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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 29, 2015)

```
<p>Canon and the rest of the web have mentioned before that the company is going to become more aggressive with their mirrorless camera system the EOS M. We’re eager to see what “aggressive” truly means, because as it sits right now, we’re pretty tepid about EOS M.</p>
<p>We’re told Canon will introduce two new EF-M prime lenses in Q1 of 2016. Both of these lenses will be slightly upmarket in build and design when compared to the current crop of EF-M lenses.</p>
<p>No specifications were given at this time.</p>
```


----------



## infared (Oct 29, 2015)

New Primes...but they will most likely be slow as this camera is clearly aimed at amateurs, certainly not even enthusiasts. How about a Viewfinder, Canon??????????
I love my 5DIII and all of my great glass for when I am serious.
...and I can be more than semi-serious with my 3 Olympus MFT bodies and 13 MFT lenses. That system is small, competent and incredibly fun to use. It is a great "small" system that pretty much does it all except TS. 
It makes photography fun again!!!! ;D


----------



## photogreedy (Oct 29, 2015)

Does the 15-45 look like with a plastic mount to anyone else as well?


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 29, 2015)

mirrorless + decent fast compact prime pancakes = winner


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 29, 2015)

I don't want them "upmarket" but rather as dirt cheap, small and optically excellent as the EF-M 22/2.0. 
so please no fuji 56/1.2 @ 1200 € or a sony 55/1.8 half-zeiss @ 800 € nor a sony zeiss-badge 35/2.8 for 600. 

However, knowing Canon i expect the most boring abd bland of all possibilities: a 50/1.8 STM (in line with the EF 50/1.8 STM) and a 60/2.8 macro (in line with the EF-S). 

I'd be willing to buy a super compact portrait tele - eg. EF-M 80/2.0 or f/2.4 IS STM priced no higher than EF 85/1.8.


----------



## sanj (Oct 29, 2015)

I was made to believe Canon is industry 'leader'.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

C'mon Canon, focus speed matters on all fronts -- not just with the camera. *Give us some USM primes.*

I don't need an L lens for EF-M and I know they won't give one to us. But give us a proper mid-level USM primes for EF-M like the 24/28/35 IS lenses for EF, hopefully in a smaller form factor since you don't need to cover the FF image circle. 

Give us those and an integral EVF and I might consider buying into EOS-M as a second body. Until then, no sale.

- A


----------



## catfish252 (Oct 29, 2015)

"Both of these lenses will be slightly upmarket in build and design when compared to the current crop of EF-M lenses." Translation - These lenses will be more expensive than the other lenses we have offered in the past.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I don't want them "upmarket" but rather as dirt cheap, small and optically excellent as the EF-M 22/2.0.
> so please no fuji 56/1.2 @ 1200 € or a sony 55/1.8 half-zeiss @ 800 € nor a sony zeiss-badge 35/2.8 for 600.
> 
> However, knowing Canon i expect the most boring abd bland of all possibilities: a 50/1.8 STM (in line with the EF 50/1.8 STM) and a 60/2.8 macro (in line with the EF-S).
> ...



All current EF-M mount glass currently available is here: http://goo.gl/se2GjN

AvTvM, a native EF-M macro like the EF-S 60mm makes a lot of sense. If the rumor is true, I'd bet one of the two lenses in this story is a macro like that.

As much as I want an EF-M 22mm f/2 USM (i.e not pancake, but a fully-featured speedy focusing prime), since there already is an EF-M 22mm I doubt that's in the next wave. 

A portrait prime optimized for the EF-M mount would be nice, say a 55 f/1.8. Before you lament that we already have a new STM nifty fifty, that lens needs to be adaptored and it's meant for the large EF image circle. I could see a 50-ish prime at a decent quality level (metal ring, FTM focusing, USM, a proper hood, etc.) optimized for EF-M that would not be that big. I imagine that lens would sell well, say for about $399.

- A


----------



## crashpc (Oct 29, 2015)

55mm f/1.8 IS STM would be nice indeed.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

catfish252 said:


> "Both of these lenses will be slightly upmarket in build and design when compared to the current crop of EF-M lenses." Translation - These lenses will be more expensive than the other lenses we have offered in the past.



