# SIGMA again announces EF-M lenses, and mount conversion service



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 4, 2019)

> 2019.10.04 – SIGMA Corporation is pleased to announce the upcoming launch of interchangeable lenses for the Canon EF-M mount digital camera series with APS-C image sensors. SIGMA will gradually introduce the lenses as members of the Contemporary line.
> The new Canon EF-M mount models will feature a newly and exclusively developed control algorithm that optimizes the autofocus drive and maximizes the data transmission speed. In addition, these lenses will be compatible with Servo AF and lens aberration correction.
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Mistral75 (Oct 4, 2019)

The important part is missing from the English text: these three Sigma lenses with EF-M mount will be available on the 18th of October.






キヤノン EF-Mマウント用 交換レンズ発売日決定のお知らせ | レンズ | プロダクト | ニュース | SIGMA | 株式会社シグマ


SIGMA の キヤノン EF-Mマウント用 交換レンズ発売日決定のお知らせ のニュースです。




www.sigma-global.com


----------



## cerealito (Oct 4, 2019)

Good news!


----------



## melgross (Oct 4, 2019)

Maybe this will spur Canon to add some more of their own.


----------



## wsmith96 (Oct 4, 2019)

I've been surprised at how slow Canon has been to produce EF-M lenses. The current line up appears to be good quality, but personally I would like to see some more F/2.0 or larger primes.


----------



## typer1998 (Oct 4, 2019)

Anyone have an opinion of the Sigma 56mm F 1.4 vs a Canon EF 50mm F 1.4 with the EF to EF-M adaptor? The Sigma is $479 new. The Canon is $150-$250 used and $349 new so I'm leaning towards getting a used one.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 4, 2019)

wsmith96 said:


> I've been surprised at how slow Canon has been to produce EF-M lenses. The current line up appears to be good quality, but personally I would like to see some more F/2.0 or larger primes.



There's only so much they can do without increasing the diameter, which they are loath to do.


----------



## riker (Oct 4, 2019)

Can't decide if I'm happy or sad. Why ALWAYS wide angle??
After all those years, we STILL do not have a good EF-M tele. 70-200/4 for example.
In 2012 we thought we are going to have decent compact system for travel eventually. Well, still no.


----------



## mpb001 (Oct 4, 2019)

Although not Canon glass, these lenses look pretty much like an “L” type lens category. Too bad Canon is not addressing this segment. These lenses would probably pair well with a M6 II.


----------



## SouthpawSD (Oct 4, 2019)

The 16mm is interesting, even though it's right in the middle of my 22/2 and Samyang 12/2 ... so not really needed.

The 56mm is the most exciting for me. I had sworn off buying any more lenses native to the mount, but this could be a nice portrait prime for the system, depending on price/size.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 4, 2019)

SouthpawSD said:


> The 16mm is interesting, even though it's right in the middle of my 22/2 and Samyang 12/2 ... so not really needed.
> 
> The 56mm is the most exciting for me. I had sworn off buying any more lenses native to the mount, but this could be a nice portrait prime for the system, depending on price/size.



Of these three, I think I'd agree, the 56mm is most interesting.

I think I'm pretty much done buying EF-M lenses (I got three within the last week, all Canon offerings) for the moment. What I'm still missing (from the standpoint of a hypothetical someone who treats it like a coin collection and collects them all) are the two zooms and the 28mm macro. The zooms are covered by my 18-200 Tamron (unless someone has a good reason to say the Canon lenses are superior). And I personally don't have a use for a 28mm macro, but if someone put a gun to my head and ordered me to buy another Canon EF-M lens, that'd be the one I'd get.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 4, 2019)

riker said:


> Can't decide if I'm happy or sad. Why ALWAYS wide angle??
> After all those years, we STILL do not have a good EF-M tele. 70-200/4 for example.
> In 2012 we thought we are going to have decent compact system for travel eventually. Well, still no.



The EF-M 55-200 is an excellent lens.


----------



## SouthpawSD (Oct 4, 2019)

nchoh said:


> The EF-M 55-200 is an excellent lens.



Agreed. It seems you can have a bright aperture or a compact lens. The 70-200 f4 adapted is not ridiculously large, but the fe-m 55-200 is absolutely tiny comparatively. I've made quite a few trips with the 55-200 and 22mm and never really felt I compromised.


----------



## SpartanII (Oct 4, 2019)

melgross said:


> Maybe this will spur Canon to add some more of their own.



You should do stand up comedy. That’s a good one.


----------



## SpartanII (Oct 4, 2019)

wsmith96 said:


> I've been surprised at how slow Canon has been to produce EF-M lenses. The current line up appears to be good quality, but personally I would like to see some more F/2.0 or larger primes.



I got tired of waiting and bought..


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Oct 4, 2019)

I'd like to see Canon get past 200mm in the EF-M mount. Imagine a tiny little equivalent to the 100-400... I agree with the commenter who mentioned earlier that they were hoping for a nice compact travel system but it still hasn't surfaced. Canon has to date released more M series bodies (10) than EF-M lenses (8) in the seven years that the M line has been on the market. That's frustrating as hell for those of us that adopted it for its size.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 4, 2019)

wsmith96 said:


> I've been surprised at how slow Canon has been to produce EF-M lenses. The current line up appears to be good quality, but personally I would like to see some more F/2.0 or larger primes.



How many times do we have to say this... the M line is for small size, relatively low price, and the consumer market. I doubt there will be many if any wide aperture EF-M lenses, they are too niche for the intended audience. Sorry!



riker said:


> Can't decide if I'm happy or sad. Why ALWAYS wide angle??
> After all those years, we STILL do not have a good EF-M tele. 70-200/4 for example.
> In 2012 we thought we are going to have decent compact system for travel eventually. Well, still no.



Similar to the above, but also - there was never an EF-S 70-200 f/4 or anything like it. There's little to be gained by making an APS-C version, and the market is probably too small for it to be worth their while.



EverydayPhotographer said:


> I'd like to see Canon get past 200mm in the EF-M mount. Imagine a tiny little equivalent to the 100-400...



And again but even more so.


----------



## SpartanII (Oct 4, 2019)

SouthpawSD said:


> Agreed. It seems you can have a bright aperture or a compact lens. The 70-200 f4 adapted is not ridiculously large, but the fe-m 55-200 is absolutely tiny comparatively. I've made quite a few trips with the 55-200 and 22mm and never really felt I compromised.



