# Canon EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM Macro on the Way



## ahsanford (May 5, 2016)

http://photorumors.com/2016/05/05/new-canon-ef-m-28mm-f3-5-is-stm-macro-lens-for-eos-m-registered-in-russia/

New compact macro for EOS-M, anyone?

Canon EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM Macro.

- A


----------



## axtstern (May 5, 2016)

*Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia*

Very very welcome


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2016)

*Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia*

Nice! Hopefully it goes all the way to 1:1...


----------



## Frodo (May 5, 2016)

*Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia*

Something doesn't gel. 
If a macro, why 28mm (equivalent to 44mm on full frame), which is short for a macro.
If a new prime, why so close to the solitary 22mm.
Why such a modest aperture?
I know the specs are close to the EF 50/3.5 macro, but it would not be a priority focal length/aperture for the EF-M line.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 5, 2016)

```
<p>According to Russian certification agency Novocert, Canon will be introducing an EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM lens in the coming weeks/months.</p>
<p>We <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/more-mentions-of-ef-m-prime-lenses-cr1/">expected to see a macro</a> and at least 2 more EF-M lenses to come before the end of 2016.</p>
<p> </p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## trulandphoto (May 5, 2016)

Would much rather see a 60mm macro for EF-M. More isolated background, more working distance.


----------



## Maximilian (May 5, 2016)

No [CRx] rating? hm.


----------



## mpphoto (May 5, 2016)

trulandphoto said:


> Would much rather see a 60mm macro for EF-M. More isolated background, more working distance.


Yeah, I would have preferred a longer macro for EF-M also, but don't completely write off this lens. I thought Sony's E 30mm f/3.5 Macro was too wide and too slow until I started using it. There's a niche for it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2016)

*Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia*



Frodo said:


> Something doesn't gel.
> If a macro, why 28mm (equivalent to 44mm on full frame), which is short for a macro.
> If a new prime, why so close to the solitary 22mm.
> Why such a modest aperture?
> I know the specs are close to the EF 50/3.5 macro, but it would not be a priority focal length/aperture for the EF-M line.



There are 'normal' macro lenses (~30mm) for other MILC platforms, and f/3.5 isn't surprising for a macro lens. The shorter FL keeps the lens small, in keeping with one of the raisons d'être of MILC. So, I think it makes sense, and a macro lens is an obvious gap in the EF-M lineup. In fact, if you compare to the EF-S lineup, it's really the only major gap except an f/2.8 standard zoom, and that's unlikely to happen for size reasons (which is also why the 15-xx and 55-xxx zooms aren't as long).


----------



## cellomaster27 (May 5, 2016)

mpphoto said:


> trulandphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Would much rather see a 60mm macro for EF-M. More isolated background, more working distance.
> ...



Yeah. I'll save my input on this lens til I see the reviews. but can't wait for the new m models!


----------



## brad-man (May 5, 2016)

*Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia*

I agree with Frodo. It's too close to the wonderful 22mm. I do like the inclusion of an EF-M macro though.

edit: If it's a macro, shouldn't it have IS for the sake of lighting/shutter speed? Oops. I just noticed it does have IS so never mind...


----------



## trulandphoto (May 5, 2016)

mpphoto said:


> trulandphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Would much rather see a 60mm macro for EF-M. More isolated background, more working distance.
> ...



And I suppose there's always the EF-S 60 plus adapter which is a great lens.

I've had two M bodies and sold them both. Maybe back again in the future. 

I'm enjoying my G1X and am looking for a mark II.


----------



## ahsanford (May 5, 2016)

*Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia*



brad-man said:


> I agree with Frodo. It's too close to the wonderful 22mm. I do like the inclusion of an EF-M macro though.
> 