That's _great_ news, actually. If the brand is to go up-market (presumably alongside a higher-end EOS-M body), they need better native EF-M lenses to draw bigger spenders in. 

Consider, some of the current EF-M lenses lack a ton of creature comforts that enthusiasts or pros (stepping down to use this as a third body, vacation rig, etc.) might want. I'd love to see:


Proper bayonet hood instead of those chintzy pancake rings
USM instead of STM (heck, _some don't even have STM_, right?)
Nailing down a standard filter diameter wouldn't hurt -- right now they are all over the map: 43, 49, 55, 58, which means that awesome bag full of tiny lenses will require a bag full of tiny filters or step down rings.
If we are getting _really_ fancy, an LCD/OLED display of the working DOF distances like the Zeiss Batis lenses -- but I think that's an future L quality ask and not an EF-M reasonable thing to expect

So I say bring on the $500-750 lenses for EF-M to complement the $200-400 stuff that's already available. Build up the brand and expand the user base.

- A


----------



## scrup (Oct 29, 2015)

The only way i will buy EF-M lenses if it was dirt cheap.

I have a bunch of legacy primes that work well enough for me. If i was going to spend some coin, i would just go with EF mount. I have the option of moving to other bodies with adapters. AF is not quite there yet or at a reasonable price but there are some advancements on the sony front with adapting EF glass to sony bodies. Time will improve this.

For me size is not an issue. The M was a DSLR replacement not a compact camera replacement. I have my phone when i can compromise on quality for portability.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 29, 2015)

honestly, with the news that Canon may be working on a full frame mirrorless.. and the possibility of a change in mount? I don't want to commit to more lenses for the M system for the moment. First, I want to see a good eos-m body. I think when I bought my eos m, I was doing more of a brand service instead of product service. Granted it was 250 for the whole kit when I bought mine.


----------



## Pixel (Oct 29, 2015)

I'm not saying I'm going to dump all my Canon gear anytime soon but if Canon doesn't have a mirrorless EF mount planned they're going to lose my mirrorless purchase to Sony where I CAN use my EF mount glass. I'm not about to buy a whole new set of lenses.


----------



## roxics (Oct 29, 2015)

I think Canon should ditch EF-S altogether. Steamline their product offerings by making only APS-C EF-M cameras and lens and full frame EF cameras and lenses. Even if they eventually go mirrorless on full frame, there is no reason to change the mount. Just take out the mirrorbox but keep the same flange to focal distance. Not everything needs to be smaller for the sake of being smaller, especially pro bodies. There are still benefits to having an EVF even if you don't change the flange to focal distance.


----------



## traveller (Oct 29, 2015)

I think that it makes sense to concentrate on moderately fast designs for the current EOS-M series. I should know, I own the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 and whilst it's a beautiful lens, I only carry it when I know I'll need it, because of the weight. That's the penalty for trying to get "full frame equivalence". I would have been happier with a 56mm f/2 -lighter and cheaper. Canon don't need to force huge aperture lenses onto EOS-M, they have plenty of full frame DSLRs if that's what you want (and a hybrid OVF/EVF viewfinder or accessory EVF would be the icing on the cake of the 5D Mk.4 - hey, I'm allowed to dream!). 

Full frame is the elephant in the room with EOS-M. I'm not sure that it is actually needed, full frame means bigger lenses and a larger system size. Mirrorless only really has size benefits at the wide end of the lens range. This argument won't stop the enthusiast buyer holding back on an investment in (these rumoured) high quality EF-M lenses in the expectation that Canon will eventually bring out a full frame mirrorless system.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2015)

Pixel said:


> I'm not saying I'm going to dump all my Canon gear anytime soon but if Canon doesn't have a mirrorless EF mount planned they're going to lose my mirrorless purchase to Sony where I CAN use my EF mount glass. I'm not about to buy a whole new set of lenses.



There is no way on earth Canon are going to make a mirrorless system that doesn't integrate with EF lenses seamlessly, just look at the introduction of the M to EF/s adapter on release of the original M. Canon know the EF lens stable is the crown jewel of their camera sales and bypassing it would be inconceivable.