It (70-200mm f/4L) doesn’t look too terrible mounted on a M5. Surely weight balance is a negative but nothing someone couldn’t get over with time.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Oct 4, 2019)

And yet even the most basic telephoto kit lenses in Canon's EF-S line exceed 200mm. An EF-M equivalent to the 75-300 would even be a quantum leap forward. Doesn't stop me from longing for, well, longer, of course. Hence my statement about imagining a tiny 100-400 equivalent. Doesn't make it any more likely. But still...

The M series cameras are capable of taking very good photos. I know that I'm not supposed to utter such blasphemy on the fan pages, but I ditched my old DSLR mainly because I found myself carrying my M3 a lot more often. But its an inarguable point that, in terms of lens selection, the M line is something of a bastard stepchild in Canon's lineup, as they've never really fully supported it beyond some very basic parameters.



scyrene said:


> And again but even more so.



In truth, Canon has given the entirety of the APS-C lineup the cold shoulder, and sold a bunch of cameras in spite of themselves. They've only produced 12 EF-S crop sensor-native lenses since 2003 (22 if you count multiple versions of the same lens), compared to 34 camera bodies. But they also had a good lineup of compact full-frame lenses to lean on as well. A great example would be the 75-300. I didn't realize until just now when I did some digging that they've never produced an EF-S equivalent. They were so common as the telephoto lens in twin lens kits for so long that I just expected that they were EF-S native.

I can't speak for everyone, but size certainly played into my decision to go solely with the M series. I am presently shooting mainly with an M50, which I have had GREAT success with. Most of the time, I shoot with my 16-35 f/2.8L, and try not to think too much about size. But there are times when size makes a difference for me. The EF-M lineup doesn't have a full frame infrastructure to fall back on beyond what's available in the EF lens lineup. And the size difference there is glaring. Canon COULD do more. And they haven't. Whether by laziness or (more likely) perceived lack of market, the end result is still the same.


----------



## vangelismm (Oct 4, 2019)

scyrene said:


> How many times do we have to say this... the M line is for small size, relatively low price, and the consumer market. I doubt there will be many if any wide aperture EF-M lenses, they are too niche for the intended audience. Sorry!



maybe we are tired of this blind defense of small size.
if fuji can, so does canon.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 4, 2019)

vangelismm said:


> maybe we are tired of this blind defense of small size.
> if fuji can, so does canon.



There is, after all, nothing that says they can't decide to extend things, and aim M series at more than just that bottom-level market. It's metaphysically possible--but they haven't decided to go for it. This is what I was trying to say in the other thread: It's purely a human decision that limits the potential of the M series--a decision to chase one market segment and only that segment with this line.

I'm just glad there are adapters.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 4, 2019)

SpartanII said:


> It (70-200mm f/4L) doesn’t look too terrible mounted on a M5. Surely weight balance is a negative but nothing someone couldn’t get over with time.



I did borrow a 100-400 and put it on my M50 when there was a zoo/demo day. Then found myself too close to anything to take a picture, so I swapped it for an 85mm 1.8.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 4, 2019)

typer1998 said:


> Anyone have an opinion of the Sigma 56mm F 1.4 vs a Canon EF 50mm F 1.4 with the EF to EF-M adaptor? The Sigma is $479 new. The Canon is $150-$250 used and $349 new so I'm leaning towards getting a used one.



The EF 50mm f/1.4 is a 1993 design, great for the 35mm film cameras of the day, but sorely lacking when compared to modern lens designs. I don't need to see the Sigma to say that it's probably going to be a better lens. [And I'm saying this as someone who dislikes Sigma lenses and swore never to buy another!]


----------



## flip314 (Oct 4, 2019)

vangelismm said:


> maybe we are tired of this blind defense of small size.
> if fuji can, so does canon.



Fuji is great if you want crop lenses that cost as much as FF.


----------



## SouthpawSD (Oct 4, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> The EF 50mm f/1.4 is a 1993 design, great for the 35mm film cameras of the day, but sorely lacking when compared to modern lens designs. I don't need to see the Sigma to say that it's probably going to be a better lens. [And I'm saying this as someone who dislikes Sigma lenses and swore never to buy another!]


Yea, I dumped the 1.4 for the 1.8 STM and I use it with the standard adapter and with the speedster. Much better lens.


----------



## SouthpawSD (Oct 4, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Fuji is great if you want crop lenses that cost as much as FF.


Also, their telephoto lenses for their APSC mirrorless are not at all designed with small form factor, as far as I see.


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Oct 4, 2019)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> I'd like to see Canon get past 200mm in the EF-M mount. Imagine a tiny little equivalent to the 100-400... I agree with the commenter who mentioned earlier that they were hoping for a nice compact travel system but it still hasn't surfaced. Canon has to date released more M series bodies (10) than EF-M lenses (8) in the seven years that the M line has been on the market. That's frustrating as hell for those of us that adopted it for its size.


There is a tiny equivalent to he 100-400, it’s the EF-S 55-250. 400 we at the long end, great diameter and balance on the m with the adapter, feels great to walk around with that combo all day on an M. I had the 70-300 and got rid of it when I tried the 55-250 stm with no regrets. It’s not just that the 55-250 was sharper (I’m confident the 70-200 is better still, but 55 is much better at the short end on aps-c. There’s I think some wisdom in the 70 low end on FF, and it’s missed on a smaller sensor. I’d love to see if Canon could make a 300 4.5 that could be a much lighter almost 500 equivalent on an M. 56 1.4 is highly appreciated, will get it when finances allow


----------



## BillB (Oct 4, 2019)

SouthpawSD said:


> Also, their telephoto lenses for their APSC mirrorless are not at all designed with small form factor, as far as I see.


Not sure how you design telephoto lenses for a small form factor unless you reduce the maximum aperture. Pretty much, a 70-200 f4 is a 70-200 f4, whether for FF or aps-c.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 4, 2019)

illadvisedhammer said:


> There is a tiny equivalent to he 100-400, it’s the EF-S 55-250.



It's not "equivalent" to a 100-400 used on an APSC. (If he's like me, he's used to the way an actual 400mm works on an APSC and a 250 wouldn't be remotely like that. As far as I'm concerned APSC is "normal" (because it's what I'm used to) and Full Frame has a pad factor of 1.6, so a 100-400 lens is equivalent to 160-560 on a full frame.) 

