# Lenses for the M series in 2020?



## elias723 (Jan 11, 2020)

We know that Canon is investing a lot of money in R-series lenses. We also know that this year it is not expected to launch any lens for the EF series unless the market demands it. But what do we know for the M series in this year 2020? I have seen patents of the Fisheye lens, I also saw several zoom lenses (which really do not look attractive since they do not have a constant aperture zoom), but these are lenses that despite being patented are still kept in mystery. We know that this year they are going to launch two new cameras of the M series, and yes, we need a super camera with good iso, good battery, viewfinder, ibis ... but even more what we need are lenses for our system. Using an adapter adds weight to the camera.


----------



## JohnC (Jan 11, 2020)

I'd like to see this as well but I question whether we will. From my perspective the M6 Mark II changed the game in the M line, and there need to be more lenses to support it. The 11-22, and the 22/32 primes do well. Outside of that I haven't been impressed. The Sigma EF-M mounts perform well however. I have the 56mm and the 30mm and use them frequently.


----------



## elias723 (Jan 11, 2020)

JohnC said:


> I'd like to see this as well but I question whether we will. From my perspective the M6 Mark II changed the game in the M line, and there need to be more lenses to support it. The 11-22, and the 22/32 primes do well. Outside of that I haven't been impressed. The Sigma EF-M mounts perform well however. I have the 56mm and the 30mm and use them frequently.


I have the 28mm macro, 32mm 1.4, Sigma 56mm 1.4 and Ef s 17-55mm 2.8 
I love the 32mm and the 56mm but we need some zoom with constant aperture zoom. I love my M50 because i can use the viewfinder and the godox on camera flash at the same time... you cant do that with m6ii


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Jan 11, 2020)

elias723 said:


> I have the 28mm macro, 32mm 1.4, Sigma 56mm 1.4 and Ef s 17-55mm 2.8
> I love the 32mm and the 56mm but we need some zoom with constant aperture zoom. I love my M50 because i can use the viewfinder and the godox on camera flash at the same time... you cant do that with m6ii


In your first post you complain about the added weight caused by an adapter. But constant aperture zooms do the same. They add weight that only a few people would accept. Such zoom lenses do need a greater barrel diameter due to bigger lenses than the current standard EF-M barrel diameter. And glass is probably heavier than an adapter.
Imagine the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 for EF-M mount. I think this will be too heavy for most EF-M target users. So there is no business case for such a lens.
Would you be satisfied with a 17-55 f/4? This probably could be build light enough but than on the other hand it won't be fast enough for the more enthusiast M users.

Frank


----------



## elias723 (Jan 11, 2020)

Photorex said:


> In your first post you complain about the added weight caused by an adapter. But constant aperture zooms do the same. They add weight that only a few people would accept. Such zoom lenses do need a greater barrel diameter due to bigger lenses than the current standard EF-M barrel diameter. And glass is probably heavier than an adapter.
> Imagine the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 for EF-M mount. I think this will be to heavy for most EF-M traget users. So there is no business case for such a lens.
> Would you be satisfied with a 17-55 f/4? This probably could be build light enough but than on the other hand it won't be fast enough for the more enthusiast M users.
> 
> ...


----------



## elias723 (Jan 11, 2020)

Not really, a f/4 is like 6.4 equivalent in the crop factor of the M series. I want see something like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art or f/2 but for Native M series.


----------



## elias723 (Jan 11, 2020)

Not really, a f/4 is like 6.4 equivalent in the crop factor of the M series. I want see something like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art or f/2 but for Native M series.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 11, 2020)

Canon's road map for the development of the M system is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. The IQ from the cameras has always been excellent from a size perspective and been continually evolving in performance with each new body's release. Lenses are a different matter. My desirables:
53 f/1.8 IS
63 f/2.8 IS macro
17-50 f/4 IS


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 11, 2020)

brad-man said:


> Canon's road map for the development of the M system is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. The IQ from the cameras has always been excellent from a size perspective and been continually evolving in performance with each new body's release. Lenses are a different matter. My desirables:
> 53 f/1.8 IS
> 63 f/2.8 IS macro
> 17-50 f/4 IS



I'm pretty happy with the EF-M lenses already out there, the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 fills the gap that I had. But like you, I do wish for a 60-ish mm IS macro lens, f/3.5 would be fine.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Jan 11, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I'm pretty happy with the EF-M lenses already out there, the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 fills the gap that I had. But like you, I do wish for a 60-ish mm IS macro lens, f/3.5 would be fine.


