# Pick 2: Your next most desired EF-M lenses



## andrewflo (Aug 1, 2015)

If EOS-M users theoretically got to choose exactly 2 lenses to add to the native EF-M lineup, which ones would make the cut?


----------



## Tinky (Aug 1, 2015)

A canon response to the samyang 12mm f2.0... perhaps not: we already have that, maybe a pancake short tele... see Pentax's 75mm for inspiration..

I personally don't see the point of dedicated telezooms etc, just adapt the fine ef-s or ef lenses that already exist, the size advantage is lost anyway, i wuld rather see canon concentrate on lenses that play to the unique strengths of the m system if they are going to make dedicated lenses.

Do folks who have a 5d3 and an m3 really want to be bothered buying 2x 50s or 2x 85s? 

Gateway to the EOS system is the m's unique strength no. 1 (or if you just want mirrorless, the latest gf's or alphas are better)

Compact form is the whole point of sacrificing the mirror and viewfinder, so why buy lenses like telezooms that can never be truely compact?

Just an opinion.


----------



## NorbR (Aug 1, 2015)

I picked 50mm and 85mm. 

The system needs primes. Small, fast primes. It has the zooms it needs, mostly pretty good albeit slow zooms. f/2.8 zooms don't really belong to the M system, at least not as a priority. Big lenses on small cameras don't make much sense. 

If I had 3 choices I'd have picked a macro as well. I don't do much of it so it didn't make the cut for me, but it would certainly be a nice addition to the system.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2015)

NorbR said:


> I picked 50mm and 85mm.
> The system needs primes.



+1

Compact short tele primes would be a very welcome addition.


----------



## quod (Aug 2, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Compact short tele primes would be a very welcome addition.


Anything would be an addition, right Neuro? It's a system, right?


----------



## dppaskewitz (Aug 2, 2015)

Something like a 30 to 32mm fast pancake. (I'm trying for a 50mm equivalent, if I did the math right)? The point being to having a "normal" range walk around lens that would take advantage of the diminutive system. The 22mm is the right size, but too wide for my taste. The 18-55 is ok, but no longer really compact (not pocketable). I love using my 70-200 F4 L with the M(3), but don't see the point in having a native (M) lens with that range (or the equivalent range, for that matter).


----------



## bainsybike (Aug 2, 2015)

dppaskewitz said:


> Something like a 30 to 32mm fast pancake. (I'm trying for a 50mm equivalent, if I did the math right)? The point being to having a "normal" range walk around lens that would take advantage of the diminutive system.



+1. 28mm would be nice.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 2, 2015)

28mm is roughly a standard lens on aps-c, equivalent to mid forties, the diagonal of 135 film.


----------



## bainsybike (Aug 2, 2015)

Tinky said:


> 28mm is roughly a standard lens on aps-c, equivalent to mid forties, the diagonal of 135 film.



Exactly.


----------



## bf (Aug 3, 2015)

I would love to have a 70-200 f2.8 IF it's small and cheap as M system! I know it's impossible. For that lens, a FF body makes more sense.

Fisheye and ultra wide ... Samyang has already offered it.

I would like to have an affordable compact 50ish lens of around f2. Besides, a longer macro like 100f2.8.


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 4, 2015)

Ill take a 35 1.8 IS STM please.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 4, 2015)

I want and nearly got this week a 500mm f4 mk1, I'd only use it now and then but at 4k I am struggling to justify it, however I could happily own it for what it is and I am sure I'd get most of my money back IF I needed the cash, please don't talk me into it... what a fine lump of glass it is..


----------



## Tinky (Aug 4, 2015)

I think it might be a little front heavy on the M. Certainly not pocketable any more.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 4, 2015)

Ah my bad! Smartphones! Note to self, read the thread title!


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 4, 2015)

frankly i see primes as being idiotic. if i want a small package the last thing I want to be doing is swapping between two or three primes with a mirrorless camera that exposes the sensor to dust, dirt,etc every time i swap a lens.

it certainly needs a 18-135 somewhat collapsible zoom, a macro and really some better ranging zooms such as a 18-200 but small (even if it has to go to 6.3).


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 4, 2015)

With the cheapo 40mm & 50mm EF lenses, I'm not convinced there's a rush for midrange primes - I'd suggest two things would suit the EOS-M system, a pancake zoom of about 20-40mm range without IS and similar size to the 22mm prime, the second being a better zoom with IS covering something like 15-85 would be excellent.