In fact an argument can be made it's not really equivalent to a 100-400 used on a full frame. crop/=more focal length, pad/=less focal length.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 4, 2019)

BillB said:


> Not sure how you design telephoto lenses for a small form factor unless you reduce the maximum aperture. Pretty much, a 70-200 f4 is a 70-200 f4, whether for FF or aps-c.



True. The one break you get is the image circle doesn't have to be as wide, so that means you don't have to jack around with it as much to make the "flat" part of the image larger. That's probably fewer and simpler elements to the lens (someone who understands optics can correct me if I'm wrong). Which (maybe?) could make the lens shorter. But there's no getting around having to have a diameter bigger than <focal length>*<f-number>; e.g., 400 mm f/4 = 400 * 1/4 = 100mm.


----------



## Woody (Oct 5, 2019)

Canon's very own EF-M 32mm f/1.4 is optically way way better and much lighter than Sigma 30mm f/1.4.


----------



## melgross (Oct 5, 2019)

SpartanII said:


> You should do stand up comedy. That’s a good one.


Yeah, well, when there’s no competition, Canon can sit back. But Canon, like Nikon, Sony and others, wants people to buy their own glass, and that’s why this could spur Canon on.


----------



## hazydave (Oct 5, 2019)

wsmith96 said:


> I've been surprised at how slow Canon has been to produce EF-M lenses. The current line up appears to be good quality, but personally I would like to see some more F/2.0 or larger primes.


Canon pretty much regards the EOS M system as consumer-only. It's a shame, they have some nice offerings in bodies, but no high end glass. Sigma does make some Art lenses designed for APS-C. That's what they should offer for the EOS M!


----------



## BillB (Oct 5, 2019)

melgross said:


> Yeah, well, when there’s no competition, Canon can sit back. But Canon, like Nikon, Sony and others, wants people to buy their own glass, and that’s why this could spur Canon on.


Canon wants to make money, and the question is whether there is any money for Canon in making more aps-c primes. Sigma can spread costs and build volume with marketing the same lens with different camera mounts, and Sigma may be willing to chase smaller volume than Canon. So, as always, we shall see what happens.


----------



## BillB (Oct 5, 2019)

hazydave said:


> Canon pretty much regards the EOS M system as consumer-only. It's a shame, they have some nice offerings in bodies, but no high end glass. Sigma does make some Art lenses designed for APS-C. That's what they should offer for the EOS M!


There is plenty of high quality EF glass, all of which can be adapted to M cameras.


----------



## strathmore9 (Oct 5, 2019)

This is really tempting me to upgrade from 77D, but I want an M body with a 90D shutter speed.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 5, 2019)

SpartanII said:


> It (70-200mm f/4L) doesn’t look too terrible mounted on a M5. Surely weight balance is a negative but nothing someone couldn’t get over with time.


That's what Sony says.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 5, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> The Canon **EF** 50mm's are all pretty bad for sharpness. I've had all but the STM, which I think is the same as the MkI 50/1.8 that I have had. Also the 50/1.8 has a 5-bladed aperture whie the 1.4 might be 6-bladed, both pretty old-fashioned.



The 1.8 STM is very sharp. This is what opticallimits/photozone writes:
"Classic 50mm primes tend to be rather soft at max. aperture setting but they get extremely sharp when stopped down to around f/4 or at least f/5.6. This is mostly true for EF 50mm f/1.8 STM as well. However, unlike its predecessor, it is actually very sharp in the image center at f/1.8. The corners/borders have a decent resolution but the contrast falls apart here. The quality increases continuously towards medium aperture settings. The center is already excellent at f/2.8 and there's also a lift in contrast in the outer image regions. The real boost occurs at f/4 with very good borders/corners. The sharpness is outstanding across the image frame at f/5.6. As usual diffraction has am impact beyond f/8 but f/11 remains perfectly usable."





Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM - Review / Test Report - Analysis


Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM - Review / Test Report




opticallimits.com




It's a great little lens - try it (and especially before writing it off),


----------



## melgross (Oct 5, 2019)

BillB said:


> Canon wants to make money, and the question is whether there is any money for Canon in making more aps-c primes. Sigma can spread costs and build volume with marketing the same lens with different camera mounts, and Sigma may be willing to chase smaller volume than Canon. So, as always, we shall see what happens.


The interesting thing is that Canon’s M Series is increasing in sales. We can’t count Nikon’s mirrorless line, or Canon’s R line, because they’re new, and so starting from zero sales, they’re growing. But for pretty much everything else for everyone else, the situation is not how popular a line is, but how unpopular it is.

i say that, because we look at every company, and see sales dropping fairly rapidly. So lines that are dropping less rapidly are called “more popular”. That means that the M Series is one of the rare, these days, lines that are actually popular. Which is why, after all these years, Sigma is making lenses for it. Fast lenses that Canon isn’t yet making. My belief is that if these lenses sell well, Canon may look at that and decide that this is something they should be doing.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 5, 2019)

melgross said:


> Fast lenses that Canon isn’t yet making. My belief is that if these lenses sell well, Canon may look at that and decide that this is something they should be doing.



Precisely this. Canon's decisions with respect to the M line are justified by many here because of "marketing" but marketers are capable of failing to see a potential (or in other instances, making catastrophically poor decisions--e.g., new Coke). If this is actually a growing-in-absolute-terms segment of the market, hopefully they will say "Oh, we expected it to do fairly well, but didn't expect it to do this well! Let's see how far we can take it."


----------



## ColinJR (Oct 5, 2019)

One of the major reasons I bought a Fuji camera (to accompany my canon) was because I got fed up with canon‘s lack of interest in making really good lenses for APS-C. Maybe these sigma lenses will inspire canon to step up and bring some L glass to the crop line. It would make much more sense for me to use a canon M camera as my small and light/travel/street photography kit than use a completely different system. I hate not being able to use my tilt-shift when I’m out with the Fuji, for example.


----------



## LensFungus (Oct 5, 2019)

ColinJR said:


> Maybe these sigma lenses will inspire canon to step up and bring some L glass to the crop line.


Meanwhile here is me waiting for Canon to bring some L glass to APS-C...


----------



## AlanF (Oct 5, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> .. 3) generally, it's 30lp/mm contrast line is above the EF 50's 10lp/mm line, meaning 3x the linear resolution, or actually 10x more area resolution...