I sometimes use the EF-S 60 Macro on the adapter with my M5. I find it usable with regard to the weight. When used on a tripod the weight is less an issue.

Frank


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Jan 11, 2020)

elias723 said:


> Not really, a f/4 is like 6.4 equivalent in the crop factor of the M series. I want see something like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art or f/2 but for Native M series.


Recently I bought the Tamron 17-35 F/2.8-4 for my 6DMII. It is a Lens designed for fullformat. But it also is quit reasonable usable on the M5. Not too heavy. This in f/1.8 or f/2 would be, at least in my opinion, too bulky even when it is only designed for APS-C.

Frank


----------



## dcm (Jan 11, 2020)

I started with the original M and now use the M6II/M5 for everyday, hiking, and travel with the complete set of EF-M lenses. I like the small form factor of both the bodies and the lenses. I use a 1DXII and L's for more serious photography.

Always mounted or in my bag in order of use: 32, 11-22, 70-300L, 18-150, 28macro, 22. Lesser used 15-45, 55-200 (when I'm ultralight hiking), 18-55 (on an M3 in my office for white board captures and random photos). 

The only real shortcomings for me are longer primes with large apertures and telephotos. I occasionally mount EF prime lenses like 85 f/1.4 IS to shoot indoors (candlelight church service at Christmas recently along with the 32 - the 1DXII shutter is too loud). I found the 100-400L hard to hand hold with the M's, but the lighter 70-300L has been great and fits in my camera bag for the Ms. Sometimes I wish I had kept the EF-S 55-250, but gave it away with my T2i a while back to someone just getting into photography. It would be my other choice for a telephoto zoom on the M series, as it's sharper and even cheaper than the EF-M.


----------



## elias723 (Jan 11, 2020)

dcm said:


> I started with the original M and now use the M6II/M5 for everyday, hiking, and travel with the complete set of EF-M lenses. I like the small form factor of both the bodies and the lenses. I use a 1DXII and L's for more serious photography.
> 
> Always mounted or in my bag in order of use: 32, 11-22, 70-300L, 18-150, 28macro, 22. Lesser used 15-45, 55-200 (when I'm ultralight hiking), 18-55 (on an M3 in my office for white board captures and random photos).
> 
> The only real shortcomings for me are longer primes with large apertures and telephotos. I occasionally mount EF prime lenses like 85 f/1.4 IS to shoot indoors (candlelight church service at Christmas recently along with the 32 - the 1DXII shutter is too loud). I found the 100-400L hard to hand hold with the M's, but the lighter 100-300L has been great and fits in my camera bag for the Ms. Sometimes I wish I had kept the EF-S 55-250, but gave it away with my T2i a while back to someone just getting into photography. It would be my other choice for a telephoto zoom on the M series, as it's sharper and even cheaper than the EF-M.


So
.. you want a telephoto for the M series with constant aperture or the constant aperture isnt very important for your use? I usually use the M50 in manual mode, so a constant aperture is very important to me


----------



## elias723 (Jan 11, 2020)

A 11-22mm f/2.8 will be good


----------



## brad-man (Jan 11, 2020)

elias723 said:


> A 11-22mm f/2.8 will be good


That lens would be far too large for the M system. There will never be a 2.8 zoom.


----------



## elias723 (Jan 11, 2020)

brad-man said:


> That lens would be far too large for the M system. There will never be a 2.8 zoom.


A 3.5 maybe?


----------



## JohnC (Jan 11, 2020)

A short FL macro might be interesting but the bigger hole for me is a telephoto zoom. I haven’t tried the 55-200 but the 18-150 doesn’t impress me. I’m considering giving the efs 55-250 a look to see how it performs. 

I would love to have the 11-22, 30, and 55-200 or 250 as a travel kit.

I have used the 180mm 3.5 macro on the M6 II and quite like it


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Jan 12, 2020)

*looks at the great adapter to EF glass*

*shrugs*

Honestly, I personallly could hardly care less and I suspect with the number of adapters they sell, most M6 II buyers I think are the same. Discusions that "small" is what the M line is supposed to have dont seem to wash that well esp when you have a number of M6 II owners here putting on big L glass teles and not caring for one second.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 12, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> *looks at the great adapter to EF glass*
> 
> *shrugs*
> 
> Honestly, I personallly could hardly care less and I suspect with the number of adapters they sell, most M6 II buyers I think are the same. Discusions that "small" is what the M line is supposed to have dont seem to wash that well esp when you have a number of M6 II owners here putting on big L glass teles and not caring for one second.


You can fashion an adapter and bolt an M6 to the 200" Hale telescope at Mt Palomar Observatory. Doesn't make it part of the M system...