As for Sony and the " I CAN use my EF mount glass", well exactly the same thing was said about the Nikn F mount until people realized the rediculous list of caveats and limitations involved. There are many reports of issues, incompatabilities, and non functioning or lackluster performance with the Sony plus adapter.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Oct 29, 2015)

Could be anything really.... 10mm ultrawide, 35-40mm ish midrange, 50-55mm standard, or something longer... It has to be in a tiny package no bigger than a 18-55mm though...


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

roxics said:


> I think Canon should ditch EF-S altogether. Steamline their product offerings by making only APS-C EF-M cameras and lens and full frame EF cameras and lenses. Even if they eventually go mirrorless on full frame, there is no reason to change the mount. Just take out the mirrorbox but keep the same flange to focal distance. Not everything needs to be smaller for the sake of being smaller, especially pro bodies. There are still benefits to having an EVF even if you don't change the flange to focal distance.



There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.

Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

traveller said:


> Mirrorless only really has size benefits at the wide end of the lens range.



This. A+.

That's why I think EOS-M needs to concentrate on being as small as possible. Don't go for 55-200+ zooms, get away from a 70-200 f/2.8 equivalent. That's not what this platform is for!

FF mirrorless will 100% be big and nasty because the pros will expect to use all their EF glass (or new native FF mirrorless glass) on it and as those are huge, a bigger/grippier body will be needed. I'm not saying it will be Leica SL big or 5D3 big, but it will likely be bigger than the A7 rigs coming out today.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.
> Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.



I'm not convinced they can't just have one EF-M mount, and apply a firmware-driven crop mode when an EF-M lens with an APS-C image circle is mounted. 

Note that the Sony FF E-mount has a _smaller_ throat diameter than the EF-M mount. Superimposing the Sony FF sensor onto the M mount opening suggests that it may work...


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> roxics said:
> 
> 
> > I think Canon should ditch EF-S altogether. Steamline their product offerings by making only APS-C EF-M cameras and lens and full frame EF cameras and lenses. Even if they eventually go mirrorless on full frame, there is no reason to change the mount. Just take out the mirrorbox but keep the same flange to focal distance. Not everything needs to be smaller for the sake of being smaller, especially pro bodies. There are still benefits to having an EVF even if you don't change the flange to focal distance.
> ...



That depends entirely on where you see the camera market developing. If, as so many predict, in a few years Sony will be making the same sensors for everybody the only differentiators will be system options, or lenses for most users.

Don't forget Canon already make many more than four lens lines, they make the cine line in two mounts, they make various high end video lenses, they make P&S lenses, phone modules/lenses etc etc, they are developing their security camera business with custom optics too.

If they see the growth in the optics then they will enlarge their manufactureing capability.


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 29, 2015)

crashpc said:


> 55mm f/1.8 IS STM would be nice indeed.



+1. And being it crop only lens, it should be relatively small and light. A good balance and match to an M body.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.
> ...



It would be a master stroke if they do, and true testament to how forward thinking Canon are as a company.

I suspect you might be right, time will tell........


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 29, 2015)

roxics said:


> I think Canon should ditch EF-S altogether. Steamline their product offerings by making only APS-C EF-M cameras and lens and full frame EF cameras and lenses.



Not going to happen, at least anytime soon. The Rebel DSLR is Canon's bread and butter and vast majority of those are purchased by the soccer Mom's of the world who will never shoot any other glass other then what comes with the camera, the kit lens, insert XX-YY EF-S lens here.

Someday, many years from now I can see it happening. But even when Canon stops producing Rebels and everyone is convinced they need a little mirrorless guy instead, plenty of people will still use their camera for many more years. Plenty of enthusiasts on this board shoot bodies that are 5 years old. Imagine the average consumer. Plenty of Rebel XT and XTi bodies out there still.


