# 35mm third party lenses



## Jacen (Jun 25, 2017)

As someone who's soon going to be a (hopefully proud) owner of an M5 I've started looking around for opinions on third party 35mm lenses with EF-M mount. I've found quite a lot of people trying them on Fuji and Sony systems, but not any on the M. 
Anyone have hands-on experience with 35mm lenses with EF-M mount, such as the Samyang/Rokinon 35mm 1.2 or the Mitakon 35mm 0.95?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 25, 2017)

You can see here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KItY-wsEgJg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzxiAZ90S5o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvMr8boMFgA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ksUg4rnBUU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-evJTlGcKQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOXhRcp1ICc


----------



## Jacen (Jun 26, 2017)

I do, and I'm sure those links can help someone. But it's not what I was after. I've seen all those, but none of them are in respects to putting it on an M system. This was why I asked here, to see if anyone had first hand info.


----------



## Frodo (Jul 1, 2017)

I only have experience with the EF 35/2 IS on my M3. Works fine, focuses fast, good image quality. But it doubles the size of the camera.


----------



## Jacen (Jul 2, 2017)

So I've bought my M5, so far I'm very satisfied. I've ordered the 22 for walk around prime stuff, and I have the 18-150 for more general touristy stuff.
I've looked into the EF 35/2 IS as a possible stop gap before Canon releases something like a EF-M 35. I have an old EF 35/2 lying around (yes, the old one) but the results aren't the best. I also have an EF 40/2.8, which is considerably sharper, but of course a little more telephoto. But the downside is what you said, Frodo, it makes the camera substantially bigger.


----------



## BillB (Jul 2, 2017)

Jacen said:


> So I've bought my M5, so far I'm very satisfied. I've ordered the 22 for walk around prime stuff, and I have the 18-150 for more general touristy stuff.
> I've looked into the EF 35/2 IS as a possible stop gap before Canon releases something like a EF-M 35. I have an old EF 35/2 lying around (yes, the old one) but the results aren't the best. I also have an EF 40/2.8, which is considerably sharper, but of course a little more telephoto. But the downside is what you said, Frodo, it makes the camera substantially bigger.



You already have the 22mm, which gives you the equivalent of a FF 35, along with the 40, which gives you the equivalent of FF 64. What about seeing how that works for you? You can also use the zoom to see how different focal lengths work for you. Shooting full frame, I like to pair 35mm with 85mm, but that is what works for me.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 2, 2017)

You might want to consider buying an FD adaptor and getting the old Canon 35mm f/2.8 FD lens. You could even pick up a 50mm f/1.4 FD lens for very little money.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 3, 2017)

The whole idea of the M is SMALL. All the above suggestions are not small ij size.You can also look into the Leica 35mm lens. I have a 50 years old 35/2.0 Summicron. With the L to EF-M adapter, it is almost the same size as the EF-M 22mm. It is almost as sharp as the EF-M 22mm. However, the Summicron is with better "definition" in fine detail. If you use the Leica 35/2.8 lens it will even be smaller.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 3, 2017)

Jacen said:


> Samyang/Rokinon 35mm 1.2 or the Mitakon 35mm 0.95?



I'm interested in these also, especially the Mitakon.


----------



## Jacen (Jul 3, 2017)

Looked into the mentioned Summicron 35/2. Looks to be around $2000, there are cheaper out there (a few hundred bucks) and more expensive. It was a good suggestion but a bit out of my budget. 
My limit is probably around $500 as I can pick up the Samyang/Rokinon 35/1.2 with EF-M mount for about $400 from my local store.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 3, 2017)

Jacen said:


> Looked into the mentioned Summicron 35/2. Looks to be around $2000, there are cheaper out there (a few hundred bucks) and more expensive. It was a good suggestion but a bit out of my budget.
> My limit is probably around $500 as I can pick up the Samyang/Rokinon 35/1.2 with EF-M mount for about $400 from my local store.


Another option is 35/2.5 Color Skopar by Voightlander.


----------



## archiea (Jul 8, 2017)

Rocky said:


> The whole idea of the M is SMALL. All the above suggestions are not small ij size.You can also look into the Leica 35mm lens. I have a 50 years old 35/2.0 Summicron. With the L to EF-M adapter, it is almost the same size as the EF-M 22mm. It is almost as sharp as the EF-M 22mm. However, the Summicron is with better "definition" in fine detail. If you use the Leica 35/2.8 lens it will even be smaller.



Being a 5D user, the M's weren't my primary cameras, so I was able to look at the M in a different light. I got the orig M the M3 and the M5. Beyond the native ef-m F2 22mm and the specialty of the the ef-m 11-22mm, my intent was to use vintage lenses using the Leica M to Ef-m adapter. Since I had my wide and my street lens, I just needed a Wide aperture portrait. 

I started with the Voigtlander 50mm F1.5 Nokton. Very close to the Leica 50mm Summicron F2.0 (non-apo) from F2.8 on. I shot them side by side. At F2.0 and especially f1.5, the Nokton exhibited purple fringing on Highlights vs the leica Summicron at f2.0 (its maximum aperture).

