f/2.0 is rumored but pretty much a confirmed lens for 2020.

All current Canon EF-M lenses have the same diameter in physical proportions.

 

[epic.one]

They definitely have their share of lenses with 52 mm threads. I count the 18-55 and 55-200.

But the 11-22 and 18-150 are 55 mm threads. The 22 mm, 28 mm macro, and 32 f/1.4 are 43 mm threads. The 15-45 is 49 mm thread.

Meant to say the physical diameter, not the filter threads. The lenses take up the same area on a flat surface if you stand them next to each other.

 

[epic.one]

The EF-M 18-55 is still available.

Ah, I was told it is discontinued at a shop. Good to know its still available.

 

[docsmith]

Sorry, meant to say the physical diameter of the lens - as in physical measurement - not the front element filter thread. That EF-M 52mm f/2.0 is rumored but pretty much a confirmed lens for 2020.

All current Canon EF-M lenses have the same diameter in physical proportions.

Sorry, read your post to quickly.
I’ve wondered about this too. Seems like one of those things where it is consistent until it isn’t.
They do need to keep it around that diameter (60.9 mm) near the mount to protect the grip. But eventually I hope to see it taper to a larger diameter.

 

[Dragon]

That EF-M 18-55mm was better than the EF-S 18-55mm MkIII then Canon realised their "mistake" and stopped making them and replaced it with the cheap 15-45mm. I'm looking to Tamron to fill in the gap with the best EF-M standard zoom with f/2.8 at the widest end.

It depends on what you are shooting. The 15-45 is smaller, much lighter (hence a better fit for the M100/200), and also wider and sharper at the wide end. The 18-55 is bigger, heavier, longer and sharper at the long end. 15-55, or better yet, 15-85 would be nice, but in both cases, we are talking a considerably bigger lens. The EF-S 15-85 is a lovely lens, but by M standards, it is huge. Other than the 22mm pancake, the 15-45 is the most portable of all. In any case, keep watching. The EF-S 18-55 has more versions than Carter has little liver pills (if you are young, look it up), so yet another M kit lens is highly likely, if not inevitable.

 

[jolyonralph]

That EF-M 18-55mm was better than the EF-S 18-55mm MkIII then Canon realised their "mistake" and stopped making them and replaced it with the cheap 15-45mm. I'm looking to Tamron to fill in the gap with the best EF-M standard zoom with f/2.8 at the widest end.

Last time Tamron produced an EF-M lens it was a disaster so I'm not holding any hope out that Tamron will produce anything useful.

The EF-M 18-55 is still the best general purpose zoom for the M series.

 

[SteveC]

Last time Tamron produced an EF-M lens it was a disaster so I'm not holding any hope out that Tamron will produce anything useful.

The EF-M 18-55 is still the best general purpose zoom for the M series.

If you're referring to the 18-200, I've had no trouble with mine. It even had no troubles moving from the m-50 to the M6 mkII

I'd take it any day of the week over that 24-240 with that horrific barrel distortion (though to be fair that has to project a larger image being a full frame lens).

 

[jolyonralph]

If you're referring to the 18-200, I've had no trouble with mine. It even had no troubles moving from the m-50 to the M6 mkII

I'd take it any day of the week over that 24-240 with that horrific barrel distortion (though to be fair that has to project a larger image being a full frame lens).

I am, it took a lot of firmware updates and some long delays before people got an 18-200 that actually worked properly on the M3 upwards.

The EF-M 18-150 may not be as versatile but I'd take it any day over the Tamron.

 

[SteveC]

I am, it took a lot of firmware updates and some long delays before people got an 18-200 that actually worked properly on the M3 upwards.

The EF-M 18-150 may not be as versatile but I'd take it any day over the Tamron.

I can see where that would leave a really bad taste in one's mouth. I guess I benefited from being a newbie, and missed all of that.

I'd be interested to see comparisons between the two, given a working 18-200 of course, and of course only over the 18-150 range.

 

[Bob Howland]

I can't find any reference to an EF-M 52 mm.

The EF-M 52mm is part of the rumor, hasn't been introduced and may never exist. The overall diameter of most/all Canon EF-M lenses is 60.9mm or maybe 61mm. That's the "self-imposed design rule" that was referred to. I think that rule is a serious mistake. I own the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma and don't find it oversized with an M5. It's an excellent lens and I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma 16 f/1.4 and maybe the 56 f/1.4. However, for the last 20 years, I've use the f/2.8 trinity lenses on a FF body and it's a bit painful going back to fixed focal length lenses.