I don't see a range of 2.8 zooms or dedicated fast primes until the EOS-M range has matured to three cameras - a cheapo plastic job at 2/3rds the price of the current M3, a continued mid-range development of the M3 and a higher end semi-pro style unit at a decent premium over the M3 - only then do I see a 2.8 version of the 18-55mm and 55-150mm ranges, plus dedicated fast primes such as a 10mm (16mm), 32mm (50mm), 55mm (85mm) etc mini primes that offer a real alternative to Fuji


----------



## melbournite (Aug 4, 2015)

Fast, wide prime WITH IS. If the 22mm had IS I'd be a happy choppy.

Edit: ...for video


----------



## Bernard (Aug 5, 2015)

Same here, a wider prime for video. Something in the 17 to 19 range.

The M is my "walking around" camera, and I often use it for short videos. Having a wider lens then the 22 (while still smaller than the zooms) would be great for hand-held shots.

Other than that, the system needs a better 18-55. Mine isn't tack sharp when compared to the 22 and to adapted full-frame primes. Has anyone else noticed this, or do I have a dud? It's good enough for snapshots, but not for real prints.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 5, 2015)

NorbR said:


> I picked 50mm and 85mm.
> 
> The system needs primes. Small, fast primes. It has the zooms it needs, mostly pretty good albeit slow zooms. f/2.8 zooms don't really belong to the M system, at least not as a priority. Big lenses on small cameras don't make much sense.
> 
> If I had 3 choices I'd have picked a macro as well. I don't do much of it so it didn't make the cut for me, but it would certainly be a nice addition to the system.



My choices as well. Fast, compact primes for a compact kit. 

As far as macro, I've used the EF-S 60mm and it has worked well.


----------



## melbournite (Aug 5, 2015)

Bernard said:


> Other than that, the system needs a better 18-55. Mine isn't tack sharp when compared to the 22 and to adapted full-frame primes. Has anyone else noticed this, or do I have a dud? It's good enough for snapshots, but not for real prints.



My 18-55 isn't sharp either but neither does it have any magic.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 5, 2015)

melbournite said:


> Fast, wide prime WITH IS. If the 22mm had IS I'd be a happy choppy.
> 
> Edit: ...for video



The kit lens has IS and I've found it very solid for video. I've popped an external mic in the flash shoe and mounted the M to a flash bracket and it makes a solid little, handheld, video rig (super cheap as well).


----------



## Tinky (Aug 5, 2015)

I've also found the 18-55 a solid performer, used within it's limitations.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Sep 2, 2015)

As the new ef 50mm f1.8 could double as a 80mm on the M3. I would ideally like something wider than the 22f2 (35mm equivalent) so how about a 9-10mm prime f2.8 - equivalent to a 14m to 16mm, maybe a 14mm ff equivalent will be quite nice...


----------



## rossbeckernz (Sep 7, 2015)

I wanted a wide to tele zoom when I'm out trekking. I had the EF-S 18-200 but it was huge heavy very slow focus, so it got sold & I've now got a Tamron 18-200 f3.5-6.3.
They make it in 2 versions, one with EF-M mount & one with Sony mount. It's light fast focus, silent & gives super photos. 
http://goo.gl/PVlu9C
This together with the EF-M 11-22mm IS covers it apart from macro.
For macro I have an ancient macro Canon FL 50mm f3.5 with life size adapter (from 1965) & use it with a Fotodiox Pro FL to EF-M adapter.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 14, 2015)

I figure if they do more prime lenses such as the 50mm for the EF-M system it would make more sense to future-proof them by making them full-frame compatible.

The EF-M 22mm is somewhat similar to the EF-S 24mm pancake, so there's no reason why a EF-M 50mm couldn't be full-frame compatible for the future even if such a camera doesn't come out for a while. Now, if Canon were being smart they'd launch a 50mm for EF-M to take on the Sony/Zeiss 55mm lens which is stunning, rather than just repackaging the EF 50mm STM style glass for mirrorless.

Similarly, I can't see Canon launching a 24-70 f/2.8 EF-M zoom unless they also aim this at full-frame. And as much as I like it, it's going to be heavy.

An EF-M 17-55 f/2.8 would make more sense for APS-C, but may still be too heavy. Something of a compromise such as a EF-M 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 may be enough


----------