As a result I got the Leica F1.4 Summilux and I'm very happy. Its Widest aperture is cleaner, mostly free of purple fringing except in extreme results. You have to go for the $8K F2.0 APO Summicron 50mm to get a cleaner image. The Summilux F1.4 also has IMHO a better ergonomics than the Nokton in terms of the lens hood; on the Summilux you just slide into position providing a much smaller profile and far easier way to put on an ND or Cir polarizer. The built in lens hood slides over the filters very easily. The Norton has a large detachable lens hood. Also the Focus tab (for me) on the Summilux is far easier to focus than the scalloped focus ring on the Norton, but that is a preference. Admittedly sometime I have to opt for the traditional ways of moving the focus ring on the Summilux for fine tune. '

The aperture ring on the Nokton is tighter than the Summilux and less likely to get hit accidentally.

Mechanically the Summilux is superior in build quality but its also more than 4X the cost of the Nokton. The Nokton still has a nice solid metal and glass feel. I think anyone getting the Nokton for the Canon M5 will be very happy as long as they understand the fact that its a manual lens. Keep in mind the Nokton was also a leica M mount since there is no native EF-m Voigtlander. So no Exif data regarding you lens. Just remember to tag it with a keyword if you import it to LR. 

Lastly, the micro contrast of the 50mm Summilux has to be mentioned. its the ability to reproduce the inter-tonal shifts between bright and dark. Modern lenses give a more contrasty image by comparison as its seen as being more desirable. I suggest you read this great article on the subject:
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world


Committing to the Leica in financially is not as hard as one thinks: Its a lens that can easily be adapted to Canon EF-m, Fuji, Sony's full frame and Aps-c cameras as well as Leica's M rangefinder, SL/T and L Mirrorless bodies. Same with the Nokton but at 1/4 the price. and in the case of the Summilux, it retrains its resale value if not going up. Before the mirrorless craze the same exact 50mm Summilux was under $3k now its almost $4K after the release of the first Leica M9 (and the Sonys and I;m sure Fujis). Assuming it fits your needs, it will be with you as you swap out digital bodies for years. One example I sold my early APS-c collections, i.e. the 7D mark 1, 17-85mm & 10-22mm lens, old 580EX flashes.... the depreciation of that over the last decade was pretty much equal to the 2/3rd the cost of the Summilux. That kind of depreciation just doesn't happen to leica lenses. Something to think about. 

With Rangefinder lenses, you get a smaller sized, better balanced Eos-M system that leverages the Tech of a modern digital camera (Focus peaking, high iso, electronic viewfinder) with the character and wide aperture of the range finder lenses. Check them out!


----------



## Fleetie (Jul 8, 2017)

archiea said:


> (Leica rangefinder lens stuff)


It is tempting. I do kinda fancy a Leica 50mm f/1.4 on my M5, or even an M6 (which would be almost free to acquire by comparison with the lens).


But imagine the contemptuous sneer of the suited salesman in the Leica shop, when you said you wanted to put it on a cheap mirrorless Canon. <Wither/>


But hey, I'm old enough to not care about such contempt. Really.


But at the moment, a 75" TV is pretty much top of my acquisition list.
And I'd use that every single day.
So that wins.


But still... a nice, new, Leica f/1.4 lens on a Canon mirrorless, is a very nice idea indeed.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 8, 2017)

The Olympus OM 35mm f/2.8 is pretty small as well as being a very nice lens. 

Here is mine:







Also, Nikon series e lenses tend to be small, lightweight, and cheap. The 50mm is almost a pancake.

Here is mine:


----------



## Pookie (Jul 8, 2017)

Rocky said:


> The whole idea of the M is SMALL. All the above suggestions are not small ij size.You can also look into the Leica 35mm lens. I have a 50 years old 35/2.0 Summicron. With the L to EF-M adapter, it is almost the same size as the EF-M 22mm. It is almost as sharp as the EF-M 22mm. However, the Summicron is with better "definition" in fine detail. If you use the Leica 35/2.8 lens it will even be smaller.



+1 

This is by far one of the my favorite Summicrons... my "cron"-ic. The Summilux would be to big IMO and defeat the purpose. I love my lux but the cron is the one that gets used almost exclusively. I don't own the 2.8's though but might be worth a shot.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 8, 2017)

Pookie said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > The whole idea of the M is SMALL. All the above suggestions are not small ij size.You can also look into the Leica 35mm lens. I have a 50 years old 35/2.0 Summicron. With the L to EF-M adapter, it is almost the same size as the EF-M 22mm. It is almost as sharp as the EF-M 22mm. However, the Summicron is with better "definition" in fine detail. If you use the Leica 35/2.8 lens it will even be smaller.
> ...


My 90/4 Elmer (also 50 years old) is my defacto 135mm for M. It is a very good lens and small, but not light. The picture below is at pixel level, hand held at 1/500, f8(?). I was about 1.5 Km from the object. I am sure that the dust in the air and the air movement contributed to the unsharpness of the picture.