> edit: If it's a macro, shouldn't it have IS for the sake of lighting/shutter speed? Oops. I just noticed it does have IS so never mind...



This will not supplant the 22mm pancake. This is the 'EF-M Macro'. Every mount gets at least one, and as Neuro said, it was one of the final missing pieces of a basic starter set of lenses for EF-M.

- A


----------



## brad-man (May 5, 2016)

*Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia*



ahsanford said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Frodo. It's too close to the wonderful 22mm. I do like the inclusion of an EF-M macro though.
> ...



I agree. I just don't get why they couldn't make it at least a 35mm. Would that really increase the size of the lens by that much? Two birds with one stone, so to speak.


----------



## Woody (May 6, 2016)

All these lenses are rather slow... why don't they introduce f/1.4 primes like those in Fujifilm line-up? See http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/xf_lens/roadmap/


----------



## ahsanford (May 6, 2016)

Woody said:


> All these lenses are rather slow... why don't they introduce f/1.4 primes like those in Fujifilm line-up? See http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/xf_lens/roadmap/



1) Because Canon wants its bigger ticket spenders living in the EF ecosystem.

2) Fuji has one mount, so higher end shooters living in the Fuji world need higher-end glass. Canon (stills) shooters have _three_ mounts to choose from, the so high-end camp hasn't been the target of the brand (yet).

3) The mantra of EOS-M is (apparently) to keep it small. If they wanted us to bolt pickle jars on it, it might have a beefier grip. Also, who is going to buy a $1,000 higher end prime or f/2.8 zoom that is native to a mount _that has no cameras with viewfinders?!
_
Don't get me wrong -- I want what you want, but EOS-M isn't there yet. 

In this order, I expect the following releases to EOS-M:

1) Round out the 'starter' set of lenses -- small pancake, wide zoom, standard zoom, tele zoom, and macro.

2) Offer an enthusiast-grade model with a viewfinder. We can argue about a Rebel sensor vs. the 80D sensor, how many AF points, etc. but I think we'd all agree an enthusiast model needs a @#$%ing viewfinder, and a good one at that.

3) If the enthusiast model sells well,_ then_ we might start seeing some nicer lenses -- f/2 and f/1.4 primes, lenses with USM or Nano USM, a really sexy f/2.8 standard zoom, etc.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2016)

Woody said:


> All these lenses are rather slow... why don't they introduce f/1.4 primes like those in Fujifilm line-up? See http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/xf_lens/roadmap/



Fuji is targeting a high-end niche market, possibly they believe they'll be unable to compete in the mass-market consumer segment – they're barely a blip on the BCN rankings for sales in Japan, dead last among all MILC makers. Canon's M system is clearly targeting the mass market, and f/1.4 primes aren't likely to sell well in that segment.


----------



## Zv (May 6, 2016)

Woody said:


> All these lenses are rather slow... why don't they introduce f/1.4 primes like those in Fujifilm line-up? See http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/xf_lens/roadmap/




The EOS M system gets compared with the Fuji quite often here but I feel this is a bit unfair. The two systems are targeted at different consumer levels. Even the M3 is fairly low down in the Canon Hierarchy despite it's beefier looks. Is an f/1.4 prime a priority for these types of camera? Personally I don't think so. I'd rather have something reasonably cheap and small just like the 22/2 and 11-22 that I own. I already have fast primes for my FF system like many others and the M is simply a back up or casual use camera. For that purpose it performs quite well indeed. 

I'm not saying f/1.4 is completely unnecessary but I do think we need an EOS M body to match it. Also, at such a wide aperture focusing becomes tricky for the amateur user who (likely) has no experience in such things. I think even I've only shot at f/1.4 about twice in my life! It's not needed for the vast majority of shots of everyday things (cats, food, selfies etc).


----------



## traveller (May 6, 2016)

Given the very limited EF-M lens lineup, I can't quite see why a 28mm macro is such a priority. Surely a 31mm f/2 pancake would have been a better choice? 

