Two EF-M Primes Coming in Q1 2016 [CR2]

[AvTvM]

It's a bit more complex: currently Canon uses already 2 versions of STM AF drives: gear type for most compact build and lead screw type for better stills performance.
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_Perf#usm
There will be no EF-M lenses with USM drive. Thanks to Canon sucking up to the video minority. One of so many video-induced compromises forced upon photographers. But i can happily live with STM AF - even the cheapo gear-drive STM version in 2 of my pancake lenses (EF 40/2.8 and EF-M 22/2). I do prefer Ring-USM in DSLR/phase-AF lenses. But on "live view only" mirrorless cams with contrast AF detection or hybrid on-sensor phase detect + contrast AF, STM is a reasonable - maybe even superior at the moment or until next gen USM drives are launched. Fine with me, no real issues in daily practice.

 

[Khufu]

*sigh*

I just want Sony's 50/1.8 OSS wired for EF-M. They do stabilised 35mm and 50mm lenses at the same flange distance, larger sensor, sort yourself out already, Canon. 50mm is fantastic on APS-C, stabilise it and the EOS M1/2/3 are one hell of a brilliant collection of video cameras!

I was a little unsure of the new, wee zoom but tbh, if it's a half decent performer, 15mm with IS at f/3.5 sounds like a pretty nice piece of video kit!

 

[Luds34]

I don't really see the hate for STM. Saying it has to be "USM" or bust is kind of snobbish. It's like those who say, "you can't be serious about photography if you don't shoot full frame". USM vs STM is not a simple, black or white thing where all USM lenses perform at X and all STM lenses perform at Y. Take the beloved 85 f/1.2L II. It's USM right? I'm guessing that thing gets it ass kicked by every (non pancake) STM lens Canon offers. I own the 85 f/1.8, arguably one of Canon's fastest focusing lenses. The EF-M 18-55 and the EF-S 18-135 STM don't feel any slower to me in normal day to day operation. Again, I'm guessing they are, and I'm not doing back to back controlled tests, but the important point is that I don't feel like I need to worry about the focus speed of the lens. Not how people will describe the 85L and say things like "once you know how to work around it" kind of stuff. Or the Sigma 50mm EX lens I own. It has Sigma's Hypersonic drive, yet it is noticeably slower lens to achieve focus and I do feel I need to compensate or work around that issue. If anyone is curious why, I'd say it is two things, one the Sigma hiccup where there is an extra correction at the end to lock the focus and tow, it's an f/1.4 lens. It has a lot of glass and it probably takes a bit to move that around.

I'm just happy to see Canon invest in the M line. And I like that they are being thoughtful and consistent. We don't need tons of options at each FL. If STM is getting it done then just release a handful of popular focal lengths and call it good. Always have the adapter to fill out the niche lenses, etc.

 

[ahsanford]

I don't really see the hate for STM. Saying it has to be "USM" or bust is kind of snobbish. It's like those who say, "you can't be serious about photography if you don't shoot full frame".

Wow -- I didn't say that at all. I'm saying, as a stills only shooter, every STM release feels like Canon saying "Knock yourself out with this new lens -- we made sure to slow it down compared to the lens you had before."

I appreciate that there are some odd duck slow focusing USM (85L, famously) and erratic/jumpy/not-quite-real USM (50 f/1.4 micro USM), but that majority of my cabinet is full of relatively modern fast USM. It's hard to go to STM and not feel a clear difference for the worse. YMMV, but the STM glass I've used has missed 'moments' because it took too long to lock on. (It's not second class at all, it's just slower to target. Some of these lenses are terrific optically.)

I'm just happy to see Canon invest in the M line. And I like that they are being thoughtful and consistent. We don't need tons of options at each FL. If STM is getting it done then just release a handful of popular focal lengths and call it good. Always have the adapter to fill out the niche lenses, etc.

That said, 100% agree. I've been barking at the moon to see more EF-M glass of any sort. This story, this thread, is all good news from my perspective.

- A

 

[crashpc]

ahsanford: I know that people work different ways with gear, but once you don´t need to refocus trough the whole range, it´s not that slow with STM. I remember pretty well, that my SL1 + 40mm STM I don´t own anymore, yould lock focus as many times as I managed to push the shutter button, where it focused within 1m difference. Let´s say eight to nine times a second. If I needed greater difference, the number fell to 5-6. Only then, close to full refocus, it had to wait for the lens. That´s not absolutely bad. It is just not good enaugh for some, which happens with almost EVERY product. It´s not best for all.