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 12, 2020)

elias723 said:


> Not really, a f/4 is like 6.4 equivalent in the crop factor of the M series. I want see something like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art or f/2 but for Native M series.


F4 is like F4 equivalent on crop sensor cameras from the light gathering ability perspective 

Your exposure will be identical regardless crop sensor or full frame. 

The only difference is a bokeh quality and DOF.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 12, 2020)

Canon is trying to make the R as a stand alone and expensive system ( up to the long tele lens). then the M system becomes a small and reasonable priced system and expect people that like to have fast and long zoom to use Ef-EF-M adapter to complete the system. Personally, i thinks Canon has made a smart move.


----------



## dcm (Jan 12, 2020)

elias723 said:


> So
> .. you want a telephoto for the M series with constant aperture or the constant aperture isnt very important for your use? I usually use the M50 in manual mode, so a constant aperture is very important to me



I'm looking for fast primes in the small form factor. The largest entrance pupil so far in the small form factor is about 40mm with a 55mm filter. Assuming this maximum for the small form factor, some possible lenses would be about 40/1.0, 56/1.4, 80/2, 112/2.8, 160/4, and 224/5.6. Depends on where you draw the line for fast primes - I'd be interested in primes up to 2.8 in the small form factor.

While not impossible, I doubt Canon will create another lens series for EF-M with a larger form factor any time soon. So that leaves adapted EF lenses which I accept, ergo the 70-300L with an entrance pupil of 55mm and 67mm filters in my M kit and the occasional use of the EF 85, 100, and 135. A series of lenses in this form factor (55mm entrance pupil) could yield 55/1.0, 77/1.4, 110/2.0, 154/2.8, 220/4.0, and 308/5.6, but might not gain me a lot over my adapted EF glass. I view larger entrance pupils on native EF-M glass quite unlikely. Canon would prefer you to buy the R series.


----------



## andrei1989 (Jan 13, 2020)

the advantages of the shorter flange distance and smaller sensor are lost at larger focal lengths..those who want/need longer lenses for professional work are already using EF cameras and lenses and the enthusiats are adapting EF lenses
where the M line falls behind is the normal kit lenses area..15mm is perfect as a wide end but 45 AND at 6.3??? that's almost a bad joke...here i would see a lens like the EF-S 15-85 that is much smaller and lighter because of the shorter flange or a 15/16/17-55 2.8 which, again, would be smaller than the EF-S version

a 15-55 2.8 or a 15-70 4 i would buy immediately
a 15 to whatever longer than 85, maybe to replace the 18-150, even with 6.3 at the long end would also be nice


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Jan 13, 2020)

brad-man said:


> You can fashion an adapter and bolt an M6 to the 200" Hale telescope at Mt Palomar Observatory. Doesn't make it part of the M system...



I'm not exactly sure what that has to do with the fact EF glass is a clear great option for M-mount users, or the fact glass that is quality is going to be big and heavy anyway. I stand by the statement Canon have this worked out better than the punters think and the M-mount user base seems to be on board with what Canon would like us to do.

It seems maybe too well, given the issues with the EF adapter being continuously on backorder.



> .those who want/need longer lenses for professional work are



I use the M6 II for professional work.


----------



## elias723 (Jan 13, 2020)

andrei1989 said:


> the advantages of the shorter flange distance and smaller sensor are lost at larger focal lengths..those who want/need longer lenses for professional work are already using EF cameras and lenses and the enthusiats are adapting EF lenses
> where the M line falls behind is the normal kit lenses area..15mm is perfect as a wide end but 45 AND at 6.3??? that's almost a bad joke...here i would see a lens like the EF-S 15-85 that is much smaller and lighter because of the shorter flange or a 15/16/17-55 2.8 which, again, would be smaller than the EF-S version
> 
> a 15-55 2.8 or a 15-70 4 i would buy immediately
> a 15 to whatever longer than 85, maybe to replace the 18-150, even with 6.3 at the long end would also be nice


So is it unlikely that Canon will manufacture zoom with constant aperture for the M series?


----------



## elias723 (Jan 13, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> *looks at the great adapter to EF glass*
> 
> *shrugs*
> 
> Honestly, I personallly could hardly care less and I suspect with the number of adapters they sell, most M6 II buyers I think are the same. Discusions that "small" is what the M line is supposed to have dont seem to wash that well esp when you have a number of M6 II owners here putting on big L glass teles and not caring for one second.


So is it unlikely that Canon will manufacture zoom with constant aperture for the M series?