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 29, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Canon really nailed it (foresight) with the EF mount. I guess it wouldn't surprise me, yet I'd still find it impressive if they can use the EF-M mount for FF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



We're likely talking about a millimeter or less if it doesn't fit. I suspect the EF-M mount was designed to be exactly the minimum size needed to support a FF sensor as Canon would design it (including throat diameter, contact pin placement, etc). Honestly, I think Canon would be egregiously stupid not to have considered putting a FF sensor behind that mount and designing it accordingly. As you say, time will tell.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Oct 29, 2015)

What's the difference between mirrorless and slr cameras? No, it's not the mirror. It's the viewfinder. That's the difference. I could care less if there's a mirror or not. And because Sony (main example) still makes big, long lenses (unlike, say, Pentax), the thickness factor of a mirrorless is mitigated. (My 6D with a voigtlander 20 on it, is still quite shallow). There's hardly any weight difference (a7 vs 6d for example). I just compared an SL1 to the M3 in a store last night, and I preferred the SL1. The immediacy of the viewfinder was way better. I'm not all about settings and histograms inside the finder. I'm mainly concerned with the view, the image I'm looking at. And I still hate the look of evf's. It's about the viewfinder.

A while ago, Sony had a big discussion and decided to bite the bullet and go after mirrorless. They are keeping the dslr only as long as they have to, until its advantages (AF, etc) are mitigated.

A further while ago, Canon ditched its earlier mount and went all electronic with EF mount. Now they are faced with the decision Sony made a handful of years back.

Pentax tried making a mirrorless that worked with their existing dslr mount. The result was a boxy camera, but it still had potential. It just sucked in essential areas like AF and viewfinder (doesn't matter dslr or mirrorless there).

At the moment, I'm way more looking at an SL1 as a backup than an M3. The 10-18EFS is just as light and almost as tiny as the 11-18M, the SL1 actually feels lighter as a body. It's just a little thicker, that's all. Oh. And it has a viewfinder.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 29, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.



They have to go through exactly the same burning hoops Sony has been and is jumping through. 

At the end of the day, I see 2 Canon mounts, one for APS-C, one for FF - just as in the DSLR times. 

APS-C: EF-S -> will be superseded by EF-M 
FF: EF -> superdeded by native short-flangeback EF-X [or whatever they call it]

I don't believe Canon will use the EF-M mount for FF mirrorless. As opposed to Nikon they werre always using generously wide mounts -> EF easily allows for all sorts of UWA and f/1.2 lenses for FF image circle. 
, EF-S is designed generously large for APS-C image circle. I fully expect them to do the same. 

Transition is practically painless. Like EF-M adapter there will be an "EF-X" adapter. With enough CPU power and smart mount protocol, there will be no hit in functionality, AF-speed, IS operation, flash-metering info, etc. etc. Canon may actually see the move as another opportunity to make life more difficult for third party lens makers and owners. Those Sigma Arts may be in for a tough time, if they are not (adequately) supported by new EF-X adapter while Canon EF glass will work just fine - within the scope of physics of course (USM lenses will not behave like STM lenses and so on). 

And even if such an adaptir is included "free of charge" with every FF MILC (knowing Canon and their greed ... Highly unlikely), there will still be more than enough incentive to buy new, native EF-X glass - new lens formulas, better optical performance, unheard-of tracking-AF-performance, and/or same performance, but a lot smaller/lighter WA lenses ... everything in sync with rollout of new Canon FF MILC cameras. 

I don't see major issues or obstacles in the way. Except that Canon let Sony get unneccessarily big with FF MILCs - so they'll face much tougher competition once they come to market with their FF MILC system. That's the price they pay for milking their DSLR/EF customer base longer than they should have and for not leading the industry.


----------



## roxics (Oct 29, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> Not going to happen, at least anytime soon. The Rebel DSLR is Canon's bread and butter and vast majority of those are purchased by the soccer Mom's of the world who will never shoot any other glass other then what comes with the camera, the kit lens, insert XX-YY EF-S lens here.



I think you kind of invalidated your argument a bit. If those kit moms (new term here) are never going to use any other glass on their Rebel, than what difference does it make to them if that Rebel suddenly turned into an EF-M mount mirrorless camera that otherwise looks like a traditional Rebel? If they aren't concerned with other EF-S lenses and only with the EF-M lenses in the kit, than it's not going to matter to them. 