Lensrentals has measured the MTF of the EF 50/1.8 STM to be 0.92 at 10lp/mm and 0.68 at 30lp/mm in the central regions. For the RF 50/1.2 to have 3x higher linear resolution, it would have to have values of MTF of 2.7 at 10lp/mm and 2 at 30lp/mm. As the maximum value of an MTF is 1.0, your statement that the RF has 3x higher resolution does seem somewhat puzzling.

Let me give a theoretical example of the comparison you made. Suppose you have two absolutely outstanding lenses. One has an MTF of 0.99 at 10lp/mm and 0.98 at 30lp/mm, and the other 0.979 and 0.96, respectively. The first is only marginally better than the second despite its MTF at 30lp/mm being better than the other at 10lp/mm. There is not a difference of a factor of 3 in their resolution, both are getting close to perfection.
So what is the difference? Crudely speaking, the first lens resolves 9.9 lp/mm at the 10 lp/mm level, and 29.4 lp/mm at the 30 lp/mm level. The second lens resolves 9.79 lp/mm at the at 10 lp/mm level, and 28.8 lp/mm at the 30 lp/mm level. That is, tiny differences.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 5, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> The Canon **EF** 50mm's are all pretty bad for sharpness. I've had all but the STM, which I think is the same as the MkI 50/1.8 that I have had. Also the 50/1.8 has a 5-bladed aperture whie the 1.4 might be 6-bladed, both pretty old-fashioned.



To be pedantic, the 1.4 has eight aperture blades, like most Canon's 90s and 00s midrange and L lenses. The 1.8 STM has seven, and the newest L lenses almost all have nine, many-pointed sunstars being in fashion these days. Even the latest 18–55mm kit lenses have seven blades.



LensFungus said:


> Meanwhile here is me waiting for Canon to bring some L glass to APS-C...



Yeah, that's not going to happen.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 6, 2019)

I got the 50mm f/1.4 to use as a “portrait“ lens for my T3i. It was great for that.

When I first got the 6D2, I used the 100mm macro for that purpose. I found it not very pleasing. (It is a wonderful lens for other purposes, obviously especially macros.) So when Canon had a refurb sale, I bought the 85mm f/1.8. If I were still shooting crop cameras, I‘d still use the 50.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Oct 6, 2019)

I think it's great that are more options for Canon M cameras, but just to be accurate, and don't shoot the messenger, these are old lenses that Sigma just decided to slap an M-mount and electronics on. 

The title of ALL these blog articles should be 

"Sigma adapts their existing F1.4 Contemporary line of Sony and Four Thirds mount lenses to Canon"

Two Of the 3 lenses were introduced YEARS ago. Sigma just recently decided well I'll guess we'll just tap into the M market. Here's the 2016 release of the lens 3 years ago, the exact same lens "released" recently:









Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC DN Contemporary for Sony E-mount lens review


The Sigma 30mm F1.4 DN DC Contemporary was announced in February 2016, and sits atop Sigma's line of DN mirrorless lenses. It's currently the only APS-C F1.4 autofocus lens available for Sony E-mount and has an MSRP of $339. Can it best the Sony 35mm F1.8 OSS? Read more




www.dpreview.com





Google the 16mm and you'll see it's old too.

Sigma did nothing but take their old existing line of Sony and Four Thirds lenses and put on the Canon mounts and electronics and announce it like it's something amazing. 

Don't get me wrong. I think that's great. If these lenses are useful for Canon shooters, awesome. But Sigma DID NOT create or cater to Canon M-series. You know how they're old lenses? You can take the 2016 version of the Sony and have them put on the Canon mount. And it's the same exact lens that you would buy today in Canon M. That's great. I love the idea of switching brands and having a lens manufacturer take your old lenses and switch mounts.

The point? Sigma did not create new lenses for the Canon M system because they thought there was a market. They just took their years' old lenses and put a Canon mount on it because they figured hey, cool the M series is doing well, might as well put in the SMALL INCREMENTAL DOLLARS to put a Canon mount on our existing old lenses.

I'm only writing because I don't want anyone to see the Sigma post and think that 3rd party manufacturers are designing lenses JUST for the Canon m-mount. To my knowledge, no 3rd party one has created a lens just for Canon M.

I can't be clearer though... I think it's GREAT that these lenses are available to those who want them. I just don't want anyone thinking this is indicative of where the market is going.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 6, 2019)

vangelismm said:


> maybe we are tired of this blind defense of small size.
> if fuji can, so does canon.



Blind defence? By me or by them? I'm just telling you how it is. Sure we can imagine things being different, but not all our dreams come true. If you want wide aperture, adapt older lenses, buy a different brand, or move up to full frame. Not every system can offer everything you want.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 6, 2019)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> And yet even the most basic telephoto kit lenses in Canon's EF-S line exceed 200mm. An EF-M equivalent to the 75-300 would even be a quantum leap forward. Doesn't stop me from longing for, well, longer, of course. Hence my statement about imagining a tiny 100-400 equivalent. Doesn't make it any more likely. But still...



No 100-400 lens for APS-C is ever going to be 'tiny' no matter how much you stretch that word. Sorry.



EverydayPhotographer said:


> In truth, Canon has given the entirety of the APS-C lineup the cold shoulder, and sold a bunch of cameras in spite of themselves. [...] Canon COULD do more. And they haven't. Whether by laziness or (more likely) perceived lack of market, the end result is still the same.



I look at it like this: they have found a position where they sell a lot of this type of camera. Adding the extras you and some others desire wouldn't push up sales enough (in their view) to justify the extra effort. It's not laziness or malice, it's just good business.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 6, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> For the RF 50/1.2 to have 3x higher linear resolution, it would need to be 0.92 at 10*3lp/mm = 30lp/mm. It does, or thereabouts.
> 
> You're tripling the contrast ratio for a given resolution and of course getting nonsense results. Instead you should be tripling the resolution for a given contrast ratio.
> 
> ...


I do understand your point 100% - it is completely wrong, and it's not academic. And it's nothing to do with my choice of lenses in the second example that are theoretically very good - they were chosen as another example to show the mathematical flaw of your analysis. I had pointed out first that, using the actual measured numbers for the MTFs for the 50/1.8 STM, for the RF 50/1.2 to be of 3x higher resolution it would have to have impossibly high MTFs of much greater than the theoretical maximum of 1.0. The RF 50/1.2 might be a much better lens, but there is absolutely no way it has 3x the linear resolution at 10-30 lp/mm.