 

[SteveC]

The EF-M 52mm is part of the rumor, hasn't been introduced and may never exist. The overall diameter of most/all Canon EF-M lenses is 60.9mm or maybe 61mm. That's the "self-imposed design rule" that was referred to. I think that rule is a serious mistake. I own the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma and don't find it oversized with an M5. It's an excellent lens and I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma 16 f/1.4 and maybe the 56 f/1.4. However, for the last 20 years, I've use the f/2.8 trinity lenses on a FF body and it's a bit painful going back to fixed focal length lenses.

Agreed on all counts.

I complained, a long time ago about that 61mm rule and someone jumped down my throat, it was mandated by marketing and apparently to him that made it as solid as a law of physics.

 

[brad-man]

The EF-M 52mm is part of the rumor, hasn't been introduced and may never exist. The overall diameter of most/all Canon EF-M lenses is 60.9mm or maybe 61mm. That's the "self-imposed design rule" that was referred to. I think that rule is a serious mistake. I own the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma and don't find it oversized with an M5. It's an excellent lens and I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma 16 f/1.4 and maybe the 56 f/1.4. However, for the last 20 years, I've use the f/2.8 trinity lenses on a FF body and it's a bit painful going back to fixed focal length lenses.

I've had my eye on that Sigma 16, but it's pretty large and I prefer to stick with native lenses. I remain hopeful that Canon will eventually cater to the M enthusiast crowd and release a smaller one. Not sure if that makes me patient or dumb...

 

[Joules]

I remain hopeful that Canon will eventually cater to the M enthusiast crowd and release a smaller one. Not sure if that makes me patient or dumb...

It probably makes you optimistic.

But if we get more info on the point of EF-M this year, keeping faith might turn out the right way.

I always felt like the M series is for people who are enthusiastic about size. If you're enthusiastic about pure quality, there's RF now. But I don't think offering only these extremes is sufficient to capture the entire market. With the EF-M 32 mm 1.4 pushing M up a bit and 24-105mm 4.0-7.1 pushing RF down a bit, they might be on a way to give each type of enthusiast a bit more choice.

 

[brad-man]

It probably makes you optimistic.

But if we get more info on the point of EF-M this year, keeping faith might turn out the right way.

I always felt like the M series is for people who are enthusiastic about size. If you're enthusiastic about pure quality, there's RF now. But I don't think offering only these extremes is sufficient to capture the entire market. With the EF-M 32 mm 1.4 pushing M up a bit and 24-105mm 4.0-7.1 pushing RF down a bit, they might be on a way to give each type of enthusiast a bit more choice.

Certainly the M started out as a small minimalist camera. I still have 2 original Ms (M1?). One of those with the 22 on it can drop into a jacket pocket and takes wonderful photos. But when Canon released the M5 and subsequently the M6-II, that put the M system into enthusiast territory. I have an M5 with the 11-22, 22 and 32 along with the "consumer" lenses 18-55, 18-150 and 55-250. With the addition of a wide fast prime and a tele fast prime coupled with an f/4 standard zoom and I'd be in heaven. Oh, and I do have an R + RF 24-105 and a 5DIV with a full compliment of Ls. I therefore have small, medium and large. I like choices...

 

[BillB]

Agreed on all counts.

I complained, a long time ago about that 61mm rule and someone jumped down my throat, it was mandated by marketing and apparently to him that made it as solid as a law of physics.

Is mandated by marketing the same thing as making what you can sell enough of to make some money?

 

[koch1948]

Continue reading...

Is there any further information about the upcoming EOS M5 Mark II?

 

[19COLIN52]

EOS-M5 MK II sounds great! And I was about to add the 6MK II to my M50.... think I’ll hang on a bit. As for a 52mm f/ 2.0; I’ve already bought the Sigma 56mm f/1.4!
I love the small size and light-weight so much that I have quite a few EFS lenses and two aps-c bodies not being used!!

 

[19COLIN52]

The adapted EF-S lenses are a poor (and heavy) substitute for a native lens. Canon really need to offer a higher quality standard zoom. At the moment the original EF-M 18-55 is the best that we have.

15-45mm?