Plus for those that do have older bodies, there are plenty of EF-S lenses that will be on the used market for decades to come. So anyone with an EF-S camera (like a 7DmkII) will still have plenty of choices, including EF glass (new or used). So I think the transition to an all EF-M line wouldn't be that big of an undertaking. Assuming the new Rebels carry over to EF-M as well.


----------



## roxics (Oct 29, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> At the end of the day, I see 2 Canon mounts, one for APS-C, one for FF - just as in the DSLR times.
> 
> APS-C: EF-S -> will be superseded by EF-M
> FF: EF -> superdeded by native short-flangeback EF-X [or whatver they call it]



I still don't understand the purpose of a new full frame mount. What are you really gaining? Let's say it's 20mm shorter in flange to focal distance, so what? Do you think that means Canon will automatically start making really small full frame cameras? Again, why? You still have to deal with bigger glass to cover that image circle which cancles out the compactness of a small full frame body with anything other than a smaller pancake 40mm or something. But they could just build a non interchangable specialty body with that lens already attached like Sony and Fuji already do. 

Most people don't care about full frame. The pros and super enthusiasts care about full frame and those people probably want bigger bodies anyway for the ergonomics alone. I know I do. On those bigger bodies, 20mm isn't going to make a huge difference. Which is why I say they can still throw out the mirrobox and switch to an EVF while keeping the preexisting flange to focal distance. Heck maybe they can find something useful to do with that space, like built in ND filters. 

It just seems much more logical to go that route than create yet another lens mount and series of lenses to further confuse the market.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I think it's a little more complicated than that. Way back in 1987, when the EF mount was introduced, there was a reason why it was made so large: the Canon EF 50 f/1 lens, introduced soon afterwards. With the introduction of the EF mount, Canon went from having the smallest lensmount (i.e., FD) among major manufacturers to having the largest and Canon was quoted in Modern Photography or Popular Photography as stating that the 50 f/1 could not have been made with a smaller lensmount. In 1987, I had a major investment in Canon MF equipment and was livid for the next 10 years that Canon didn't introduce an MF body with an in-viewfinder focusing indicator even without a way of controlling lens focus from the body. The Canon T90, co-designed with the EOS-1 film camera, would have been the perfect place for it.

Granted that it's not 1987, but large lens mounts do have real advantages with certain classes of lenses. The CEO of Sigma has been quoted, within the last year or so, as stating that the small size of the FE lens mount presents problems in designing lenses for it.


----------



## tyger11 (Oct 29, 2015)

Has someone collected all those lens patents over the past two years? Seems likely we could figure out which ones are which fairly easily.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Don't forget Canon already make many more than four lens lines, they make the cine line in two mounts, they make various high end video lenses, they make P&S lenses, phone modules/lenses etc etc, they are developing their security camera business with custom optics too.
> 
> If they see the growth in the optics then they will enlarge their manufactureing capability.



I always forget Cine lenses -- thanks for reminding me.

- A


----------



## ashmadux (Oct 29, 2015)

I will never understand why people hate the M. One of the best canon investments ive ever made. 

Yes, the AF can be better. The FPS is woeful, but hey, this is not a tiny sensor camera/mf43. But other than that, the combo with the 22/f2 is spectacular. I wish i had that lens for my rebel.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

ashmadux said:


> I will never understand why people hate the M. One of the best canon investments ive ever made.
> 
> Yes, the AF can be better. The FPS is woeful, but hey, this is not a tiny sensor camera/mf43. But other than that, the combo with the 22/f2 is spectacular. I wish i had that lens for my rebel.



You _kind of_ have that lens for your Rebel, don't you? --> the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM pancake is a stop slower but it's just as sharp.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

ashmadux said:


> I will never understand why people hate the M. One of the best canon investments ive ever made.



Sure, it's making money, but that's due to the Canon name, some smart Canon interface design and connectivity to the EF portfolio, nothing more.

Other than the fact it delights some Canon SLR owners, compared to the competition, it's fairly laughable. The AF is comically slower, it is laggier in general handling, there is no integral EVF and the native lens selection is abysmal. It's a cute little platform that I'd using if there was nothing else out there. It takes fine pictures, no doubt. But for the same money, so much better options are available.