 

[AvTvM]

Don't want to go too far OT, but EF 85/1.2 is very special as far as AF is concerned (floating element design, focus-by-wire) - it is not your "typical" Ring USM lens. Neither is the EF 50/1.4 which also has a weirdo, sub-par AF implementation.

I fully agree with ahsanford: if it were not for the video-minority, we'd probably have EF-M lenses with ultrafast ring-USM EF-M lenses - with AF performance comparable to EF 85/1.8, 100/2.0, 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 35/2.0 IS.

Again, i can live with STM AF drive in EF-M lenses. But I'm really sick abd tired of the video folks who are not willing to buy proper video cams but rather cause Canon to make caneras and lenses that are compromised and not as good as they could be for (stills) photographers.

 

[ahsanford]

Again, i can live with STM AF drive in EF-M lenses. But I'm really sick abd tired of the video folks who are not willing to buy proper video cams but rather cause Canon to make caneras and lenses that are compromised and not as good as they could be for (stills) photographers.

Sadly, as a stills-only shooter, I see STM as...

• Slower than the proper USM that they offer in mid-level and higher lenses.
• Canon embracing video shooters who need AF. This is a large swath of users, not just soccer moms / hockey dads by any stretch.
• Canon needing a proprietary tech in their kit lenses and cheaper primes to fend off knockoffs like Yongnuo. (Yongnuo probably doesn't care, but hey.)
• Canon doing away with squeaky and slow AF motors altogether. This is very good thing, as STM obliterates that old crap.

Three of those things above make sense for Canon as a business, and one is a downside. But I don't buy $100-200 lenses any more, I like the $500+ ones that have lots of useful features -- internal focusing, modern USM, distance scale, far better build quality, etc.

So I don't see it as lens snobbery so much as compared to what I shoot with in an SLR, EOS-M's reliance on STM is a downgrade to me and it's holding me back from buying in to the system. I'm not complaining so much as asserting that it doesn't have to be that way.

I contend that Canon can sprinkle in a few $400-600 compact for APS-C native EF-M lenses with USM for their mirrorless platform, and I'd gladly buy in to the system then. One would think it's a natural move -- alonside an integral viewfinder on a future EOS-M body -- to expand the brand's attractiveness to enthusiasts and pros as a second rig. An EF adapter is lovely, but it's just not the same thing.

- A

 

[Loswr]

I fully agree with ahsanford: if it were not for the video-minority, we'd probably have EF-M lenses with ultrafast ring-USM EF-M lenses - with AF performance comparable to EF 85/1.8, 100/2.0, 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 35/2.0 IS.

I disagree. What does STM stand for? No, not that. It stands for Saves Them Money. Lower cost AF motors mean more profit for Canon.

#justalittlecynical

 

[ahsanford]

I fully agree with ahsanford: if it were not for the video-minority, we'd probably have EF-M lenses with ultrafast ring-USM EF-M lenses - with AF performance comparable to EF 85/1.8, 100/2.0, 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 35/2.0 IS.

I disagree. What does STM stand for? No, not that. It stands for Saves Them Money. Lower cost AF motors mean more profit for Canon.

#justalittlecynical

Neuro, I think that's partially true:

• If the lens is stepping up from the [nothing] AF motor designation from days of old (like the 50 f/1.8 II, older 18-55 kit lenses or the old 35mm f/2.0), I believe STM represents a step up in cost, doesn't it?
  
  
• In the instances when a lens previously had USM and has now been replaced with STM, like the 18-135 EF-S zoom, then yes, Canon is saving money.

So it's a bit of a mixed bag, isn't it? Surely STM is a step up from the crappy/squeaky oldness, isn't it?

- A

 

[AvTvM]

I fully agree with ahsanford: if it were not for the video-minority, we'd probably have EF-M lenses with ultrafast ring-USM EF-M lenses - with AF performance comparable to EF 85/1.8, 100/2.0, 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 35/2.0 IS.

I disagree. What does STM stand for? No, not that. It stands for Saves Them Money. Lower cost AF motors mean more profit for Canon.