As for Fuji, I own both the 23mm f/1.4 and the 56mm f/1.2 and whilst both are great lenses, I would trade them for smaller and lighter f/1.8-2 versions if they were available. Apparently Fuji has recognised this and have dropped their plans for fast longer lenses to shift their focus onto developing further f/2 primes (if Fujirumors information is correct). 

Fuji have perhaps realised that there are more than one type of buyer of mirrorless systems: 
[list type=decimal]
[*]The social media orientated "want the shallow DoF look that I can't get from my smartphone" crowd (dare I say prodominantly {Asian} female?)
[*]The people who want a smaller and lighter system to complement their DSLRs and lenses (e.g. me at the moment) 
[*]The all-in "mirror-slappers are dead" brigade, who want everything they had in their DSLR system but in mirrorless (and you could probably subdivide these into "switched to get lighter weight" and "switched because I prefer EVFs, on sensor AF, etc." -the former are probably more than a bit dismayed with Sony's current direction if they bought a first generation A7 series system...)
[/list]

Perhaps my list is not fully inclusive, but I fail to see which of these groups a 28mm macro serves. This leads me to question whether the team developing EOS-M really considering markets, or if they are purely engineering driven?


----------



## Zv (May 6, 2016)

Regarding this rumor - wouldn't the working distance of such a lens be quite short and difficult to use?


----------



## -1 (May 6, 2016)

Zv said:


> Regarding this rumor - wouldn't the working distance of such a lens be quite short and difficult to use?


The short FL and low speed would give it substantiall DOF and could then with the IS be an easy to use starter macro for hand held closeups.


----------



## 100 (May 6, 2016)

Zv said:


> Regarding this rumor - wouldn't the working distance of such a lens be quite short and difficult to use?



If this lens is a 1:1 macro and 28mm is the real focal length at 1:1 (Most macro lenses have significant focus breathing at 1:1) the focusing distance will be 112mm. 
The flange focal distance of EF-M is 18mm, so that leaves 94mm. The working distance depends on how short the lens will be, if I had to guess I’d say this will leave a working distance between 50 and 60mm.


----------



## Ivan Muller (May 6, 2016)

mmmmm, I have had my M3 for almost a year now...its just too much of a Jekyll & Hyde camera for me to spend anymore money on lenses and such..I got the 22, standard zoom and evf...and frankly until a much much better M4 or whatever comes around I will just use it with my EF lenses via the adapter...

Eos bodies are just so easy to use, but the M3 works flawless one day and then the next try and pop a remote flash or get accurate AF or even any AF at all etc etc....I think i'm going to sit the next one out, I have sort of lost a bit of faith in Canon's ability to bring out a 'Eos' like M....


----------



## AvTvM (May 6, 2016)

oh well ... not needed here, no buy.

I am still waiting for a ultra-compact tele prime ... EF-M 80mm/2.4 IS STM or thereabouts. Other than that no lens wish in EF-M mount.


----------



## HaroldC3 (May 6, 2016)

Would rather see a longer focal length and 2.8 so it could potentially be used as a portrait lens too. Since that possibility is out I can't see canon selling many copies of this lens. They would have almost be better to make macro tubes in Ef-m mount imo.


----------



## Luds34 (May 6, 2016)

*Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia*



neuroanatomist said:


> Frodo said:
> 
> 
> > Something doesn't gel.
> ...



Valid points and I do agree. 

However it really seems to lock this lens in for just that purpose. I'm not big in macro so I prefer when they can perform a bit double duty. The EF-S 60mm made a solid portrait lens as well with it's longer focal length and the decently fast f/2.8 aperture.

The good news is this lens will probably be very compact so it won't be a tough decision to toss it in the bag and bring with... "just in case".


----------



## Luds34 (May 6, 2016)

traveller said:


> As for Fuji, I own both the 23mm f/1.4 and the 56mm f/1.2 and whilst both are great lenses, I would trade them for smaller and lighter f/1.8-2 versions if they were available. Apparently Fuji has recognised this and have dropped their plans for fast longer lenses to shift their focus onto developing further f/2 primes (if Fujirumors information is correct).