So -- like just about everyone on this thread -- I am pulling for EOS-M to succeed but I won't consider it seriously for personal purchase until the lens ecosystem grows and the body feature-set improves.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 30, 2015)

Bob Howland said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



And there is no longer, and never will be, another 50mm f1.0. But the FD mount supported the 85 f1.2, the next mount size pusher, along with every other high speed lens including the 200mm f1.8.

I was sceptical about the capability of the EF-M mount to take a FF sensor, owning an M I honestly thought it was an APS sized mount and Canon saw the mirror less market as a size, and female orientated market (which the current M cameras very much are in Japan where it sells very well) with its low aperture zoom lenses, not the higher end enthusiast market that demands bigger sensors, faster lenses, and more features.

To be sure fast high quality ff coverage lenses will never give mirror less cameras any appreciable size or weight advantage over the SLRs, and we have very real examples of that with the Leica and Sony lenses. 

For me the interest in mirror less was size and weight, my M with 22mm f2 is vastly smaller and lighter than my FF DSLR and 35mm f2 for not a huge difference in IQ and DOF most of the time, a FF mirror less with current sized lenses has no appeal until the feature set is much much better, EVF's need to get hugely better before I'd consider a 'serious' mirror less.


----------



## Woody (Oct 30, 2015)

I'll like to see an EF-M 35 mm f/1.4 lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2015)

Bob Howland said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



It could be more complicated than that *IF* you assume dSLRs and the EF mount will be dropped from the lineup. I don't think that's the case. With a FF EF-M mount, I doubt Canon would seek to replicate the full EF lineup in the new mount – the EF mount adapter would remain for the 'esoteric' lenses (of which I own several), with FF EF-M lenses available for 'standard' lenses (several zooms from UWA to tell, a macro lens and a few other primes.


----------



## Bennymiata (Oct 30, 2015)

I agree with Mr Canuck that it is about the viewfinder.
No mirrorless camera can really cut it when doing large and busy events where even the flash can't keep up.
I tried an S7 and almost threw it in the bin! The lag with focussing, the lag with a black viewfinder in between shots drove me nuts. 

No, mirrors are still very much alive and slapping away merrily and will be doing so for at least the next 10 years, if not much longer!


----------



## Woody (Oct 30, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> I tried an S7 and almost threw it in the bin! The lag with focussing, the lag with a black viewfinder in between shots drove me nuts.



What is S7?

Or do you mean A7S?


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 30, 2015)

There was only one Canon S7, a very formidable mirrorless FF camera. 8)
http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/film55.html

AUtofocus was indeed very ... poor. Or rather non-existent.  ;D


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 30, 2015)

56mm f/1.2 on APS-C behaves a bit like a 85mm f/2 on full frame

Is is cheaper to make a high performance 85mm f/2 lens for full frame or a 50mm f/1.2 for APS-C?
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3835460#forum-post-55695253


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 30, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> There was only one Canon S7, a very formidable mirrorless FF camera. 8)
> http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/film55.html
> 
> AUtofocus was indeed very ... poor. Or rather non-existent.  ;D



That's a 7S, not an S7. And it's formidable indeed.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



So are you suggesting that Canon support both FF and APS-C in both M and EF mounts? Presumably, REAL photographers would use FF EF.

I think I could live with a FF MILC the size of an SL1, assuming they reduced the depth by about 20mm and kept the weight down.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#448,579,ha,f


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 30, 2015)

Bob Howland said:


> That's a 7S, not an S7. And it's formidable indeed.



Thanks! You're absolutely right ... *Canon 7S* it is ... or was, back then. Last Canon rangefinder camera, launched in 1965 for the last Canon forum users  who refused to buy those "modern, gimmicky, bulky SLRs with large lenses". History repeats itself ever so often. ;D


----------



## FunkyCamera (Oct 30, 2015)

I'd prefer it if Canon stopped wasting time with pointless dead end mirrorless junk. Proper photographers want to see the real world through a real viewfinder, not use a rear screen or peer through at a tiny, laggy tv screen.