----------



## BillB (Oct 6, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> The EF 50mm f/1.4 is a 1993 design, great for the 35mm film cameras of the day, but sorely lacking when compared to modern lens designs. I don't need to see the Sigma to say that it's probably going to be a better lens. [And I'm saying this as someone who dislikes Sigma lenses and swore never to buy another!]


The Canon 50mm f1.4 is pretty sharp stopped down to f2.8. So, if you can be happy with a 50mm f2.8, the Canon is worth thinking about.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 6, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> If so, why were you multiplying contrast by three, not resolution, when you wrote
> There's no mathematical flaw. The first lens in your example really WOULD have (slightly) higher contrast at 3x the resolution, given an ideal sensor.
> I'm really puzzled: you actually made a good example, but again you're totally misunderstanding how math works, even though I've corrected you already on this. Until you say that you now understand why this "triple the contrast number" is not how to do this, I can't spend any more time talking to you.


Don't waste any more time talking to me if you don't wish to. However, you might look at measurements of the acutance of the RF 50/1.2 on the R compared with the EF 50/1.8 on the 5DIV that has the same sensor and see if you can spot the 3-fold difference. I am not saying that acutance = resolution, but DxO does calculate it from the MTFs.









Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM on Canon EOS R vs Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM on Canon EOS 5D Mark IV







www.dxomark.com


----------



## SteveC (Oct 6, 2019)

scyrene said:


> No 100-400 lens for APS-C is ever going to be 'tiny' no matter how much you stretch that word. Sorry.



But would it be significantly smaller than it would be for full frame? And, hypothetically: if you went down half a stop or even a full stop in aperture over the full frame, would it become smaller still, enough to justify the loss of aperture? (I wonder how fast they can "back of the envelope" questions like that, internally?) Maybe you could get something small by comparison with that 100-400L, even if it's not 'tiny.'

Those are technical questions, to be sure, and no such lens would ever come to fruition if Canon doesn't perceive a significant market for it, even if the lenses are significantly smaller. So long as the M series is thought of as entry level/must be tiny, the answer will be no.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 6, 2019)

LensFungus said:


> Meanwhile here is me waiting for Canon to bring some L glass to APS-C...
> 
> View attachment 186966



Canon always stated that the L designation is for full frame lenses only. Except some cine lenses and the compacts with fixed lenses.
So i don't we will ever see an L lens which is not full frame. But i don't care about L as long as they produce some quality lenses like the 32mm 1.4.
That lens is basically L quality, except for build quality which is ok. 

But it's annoying that while every other system has at least one higher quality standard zoom, Canon only got the mediocre all-plastic and 
dark 15-45 and the all-plastic 18-150.
Annoying that you have a 32MP amazing sensor and $1000 M6II and you can only pair it with cheapo plastic lenses with F6.3 aperture.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 6, 2019)

SteveC said:


> But would it be significantly smaller than it would be for full frame? And, hypothetically: if you went down half a stop or even a full stop in aperture over the full frame, would it become smaller still, enough to justify the loss of aperture? (I wonder how fast they can "back of the envelope" questions like that, internally?) Maybe you could get something small by comparison with that 100-400L, even if it's not 'tiny.'
> 
> Those are technical questions, to be sure, and no such lens would ever come to fruition if Canon doesn't perceive a significant market for it, even if the lenses are significantly smaller. So long as the M series is thought of as entry level/must be tiny, the answer will be no.



At 400mm the size of the lens is 95% defined by the aperture and not the sensor size. A 400mm 5.6 lens needs a 71mm diameter front element, no matter the sensor size. And all other lens element need to be sized accordingly. 
Smaller aperture, like 6.3 and less corrections would make a lens smaller but dropping 1 stop would be too much. Don't think anyone wants a 400mm F8 lens.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 6, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> At 400mm the size of the lens is 95% defined by the aperture and not the sensor size. A 400mm 5.6 lens needs a 71mm diameter front element, no matter the sensor size. And all other lens element need to be sized accordingly.
> Smaller aperture, like 6.3 and less corrections would make a lens smaller but dropping 1 stop would be too much. Don't think anyone wants a 400mm F8 lens.



I realized the aperture would impose that sort of constraint. I was more uncertain about the length. If the length could be reduced significantly, that might be worthwhile, at least to some people (maybe not enough).


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 6, 2019)

SteveC said:


> I realized the aperture would impose that sort of constraint. I was more uncertain about the length. If the length could be reduced significantly, that might be worthwhile, at least to some people (maybe not enough).



Maybe with an extendable design or DO elements, which i doubt Canon will use for M mount lenses. Or lenses can be made smaller by decreasing the quality a bit. 
My problem with Canon and M mount is that they seems to think no-one is interested in higher quality lenses, so they keep producing consumer grade zooms only. They want users to buy into RF mount if they want better lenses. But i like the M and if i want to buy a camera with same specs as the M6 (32MP, 4K with DPAF, mic input, etc)i need to spend 3 times as much and have a 3 times bigger and heavier setup.

Rant over


----------



## SteveC (Oct 6, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Maybe with an extendable design or DO elements, which i doubt Canon will use for M mount lenses. Or lenses can be made smaller by decreasing the quality a bit.
> My problem with Canon and M mount is that they seems to think no-one is interested in higher quality lenses, so they keep producing consumer grade zooms only. They want users to buy into RF mount if they want better lenses. But i like the M and if i want to buy a camera with same specs as the M6 (32MP, 4K with DPAF, mic input, etc)i need to spend 3 times as much and have a 3 times bigger and heavier setup.
> 
> Rant over



My rant point precisely.


----------



## mpb001 (Oct 6, 2019)

I think these Sigma prime lenses along with the two Canon M series primes will be needed to get the best results from the new Canon 32 MP APSC sensor. I hope Canon will come out with a least a couple of faster M zooms such as a f2.8. Otherwise, I don’t see the point of putting this sensor in Canon M series APSC camera bodies.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 7, 2019)

mpb001 said:


> I think these Sigma prime lenses along with the two Canon M series primes will be needed to get the best results from the new Canon 32 MP APSC sensor. I hope Canon will come out with a least a couple of faster M zooms such as a f2.8. Otherwise, I don’t see the point of putting this sensor in Canon M series APSC camera bodies.