----------



## archiea (Jul 16, 2017)

Rocky said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



Dunno, but I found the grip on the m6 enough for the 50mm summilux. It gives it a nice heft. And you balance it below with the focus tab. 

Sticking a 24-70, 16-35, and a 70-200 in a bag, the difference between adding an ef full frame body or an ef-m body is neglegable. Might as well go full frame.

But rangefinder lenses, mixed with the good ef-m lenses out there still have a small foot print! I can fit an m5, 50mm summilux, ef-m f2 22mm, and the ef-m 11-22mm wide angle, with two batteries, two sets of circ polarizers and chargers in a single Tenba 9 BYOB insert with an ipad mini inserted in the back sleeve!.

(Drops tenba bag, walks of stage....)

(...realizes camera was still in the bag...)


----------



## andrei1989 (Aug 31, 2017)

Since recently getting the M5 i was also looking for 35mm lens options

I already had the samyang 35 1.4 for EF but it's simply too enormous for the M

I found and bought recently the Meike 35mm f/1.7 for EF-M for 100€! size is very close to the retracted 15-45 kit lens, weight is maybe double because it is made completely out of metal! The build and feel are amazing. Images are ok-good in terms of sharpness at 1.7 and very good at 2-2.8. The only aspect i don't like is that the aperture ring doesn't click...it seems to be more intended for video.


----------



## slclick (Nov 9, 2017)

The 22 f/2 is a 35 mm, well a 35.2

I always wonder when folks want a 35 on other than FF, are they looking for a normal (~50 perspective)?


----------



## andrei1989 (Nov 9, 2017)

slclick said:


> The 22 f/2 is a 35 mm, well a 35.2
> 
> I always wonder when folks want a 35 on other than FF, are they looking for a normal (~50 perspective)?



yes 

i had on crop the 24mm and the 40mm and liked the 40 much much more (i still do)


----------



## slclick (Nov 9, 2017)

andrei1989 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > The 22 f/2 is a 35 mm, well a 35.2
> ...




imho the 40 pancake is one of the most underrated lenses in Canon's lineup. Well, for FF that is.


----------



## brad-man (Nov 9, 2017)

slclick said:


> andrei1989 said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



So wouldn't it be nice if Canon released the shorty 40 with an EF-M mount, or is that asking too much?


----------



## slclick (Nov 9, 2017)

brad-man said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > andrei1989 said:
> ...



It's a weird focal length on crop, it might work for someone artistically because we are all different but generally speaking no one is begging for 64MM lens. I'd like a 40 with a wider aperture that still has AF (not going to happen)


----------



## brad-man (Nov 9, 2017)

slclick said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Yes, 64mm is a little odd, but I don't feel it's really out there. I mean, it's not crazy like a 28mm f/3.5 macro. I'm desperate for some quick AF EF-M primes, work with me.


----------



## slclick (Nov 10, 2017)

brad-man said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



Oh I kust posted on the Canon Wishlist thread:

EF-M Trinity (we already have 1 of 3)


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 10, 2017)

I have an M5 with most of the m lenses, but I also have a 7Artisans fish eye lens which works really well.
As this lens is made in the m mount, perhaps they will release a few more m lenses in the future.

I often use the Canon ef-s 60mm macro lens on my M5 with good results, both for stills and video, so the other smaller ef-s lenses should also work well.
I should dust off my old 50mm 1.8 and see how that works on M5.


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 10, 2017)

7Artisans also make a 55mm f1.4 for the m mount.
You can see them at www linkdelight.com


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 10, 2017)

I think I've found what you're looking for, a Meike 35mm f1.7 manual lens for the m's, all for $82.99, also from Linkdelight.
I might pick one of these for myself. 

Have a look through their site as they seem to have lots of lenses for m's from various manufacturers.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 9, 2017)

I picked up the $90 Meike 35mm f/1.7. I saw a video review of it and decided it was kind of perfect. It mimics a vintage photo lens with its simple design, but has modern coatings that help with certain optical issues.

Available in EOS M-Mount on eBay and Amazon.

It's worth every bit of the $90 and the strange wait time to get the lens - you won't get the lens quickly unless you pony up.

So far, it has been a beautiful, fun lens to use. I suggest keeping focus peeking at "Low" so it's easier to see the detail as you adjust focus. "High" is too thick and you can't see some of the details.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 13, 2018)

Jacen said:


> As someone who's soon going to be a (hopefully proud) owner of an M5 I've started looking around for opinions on third party 35mm lenses with EF-M mount. I've found quite a lot of people trying them on Fuji and Sony systems, but not any on the M.
> Anyone have hands-on experience with 35mm lenses with EF-M mount, such as the Samyang/Rokinon 35mm 1.2 or the Mitakon 35mm 0.95?



I rented a M5 and used my FD, FL and R lenses on it.
Loved using them and it worked wonderfully.


----------