It's no coincidence that falling profits follow on from wasted time and effort put into this sort of garbage. Move all the engineers involved in this back into proper cameras and lenses and leave olympus, sony, fuji, etc to fight over the scraps of 5% or so of photographers who can't figure out what a proper camera is.


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 30, 2015)

roxics said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > Not going to happen, at least anytime soon. The Rebel DSLR is Canon's bread and butter and vast majority of those are purchased by the soccer Mom's of the world who will never shoot any other glass other then what comes with the camera, the kit lens, insert XX-YY EF-S lens here.
> ...



I agree. However, the Rebel is not disappearing today, or tomorrow in it's current form. Yes, eventually it will probably go, and I said as much. My point was more to the "Canon needs to have these X number of mounts, and drop EF-S today" argument.

Plus here is the kicker, EF-S is not a different mount. EF and EF-S are the same physical mount. It's the lenses that different.


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 30, 2015)

ashmadux said:


> I will never understand why people hate the M. One of the best canon investments ive ever made.
> 
> Yes, the AF can be better. The FPS is woeful, but hey, this is not a tiny sensor camera/mf43. But other than that, the combo with the 22/f2 is spectacular. I wish i had that lens for my rebel.



Love the M + 22mm. A very very compact kit and one gets an APS-C sensor to boot!


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 30, 2015)

If there is a macro for Ef-M coming then I am interested in system.


----------



## ashmadux (Oct 30, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > I will never understand why people hate the M. One of the best canon investments ive ever made.
> ...




Um, not wide enough too slow. The f2 is the deal sealer here, at least for me. I did handle the Sigma 24 1.4 at Photoexpo, and it felt fantastic. sharp in the center wide open, its a beautiful thing. The 22/f2 is sharp in the center, but not critically so.

I'm thinking of getting a 40 2.8 for my 5d3 though...talk about small and well built. I would get that 35 1.8 in a heartbeat, especially if it was a pancake- i see why people have fallen in love with them.


----------



## Michael Burnham (Oct 30, 2015)

At this point almost ANY new EOS M lenses would be good news. I've been a Canon shooter for 30 years and I have decided that I will commit to the EOS M systems when Canon commits to the EOS M system.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2015)

*Nontrivial update to the thread's leading story, in case you missed it:
*http://www.canonrumors.com/ef-m-35mm-f1-8-stm-coming-cr1/

So it's a nifty fifty (-ish) for EOS-M. Thoughts:


Apparently, the simple/stripped down EOS-M platform is more worthy of a nifty fifty (equivalent FF focal length) than EF-S is. This is something EF-S users have long wanted and had to either pony up the dollars for an EF 35mm or go to Sigma for. Correct me if I'm wrong, but EF-S has zero primes that don't have 'pancake' or 'macro' in their names. _But EOS-M gets one for some reason._ Ouch.
Another (yawn) STM lens. Will EOS-M ever get a proper USM lens?
If the other lens is a prime, surely it'd be a macro and not a larger aperture 50-60mm-ish portrait lens, right? Should we be expecting an EF-M 60mm f/2.8 STM macro, then?

- A


----------



## noncho (Oct 30, 2015)

35 1.8 sounds fine, can be small and cheap. 
I hope they break the classic 50/85mm distance and make something more suitable for crop like 70 1.8. Or 70 2.8 IS macro. Or the best 70 2.0 Macro IS (I don't really believe it).


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2015)

noncho said:


> 35 1.8 sounds fine, can be small and cheap.
> I hope they break the classic 50/85mm distance and make something more suitable for crop like 70 1.8. Or 70 2.8 IS macro. Or the best 70 2.0 Macro IS (I don't really believe it).



Canon's never made a macro faster than f/2.8, have they? I admit, if the general (non-macro-range) focusing was quick enough, that would make for a killer macro/portrait dual-purpose lens. But I doubt they'd give such a first to EOS-M before EF gets it.

- A


----------



## jefflinde (Oct 30, 2015)

It is funny reading the comments on any EOS-M thread because everyone is wildly different in what they think would be perfect. All that happens is everyone is upset. I wish people would just look at what the camera has to offer and either use it if it will suits your need or not. If it does not then shut up and buy one that does. I own an original M and yes it has its quirks but it takes good pictures for what I want. If I wanted super fast AF I would have bought a Sony a6000. 