Looks like they did put a bit more effort into the M6 (i did not expect that new sensor or uncropped 4K) and the 32mm lens. This gives me hope that a few better lenses will come eventually.


----------



## riker (Oct 7, 2019)

SpartanII said:


> It (70-200mm f/4L) doesn’t look too terrible mounted on a M5. Surely weight balance is a negative but nothing someone couldn’t get over with time.



I don't get this. Why would we need to get over with it and not have an EF-M version which is 25% smaller and lighter, after some 10 years and several generations of EF-M bodies???


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 7, 2019)

riker said:


> I don't get this. Why would we need to get over with it and not have an EF-M version which is 25% smaller and lighter, after some 10 years and several generations of EF-M bodies???




The EF-M 55-200 is great for weight at only 260g, while the 70-200 IS is 760g, quite heavy for M bodies, close to 1kg with the adapter. What i would like is a bit better lens optically and in build quality for maybe 100-150g more.

So a 55-200 with better IQ, maybe F 5.6, metal mount and weathersealing would be great.


----------



## riker (Oct 7, 2019)

scyrene said:


> How many times do we have to say this... the M line is for small size, relatively low price, and the consumer market. I doubt there will be many if any wide aperture EF-M lenses, they are too niche for the intended audience. Sorry!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, strongly disagree. EF-M bodies are capable of professional grade quality, they are awesome tools in good hands. They are capable of producing IQ of FF bodies 5-6 years ago. It is simply a profit decision, with better lenses, the EF-M line would even bite into FF sales. Same reason why there has never been pro EF-S lenses. Imagine what the 7D series would have done to FF. 10-20% drop?
Comparing the 55-200 to the 70-200 is a joke.


----------



## riker (Oct 7, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The EF-M 55-200 is great for weight at only 260g, while the 70-200 IS is 760g, quite heavy for M bodies, close to 1kg with the adapter. What i would like is a bit better lens optically and in build quality for maybe 100-150g more.
> 
> So a 55-200 with better IQ, maybe F 5.6, metal mount and weathersealing would be great.



You just replied you own lines. The 55-200 is nowhere near the 70-200 in regards of quality and performance (IQ, AF speed, AF accuracy, IS, etc.) I'm not a pro lens designer but I imagine an EF-M 70-200/4 could be done with ~600g. 5.6 at 200mm is just not enough especially on an APS-C sensor. Maybe a 70-200/3.5-4.5 or 70-300/4-5.6?


----------



## uri.raz (Oct 7, 2019)

riker said:


> I don't get this. Why would we need to get over with it and not have an EF-M version which is 25% smaller and lighter, after some 10 years and several generations of EF-M bodies???



Why do you think an EF-M 70-200mm f/4 would be 25% smaller and lighter? The EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3's filter diameter is 52mm. Making it a stop+ faster should increase the front element's size to around where the EF 70-200mm f/4L lenses are (67-72mm), and there goes the size & weight saving.


----------



## john kriegsmann (Oct 7, 2019)

cerealito said:


> Good news!


I agree. Hope those lenses are small enough to fit the form factor of the M series bodies. Still a big disappointment that Canon has not added any new native lenses for the M series bodies since the 50mm. . The new M6mk 2 has the guts of the new Canon 90 D yet comes equipped with the cheap, slow, plastic kit lens with a f 6.3 aperture. Canon is cranking out new lenses for their R series it seems almost on a monthly basis. The M series appears to be an afterthought for Canon.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 7, 2019)

f/6.3 is beginning to lose high resolution with the 32 Mpx sensor. It's the upper limit with which I will work with the 90D if I want good resolution as I can see the slight loss of resolution on going from f/4 to 5.6 and significantly so f/8. The resolution is still, of course, better than with a lower density sensor but to get the best from these high density sensors, you really need sharp lenses of f/4 or f/2.8 or better.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 7, 2019)

riker said:


> Sorry, strongly disagree. EF-M bodies are capable of professional grade quality, they are awesome tools in good hands. They are capable of producing IQ of FF bodies 5-6 years ago. It is simply a profit decision, with better lenses, the EF-M line would even bite into FF sales. Same reason why there has never been pro EF-S lenses. Imagine what the 7D series would have done to FF. 10-20% drop?



I didn't say they weren't. "Simply a profit decision" - whereas most business decisions are driven by something else??  I don't think Canon cares whether you buy APS-C or FF (or compact cameras etc), so long as you buy their products - preferably the ones with the highest margin, but we don't know which those are. They will doubtless look at the sales figure breakdowns and research questionnaires, and determine which products to put out on that basis. I doubt very much there is an attitude that, as you imply, FF is sacrosanct and must be protected. Ditto the cinema line, another thing people repeat here.


----------



## BillB (Oct 7, 2019)

john kriegsmann said:


> I agree. Hope those lenses are small enough to fit the form factor of the M series bodies. Still a big disappointment that Canon has not added any new native lenses for the M series bodies since the 50mm. . The new M6mk 2 has the guts of the new Canon 90 D yet comes equipped with the cheap, slow, plastic kit lens with a f 6.3 aperture. Canon is cranking out new lenses for their R series it seems almost on a monthly basis. The M series appears to be an afterthought for Canon.


The Sigma lenses are existing models reworked for the EF-M mount, so it is easy enough to check their size. Sigma's rollout of these lenses would seem to cut both ways as far as the likelihood of Canon bringing out new lenses is concerned. On the one hand , the new Sigma lenses may encourage Canon to follow suit if they sell well. On the other, if they sell well, Canon may decide that it isn't worth the investment to compete with Sigma in the EF-M prime market beyond what the are doing now. With the 22mm and the 32mm EF-M, Canon already covers two key focal lengths for primes.


----------



## riker (Oct 7, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Why do you think an EF-M 70-200mm f/4 would be 25% smaller and lighter? The EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3's filter diameter is 52mm. Making it a stop+ faster should increase the front element's size to around where the EF 70-200mm f/4L lenses are (67-72mm), and there goes the size & weight saving.



Seriously? You think a lens that needs to create an image for a large FF sensor and a lens that only needs to produce it to a considerably smaller sensor are the same size? Why do you think there's an EF-S 24/2.8 pancake but no EF? Or why is the EF-M 11-22 so much smaller than anything comparable?