#justalittlecynical

Yes, but ...
I don't really understand, why a linear stepper motor plus a rail (or gear drive) should be cheaper to produce than the technically most simple and elegant ring USM drive. After all it's just a simple ring turned by a simple ultrasonic "vibrator". Nothing expensive in it. Unlike precision mechanics such as mirrors with sub-mirror assemblies slapping up and down 10 times per second or expensive precision optical part like massive glass pentaprisms.

 

[ahsanford]

Yes, but ...
I don't really understand, why a linear stepper motor plus a rail (or gear drive) should be cheaper to produce than the technically most simple and elegant ring USM drive. After all it's just a simple ring turned by a simple ultrasonic "vibrator". Nothing expensive in it. Unlike precision mechanics such as mirrors with sub-mirror assemblies slapping up and down 10 times per second or expensive precision optical part like massive glass pentaprisms.

Interestingly enough, the 50 f/1.8 STM was tested by Uncle Rog at LR on his OTUS rig -- it was shockingly highly consistent from copy to copy, like nothing else he's tested to date.

I don't know if that's an STM upside (I believe to date, it's the only STM lens tested) or more a testament to the manufacturing process capability / Cpk of such a simple lens + such a massive scale of production, but it's worth noting.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

Hehe. I might actually sell my EF 50/1.4 (with atypical USM AF) and buy a 50/1.8 STM for use on both my 5D3 and EOS M (via adapter). I just love dirt cheap, small, light lenses with excellent IQ.
I don't need focus ring, FTM, manual focus capability, distance scale windows with vulnerable covers or any other old-school features. Never use them, they're just dead weight for me. I'd prefer AF-only lenses with all the savings applied towards maximum speed and precision AF and weathersealing and ideally a non-mechanical (iris) aperture, but rather an electronic one (LCD or similar).

 

[ahsanford]

Hehe. I might actually sell my EF 50/1.4 (with atypical USM AF) and buy a 50/1.8 STM for use on both my 5D3 and EOS M (via adapter). I just love dirt cheap, small, light lenses with excellent IQ.
I don't need focus ring, FTM, manual focus capability, distance scale windows with vulnerable covers or any other old-school features. Never use them, they're just dead weight for me. I'd prefer AF-only lenses with all the savings applied towards maximum speed and precision AF and weathersealing and ideally a non-mechanical (iris) aperture, but rather an electronic one (LCD or similar).

To each his own. I happen to use the 50 f/1.4 USM as 'the devil I know' -- the 7 out of 10 lens at everything is better than the nifty fifty or 50L for my particular needs. I'll use that until the mothership comes to its senses and gives us the lens that will sell itself, the new white unicorn of this forum now that the 35L and 100-400L II are out: the mythical 50 f/nooneknows IS USM.

But that's entirely OT. Apologies.

- A

 

[Luds34]

Wow -- I didn't say that at all. I'm saying, as a stills only shooter, every STM release feels like Canon saying "Knock yourself out with this new lens -- we made sure to slow it down compared to the lens you had before."

That wasn't meant to be directed specifically at you, my apologies. It was a more general statement. I read the forums regularly and there are countless threads full of a bit of "STM is crap" attitude. Kind of a high and mighty "I only drink Single Malt, drive German engineered cars, and shoot with USM".

I too am a stills shooter. Or that is why I buy my cameras. In fairness I do have a 2nd M rigged up with an external mic and a flash bracket that I use to shoot an occasional home video, but again that is a dedicated device and all my other cameras are for stills only.

And I also prefer USM like probably everyone else on here. I think the pancake lenses gave STM a bad rap. If that is all you have ever used (and I own all 3) that I could see why one wouldn't think none too highly of them. One, they are a bit slow. Two, they don't even seem to be silent (video picks up sound). However, the full size lenses that use STM, at least the ones I own and have used are in a whole different league. The kit zooms for EF-M and EF-S are very snappy and actually silent. I'm assuming the EF 50mm STM is equally up to the task.

 

[ecka]

FF please, or don't bother at all, Canon.

Do you really believe that a company, which never cared to make any competitive EF-S primes (for 15 years now), will make your dreams come true? Well, I hope so . In fact, their crippled and overpriced M bodies will keep the DSLR system safe (from progress), kinda ;D.