----------



## Rocky (Jan 13, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> *looks at the great adapter to EF glass*
> 
> *shrugs*
> 
> Honestly, I personallly could hardly care less and I suspect with the number of adapters they sell, most M6 II buyers I think are the same. Discusions that "small" is what the M line is supposed to have dont seem to wash that well esp when you have a number of M6 II owners here putting on big L glass teles and not caring for one second.


M6 II is in a "strange " situation, due to the 32 M sensor. It render the most of the M lenses become under powered,( may be except the 32 mm , 28 mm or the 22mm). So in order to get the most out of M6 II, people have to resort to the big L lenses. Something I cannot understand is that why canon sell the M6 II with 15-45mm lens as a kit ????


----------



## andrei1989 (Jan 14, 2020)

elias723 said:


> So is it unlikely that Canon will manufacture zoom with constant aperture for the M series?



unlikely yes, impossible no


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Jan 15, 2020)

Rocky said:


> M6 II is in a "strange " situation, due to the 32 M sensor. It render the most of the M lenses become under powered,( may be except the 32 mm , 28 mm or the 22mm). So in order to get the most out of M6 II, people have to resort to the big L lenses. Something I cannot understand is that why canon sell the M6 II with 15-45mm lens as a kit ????



Cheap and gets you going. And to be honest you arent going to see the lens being overpowered taking kitty photos for Facebook. 

TBH that 32MP sensor even gives L Glass a real workout and I've found using my 70-200L IS USM L v1 isnt good enough when pixel peeping. The 24-105 F4 L v1 is also barely an equal. That sensor really puts demands on lenses and I kinda wonder what it would be like in a RF body with RF glass.....


----------



## Rocky (Jan 15, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> Cheap and gets you going. And to be honest you arent going to see the lens being overpowered taking kitty photos for Facebook.
> 
> TBH that 32MP sensor even gives L Glass a real workout and I've found using my 70-200L IS USM L v1 isnt good enough when pixel peeping. The 24-105 F4 L v1 is also barely an equal. That sensor really puts demands on lenses and I kinda wonder what it would be like in a RF body with RF glass.....


What is the rational behind using the 32M sensor on M6 II?


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 15, 2020)

I was thinking of buying the M6 II as an EDC camera.
But NOT in the absence of native high-quality zooms...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 15, 2020)

Rocky said:


> What is the rational behind using the 32M sensor on M6 II?


Economies of scale and marketing. It's cheaper to use the same sensor in several cameras even if they have comparatively minor differences for specific application, and however smart we think we are the vast majority of consumers buy into the more is better. Look at the 1 series, no effective resolution increase for well over 10 years because that pro market are one of the few places that actually resist the more is better meme.


----------



## elias723 (Jan 15, 2020)

I saw this patent on Canon watch and I think it will be a very attractive lens. preferably I would have liked it to be constant f / 4 but it still seems to be a good alternative.
At the end of the day, we know that many of the lenses that have been patented by Canon for the M series do not reach the market.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 16, 2020)

With the M, Canon still seems to have one foot in the original target user (a Japanese Woman upgrading from P&S). Their lenses tend to match that philosophy too. Their latest bodies are more enthusiast oriented, but where are enthusiast lenses? I think they will keep requiring users to purchase EF lenses when they want high end lenses.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 17, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> With the M, Canon still seems to have one foot in the original target user (a Japanese Woman upgrading from P&S). Their lenses tend to match that philosophy too. Their latest bodies are more enthusiast oriented, but where are enthusiast lenses? I think they will keep requiring users to purchase EF lenses when they want high end lenses.



So long as they insist on retaining the same physical diameter of the lens, they won't be able to do much for enthusiasts on the M mount.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 17, 2020)

M6 II plus EF to EF-M adapter for L lenses. That may be the answer for enthusiasts


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 18, 2020)

Rocky said:


> M6 II plus EF to EF-M adapter for L lenses. That may be the answer for enthusiasts



I'd throw in the bolt-on EVF for that group a well.


----------



## JohnC (Jan 18, 2020)

I think the M6 Mark II is a game changer in the M series. Whether that changes anything about lens development or not is another matter. I tend to agree that higher performance will be left to the adapter and EF mount glass. I do think the Sigma EF-M mounts perform well (the 56 and 30 both of which I have). From Canon you have the 22,32 (which I've heard performs well), and the 11-22 does a pretty good job. On a daily basis I shoot the Sigmas, or adapted glass however. Few samples:

Sigma 56







Zeiss 135mm APO Sonar






11-22







I really wish Zeiss would do something similar to their Touit line for the EF-M but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## phile (May 8, 2020)

dcm said:


> Sometimes I wish I had kept the EF-S 55-250, but gave it away with my T2i a while back to someone just getting into photography. It would be my other choice for a telephoto zoom on the M series, as it's sharper and even cheaper than the EF-M.