----------



## uri.raz (Oct 7, 2019)

BillB said:


> Sigma's rollout of these lenses would seem to cut both ways as far as the likelihood of Canon bringing out new lenses is concerned. On the one hand , the new Sigma lenses may encourage Canon to follow suit if they sell well.



I wouldn't bet money on that.

Sigma released a 20mm f/1.4 lens for Canon EF. Canon didn't follow suit.

The big brand lens manufacturers (Sigma, Nikon, Zeiss, etc) released an uber 5Xmm f/1.4 lens. Canon hasn't followed suit.

Sigma is making a 12-24mm lens since '03. IIRC, Sigma got to upgrade the lens once before Canon released the EF 11-24mm f/4L over a decade later, and then upgraded it again shortly after.


----------



## uri.raz (Oct 7, 2019)

riker said:


> Seriously? You think a lens that needs to create an image for a large FF sensor and a lens that only needs to produce it to a considerably smaller sensor are the same size?



AFAIK, above a certain focal length & aperture size, yes. I'm sure there are other members on the forum who can explain this better than me.



riker said:


> Why do you think there's an EF-S 24/2.8 pancake but no EF? Or why is the EF-M 11-22 so much smaller than anything comparable?



Because for short focal lengths and slow apertures its easy to make smaller lenses for smaller sensors, while for telephotos it isn't.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 7, 2019)

riker said:


> Seriously? You think a lens that needs to create an image for a large FF sensor and a lens that only needs to produce it to a considerably smaller sensor are the same size? Why do you think there's an EF-S 24/2.8 pancake but no EF? Or why is the EF-M 11-22 so much smaller than anything comparable?



A 70–200mm _f/_4 lens _must_ have an entrance pupil 200mm/4=50mm in diameter by the very definition. Telephoto and wideangle optics have different engineering constraints.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Oct 7, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> A 70–200mm _f/_4 lens _must_ have an entrance pupil 200mm/4=50mm in diameter by the very definition.



But with modern optics and a telescoping lens design, it doesn't need to be as long. And that's got a tangible value to it for a traveling photographer. A consumer-grade 100-400 style lens with a variable aperture to f/7.1 - while slow - would be plenty usable on sunny days for bird watching, etc., and would only require a front opening smaller than 58mm; bump that down to f/6.7 and you're still smaller than a 62mm front opening. A comparison between existing similar models, namely the EF-S 55-250 vs the EF-M 55-200, shows that with a few compromises (the EF-M lens is slower and has 50mm less range), the physical size of the lens can be decreased dramatically.

The question isn't whether or not it's possible. Only whether or not there's enough of a market for it that Canon could recoup the costs of engineering, tooling, and production, and whether or not something else in their lens lineup could take the place of that particular lens. To this point, Canon hasn't seemed to be in a hurry to build anything beyond the 200-250mm range for APS-C sensors anywhere in its line. This makes more sense for EF-S lenses, which have a size and form factor similar to their full-frame counterparts. For the EF-M line, where you'd think size makes a difference, the disparity in size between the EF-M 55-200 and the next steps up in focal length is much more damning.

Frankly, at this point, I am little bit confused as to what the advantages of APS-C are other than to exploit the sensor crop to get a little more "oomph" out of a telephoto lens - most all of which are built for full-frame anyhow. Especially with a smaller M-series body like my M50 - which is a great camera, don't get me wrong, and I am very happy with the results I've gotten. But the size advantage of lens engineering goes mainly into trying to negate the natural weakness of APS-C on the wide angle side of the focal length spectrum. And if I try to position myself with decent quality lenses that I can use on both full frame and APS-C cameras (as with my EF 16-35 f/2.8), I've negated any and all size advantage gained with the M series body.

These are interesting times in the photography world, that's for sure.


----------



## vangelismm (Oct 7, 2019)

EF-m 22mm f/2 was released in 2012 when Canon broke the sacred rule about EF-m being only about slow lens......
And they did it again with 32mm 1.4.

But we should stick with the sacred rule of slow lens and never desire another fast prime or f/4 zoom lens.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 7, 2019)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> But with modern optics and a telescoping lens design, it doesn't need to be as long. And that's got a tangible value to it for a traveling photographer. A consumer-grade 100-400 style lens with a variable aperture to f/7.1 - while slow - would be plenty usable on sunny days for bird watching, etc., and would only require a front opening smaller than 58mm; bump that down to f/6.7 and you're still smaller than a 62mm front opening. A comparison between existing similar models, namely the EF-S 55-250 vs the EF-M 55-200, shows that with a few compromises (the EF-M lens is slower and has 50mm less range), the physical size of the lens can be decreased dramatically.
> 
> The question isn't whether or not it's possible. Only whether or not there's enough of a market for it that Canon could recoup the costs of engineering, tooling, and production, and whether or not something else in their lens lineup could take the place of that particular lens. To this point, Canon hasn't seemed to be in a hurry to build anything beyond the 200-250mm range for APS-C sensors anywhere in its line. This makes more sense for EF-S lenses, which have a size and form factor similar to their full-frame counterparts. For the EF-M line, where you'd think size makes a difference, the disparity in size between the EF-M 55-200 and the next steps up in focal length is much more damning.
> 
> ...


A 100-400mm with a maximum f/7.1 would be a waste of time and money, being well into the diffraction limited region for resolution for a 32 Mpx sensor and slow shutter speed and poorer AF. The big advantage for APS-C for those of us limited by "reach" is that we get a very high density sensor that we have to crop less than FF with a 1/4 of the number of pixels, which allows for higher frame rates and less demands on storage.


----------



## andrei1989 (Oct 8, 2019)

riker said:


> Seriously? You think a lens that needs to create an image for a large FF sensor and a lens that only needs to produce it to a considerably smaller sensor are the same size? Why do you think there's an EF-S 24/2.8 pancake but no EF? Or why is the EF-M 11-22 so much smaller than anything comparable?



you are comparing apples to oranges
wide angle lenses benefit from shorter flange distances and smaller sensors
telephoto lenses are only (mostly) constrained by aperture: the best example for this is for you to look at the fuji 100-400, a lens for mirrorless aps-c, the sony 100-400 for mirrorless FF and the canon ef 100-400, a lens for FF dslr. check the dimensions and tell us how much fuji benefits from the shorter flange and smaller sensor

the ef-s 24mm back element goes a very long way inside the camera, unlike the 40 mm pancake with which it shares the body


----------



## scyrene (Oct 8, 2019)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> Frankly, at this point, I am little bit confused as to what the advantages of APS-C are



The main, unarguable advantage is, as it always was - lower price.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 8, 2019)

AlanF said:


> A 100-400mm with a maximum f/7.1 would be a waste of time and money, being well into the diffraction limited region for resolution for a 32 Mpx sensor and slow shutter speed and poorer AF.