I still don't believe that MILC it why canon is loosing money. Cell phones I think are taking more of that away than anything. Which is funny that people keep screaming for a EVF when I have yet to see a cell phone with and EVF and that is what the general population uses to take pictures. You have to remember that canon sells more stuff to people who don't read this forum than who do and most of the things that are being requested those people don't care about. There is just a very vocal but very small subset of people on here that complain and want unrealistic things.


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 30, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> For me the interest in mirror less was size and weight, my M with 22mm f2 is vastly smaller and lighter than my FF DSLR and 35mm f2 for not a huge difference in IQ and DOF most of the time, a FF mirror less with current sized lenses has no appeal until the feature set is much much better, EVF's need to get hugely better before I'd consider a 'serious' mirror less.



For me as well. Today I look at mirrorless as an opportunity to pack big bang (IQ) in a small package. I think APS-C sensors hit that sweet spot of excellent IQ yet small kit. That is the advantage and draw for me personally, today.

With that said, Down the road I'm sure we'll look back and think of the old days, where one had to AFMA your lens, and using certain focus point, etc. Mirrorless does bring some things to the table that someday I'll use or want. The combo of on die phase detect and contrast detect eliminates AFMA and gives a more consistent accurate focus. Sure it's typically slower then PDAF on DSLRs today, but it's always getting faster. And mirrorless also brings the whole face/eye detection allowing the camera to auto focus on your subject. Also subject tracking, etc. I just haven't felt like I need or even want that stuff yet (have face detection turned off on both my Ms). And that must mean something because I shoot with a 6D a lot and we all know the focus system and it's flexibility is not the 6D camera's strong point.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 30, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> *Nontrivial update to the thread's leading story, in case you missed it:
> *http://www.canonrumors.com/ef-m-35mm-f1-8-stm-coming-cr1/
> 
> So it's a nifty fifty (-ish) for EOS-M. Thoughts:
> ...



No. Canon is moving in the DPAF direction for its consumer and prosumer cameras. Since a major usage of this feature is geared towards video, and USMs are too noisy, there won't be any for the M. As this technology matures, presumably STM motors will become faster and replace USM motors for all but L lenses.

Disclaimer: _The previous statements are wild speculation, but I still don't think there will be any USM M lenses..._


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2015)

brad-man said:


> No. Canon is moving in the DPAF direction for its consumer and prosumer cameras. Since a major usage of this feature is geared towards video, and USMs are too noisy, there won't be any for the M. As this technology matures, presumably STM motors will become faster and replace USM motors for all but L lenses.
> 
> Disclaimer: _The previous statements are wild speculation, but I still don't think there will be any USM M lenses..._



There's two ways to look at it:

My view (just an opinion):


STM replaces the old [nothing] AF motor designation (like the old squeaky 35mm f/2, old 50 f/1.8 II, etc.) and represents the lowest lens price point.
Non-L USM lenses (more and more with IS, distance scale, internal focusing, etc.) represent the middle price point
L USM lenses are at the top, have the largest max apertures, weather sealing, better build, etc.

The interpretation of my view is that only offering STM for EOS-M says that they aren't taking the brand seriously for enthusiasts and pros.

The other way to look at it -- and I'm not disagreeing with it -- is that Canon believes especially at the lower end of the spectrum, _video needs AF_ and therefore quiet lenses are needed. EOS-M and Rebels should therefore prioritize the needs of video more than stills, hence a big reliance on STM.

I can see it both ways, but I just can't take STM lenses seriously from a focus speed perspective -- it is only a downgrade for a stills shooter that is accustomed to USM. 

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 30, 2015)

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 (Oct 30, 2015)

*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 (Oct 31, 2015)

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 (Oct 31, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> 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.)



Luds34 said:


> 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 (Oct 31, 2015)

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 (Oct 31, 2015)

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 (Oct 31, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> 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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> 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 (Oct 31, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Oct 31, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Oct 31, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> 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 (Oct 31, 2015)

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 (Nov 1, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2015)

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.


----------