I just ordered an EF-S 55-250 STM after seeing reviews. I bought it used from National Camera in the Twin Cities. I will pick it up when the governor's order is lifted, presumably May 18. If you buy gear online, you can trust these guys. If they say a used lens is "excellent", it is. No financial interest, just a very happy customer. Anyway, when I get the EF-S 55-250 STM, I will test it against the EF-M 55-200 I have. The 100-400 L II I have shoots great on the M5, but I can't always be walking around with that beast.


----------



## phile (May 8, 2020)

I shoot a Cannon 100-400mm L mkII on both a 7D and an M5. I like mirrorless. The 45mp sensor on the R5 would actually put fewer pixels in a distant subject with this lens than with the M5. I expect the M6 mkII sensor would outperform the R5 by even a greater degree for distant subjects. I have not yet tried panning race cars with the M5, but the old 7D has given great results.

Otherwise, I like the M5 for less-demanding distances with native lenses or maybe the EF-S 55-250 STM I have on order. The 32mm f1.4 is outstanding. The EF-M 55-200 has been more-disappointing. The goofy ELV on the M6 has been a deal-breaker for me.


----------



## stevelee (May 8, 2020)

elias723 said:


> A 11-22mm f/2.8 will be good


The EF-S 10-22mm and 10-18mm lenses are quite usable. I have the former, and I hear the latter is a good bargain and somewhat smaller and consequently a bit slower. I don’t have an M camera, so I don’t know how much weight the adapter adds.


----------



## vxcalais (Jun 22, 2020)

The Eos-m need contant F4 lenses like the Sony aps-c10-18 and 18 - 105mm are 2 of the best lenses on that system. Size wise they are perfect. The m6ii is my first Canon and I was hoping the effort Canon invested into the m6ii would culminate in new lenses. But it has just not happened...........


----------



## phile (Jun 22, 2020)

phile said:


> I just ordered an EF-S 55-250 STM after seeing reviews. I bought it used from National Camera in the Twin Cities. I will pick it up when the governor's order is lifted, presumably May 18. If you buy gear online, you can trust these guys. If they say a used lens is "excellent", it is. No financial interest, just a very happy customer. Anyway, when I get the EF-S 55-250 STM, I will test it against the EF-M 55-200 I have. The 100-400 L II I have shoots great on the M5, but I can't always be walking around with that beast.


Tests are done. The EF-S 55-250 STM is an easy winner over the EF-M 55-200. I've sold the EF-M 55-200 on Ebay. I really bought the M5 to try mirrorless, not to have a small camera, so the size of the The EF-S 55-250 STM does not bother me at all.

My M6 Mark II is supposed to be delivered tomorrow.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 22, 2020)

phile said:


> Tests are done. The EF-S 55-250 STM is an easy winner over the EF-M 55-200. I've sold the EF-M 55-200 on Ebay. I really bought the M5 to try mirrorless, not to have a small camera, so the size of the The EF-S 55-250 STM does not bother me at all.
> 
> My M6 Mark II is supposed to be delivered tomorrow.



Yeah, I use the adapter a lot too. I bought the Tamron 18-200 for EF-M and it has been very good for me but it has a bad reputation with others. I own the EF-M 32 mm, 10-22 mm and 22 mm pancake but I've not gotten much use out of them yet. (And of course I have the 15-45 kit lens that supposedly replaced the 18-55 mm kit lens.)


----------



## Boblblawslawblg (Jun 23, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Yeah, I use the adapter a lot too. I bought the Tamron 18-200 for EF-M and it has been very good for me but it has a bad reputation with others. I own the EF-M 32 mm, 10-22 mm and 22 mm pancake but I've not gotten much use out of them yet. (And of course I have the 15-45 kit lens that supposedly replaced the 18-55 mm kit lens.)



Personally I really like my Tamron 18-200mm. Dont get me wrong, its not a super nice 70-200m 2.8, but its lightweight and takes decent photos as long as you have decent light. 

Here is a sample gallery of untouched images - https://photos.app.goo.gl/bKNvWG7b57PyFMBc9 almost all shot with the 18-200, I think there are maybe 5 or so images shot with the Sigma 56 f/1.4. Auto focus was pretty strong even in the chaos of the protest/riot. Not sure why it gets bad reputation it has, but its worked for me.


----------