It depends. I mean, no such lens is ever going to appear, and it would make no market sense to do so. But superzoom fixed lens cameras go well past the diffraction limit of their sensors and still sell - I guess to people who don't know or care about such things, and for whom the maximum 'reach' is all that matters.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 8, 2019)

scyrene said:


> It depends. I mean, no such lens is ever going to appear, and it would make no market sense to do so. But superzoom fixed lens cameras go well past the diffraction limit of their sensors and still sell - I guess to people who don't know or care about such things, and for whom the maximum 'reach' is all that matters.


You are absolutely right about some superzoom cameras. One of the worst is the Nikon Coolpix 1000. The Sony RX10 III and IV are honest in that at the maximum FF equivalent of 600mm the aperture drops to f/4, which matches the DLA for the size of pixels.


----------



## koketso (Oct 11, 2019)

melgross said:


> Maybe this will spur Canon to add some more of their own.


There is an answer to this.

All of Canon's M glass has the same lens diameter. Basically, Canon has decided that their first-party lenses will be the same width and they left the rest up to Sigma, Tamron, and Samyang. Its not a solid plan as Sigma is only commiting now, and Tamron + Samyang (Rokinon) have only made one lens each.

But I believe Sigma is only coming to the party now because their Contemporary lenses were actually out-resolving Canon's M 18mp and 24mp cameras up until the new sensor in the 90D and M6MkII came out. There could be no other explanation.


----------



## OneSnark (Oct 12, 2019)

I have, perhaps, a dumb question.

While I am enthused about sigma producing decent fast primes for the EF-M line. . . .why is NOBODY producing F4 (or heaven forbid F2.8) zooms?
I know I could use EF glass on adapters; but frankly if I was wanted to go the adapter route; I would simply by a full frame RP body.

I would have thought there would have been a natural market for such F4 EF-M lenses.
I know of ONE guy who would pony up.


----------



## andrei1989 (Oct 12, 2019)

OneSnark said:


> I know of ONE guy who would pony up.



one guy is not a market

canon keeps constant aperture zooms for their full frame cameras. there was only one exception, the 17-55 2.8
i would like to see some semi pro zooms for the M line too, but i won't hold my breath


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 6, 2019)

So I'm circling back to this older thread since I just received a rental Sigma 16mm F1.4 today to try on my M6 (along with an RF 35mm F1.8 IS for an RP).

First impressions, it's definitely a quality lens. To cut right to one of the ongoing discussions about lens barrel diameter, I see no particular disadvantage to the wider diameter of this lens compared to the smaller (and identical) diameter of all the current EF-M lenses. If Canon produced wider diameter lenses for EF-M, I'd be fine with that.

That said, while this lens balances "fine" on my M6, it is definitely longer and heavier than I expected. Ergonomically, it doesn't feel quite as part of the camera as the EF-M lenses that I own do (22mm, 32mm, 15-45, and 55-200). Though it obviously wasn't designed specifically for Canon, but rather for Sony and Micro Four Thirds.

I did some indoor and outdoor side-by-side image quality tests with the 15-45mm set at 16mm, and both lenses set at F5.6 (I just picked a generally middle-ground aperture). Maybe the Sigma was a little sharper than the 15-45, but I'd have to really pixel peep at full-size to see it. That was just a preliminary couple of test scenarios, though, around the house, some flowers outdoors, etc. We'll see how it goes for the rest of my time with it.

If you need fast shutter speeds for moving subjects, then I can certainly see the appeal of this lens over the slower 15-45. For non-moving subjects, the image stabilization in the 15-45mm may more than make up the difference for the narrower aperture.

All four of my other EF-M lenses, including the 55-200mm, I would consider "walk around" lenses, meaning I'm happy to hike all day with them. I'm not sure I'd be happy walking around all day with this lens, given its weight and extra bulk. I'll give it a try and see how it feels. For me, being able to walk around all day with an M-series camera is a large part of the appeal. For those that don't prioritize that, the advantage of the faster shutter speeds may make this lens a worthwhile investment. I have it for ten days so we'll see how it goes.

Incidentally, I tried the RF 35mm F1.8 IS on my RP and that lens is *spectacular*. Wow. I've only had that rental one day but I'm definitely buying a new one. The F1.8 aperture combined with the image stabilization is incredible, and the lens is ridiculously sharp.

Photos of the Sigma on my M6:





Compared to the 55-200 (slight distortion in the photo from my cell phone camera):


----------



## SteveC (Dec 7, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> So I'm circling back to this older thread since I just received a rental Sigma 16mm F1.4 today to try on my M6 (along with an RF 35mm F1.8 IS for an RP).
> 
> First impressions, it's definitely a quality lens. To cut right to one of the ongoing discussions about lens barrel diameter, I see no particular disadvantage to the wider diameter of this lens compared to the smaller (and identical) diameter of all the current EF-M lenses. If Canon produced wider diameter lenses for EF-M, I'd be fine with that.
> 
> ...



That doesn't seem that bad.

I have the Tamron 18-200 made for the M mount, and it too is a bit wider, perhaps more so than this is (it takes a 62mm filter). It certainly doesn't feel like a boat anchor.

Canon *could* bend a little on their diameter fetish, I think, without sacrificing portability (and even if it is sacrificed...it doesn't make the lenses already out there less portable).


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 7, 2019)

SteveC said:


> That doesn't seem that bad.
> 
> I have the Tamron 18-200 made for the M mount, and it too is a bit wider, perhaps more so than this is (it takes a 62mm filter). It certainly doesn't feel like a boat anchor.
> 
> Canon *could* bend a little on their diameter fetish, I think, without sacrificing portability (and even if it is sacrificed...it doesn't make the lenses already out there less portable).



Agreed. I do like the lens a lot. If I had a need for faster shutter speeds at that focal length, I would definitely be happy snapping one up, knowing that it just wouldn't necessarily be for carting all over town.

I also agree that the more lens options the better. Just because a particular lens may not be the perfect fit for one person, doesn't make it that way for everyone else. Maybe for someone else it's their go-to lens!


----------