I love fast glass! I've got 35mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2, 70-200mm f/2.8. However, when I decided to dabble in the Fuji system I did it with the intent of a smaller/compact system knowing I've got Canon FF for my narrow DOF, big bokeh, ultra low light needs. So I did go with a couple of f/2 primes, including their new 35mm and I am happy with the decision. Some of those fast Fuji lenses are pretty sexy though and someday I may add one or two, but for now I feel that f/2 is typically fast enough for either subject isolation or shooting in low light, even on crop.


----------



## okaro (May 7, 2016)

With EOS M the main idea is size. If you want a dedicated Macro Lens for specific purposes then Canon surely has one that can be used with any of their SLRs or with EOS M using an adapter. When they lenses for EOS M the size is a major issue. This means the size of the lens and also the size of the total equipment. A 28 mm is wide enough to be carried as a sole lens and it can also be used for occasional macro shots. A 60 mm would not meet these requirements. Sure the aperture is slow but the IS compensates this so it about matches the 22 mm. The standard kit lens has aperture f/4.5 at 28 mm. Sure it is close with the 22 mm but that's not an issue as it is not expected that one carries both.


----------



## brad-man (May 7, 2016)

okaro said:


> With EOS M the main idea is size. If you want a dedicated Macro Lens for specific purposes then Canon surely has one that can be used with any of their SLRs or with EOS M using an adapter. When they lenses for EOS M the size is a major issue. This means the size of the lens and also the size of the total equipment. A 28 mm is wide enough to be carried as a sole lens and it can also be used for occasional macro shots. A 60 mm would not meet these requirements. Sure the aperture is slow but the IS compensates this so it about matches the 22 mm. The standard kit lens has aperture f/4.5 at 28 mm. Sure it is close with the 22 mm but that's not an issue as it is not expected that one carries both.



You should have stopped with your first sentence. This lens is the _second_ prime offering for the M. While I certainly do appreciate having a macro lens for this system, it should have more differentiation from the solitary first. Nobody that has an M and wants to use primes will ever leave home without the 22. It is tiny, it is quick and it is sharp. What does this 28 bring to the table other than macro? Sure, presumably it will be sharper than the 22 and the 18-55 and it has IS, but it is still a slow lens with an odd focal length. It is hard to believe that increasing the FL to 35-40mm and/or increasing max aperture to _at least_ f/2.8 would dramatically increase the size. And even if it did, so what? If the sole purpose of the M was diminutive size, than there would be no zoom lenses at all. Lastly, the introduction of this lens makes it unlikely that Canon will release another macro in a FL which I (and I suspect others) consider more appropriate in my lifetime. This lens is too much of a one trick pony. While I am not in the camp that desires _really_ fast primes for the M, I do feel that any prime released should be between f/1/8 and f/2.4, with the possible exception of a nice macro in an appropriate FL  OK, I feel better now.

_Italics used for emphasis are courtesy of an earlier thread..._


----------



## mb66energy (May 7, 2016)

I had preferred a 40mm macro lens (1:2 sufficient) with 2.8 + IS and moderately compact outline.

2.0 22
2.8 40 Macro
2.x 80 with good close focus capability (like AvTvM)

would have been great. Add a COMPACT 4.0 10mm with GREAT IQ and the EOS M prime
set would have been complete: Lenses that can be made much more compact compared to SLR versions which make sense for EOS M camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2016)

brad-man said:


> okaro said:
> 
> 
> > With EOS M the main idea is size. If you want a dedicated Macro Lens for specific purposes then Canon surely has one that can be used with any of their SLRs or with EOS M using an adapter. When they lenses for EOS M the size is a major issue. This means the size of the lens and also the size of the total equipment. A 28 mm is wide enough to be carried as a sole lens and it can also be used for occasional macro shots. A 60 mm would not meet these requirements. Sure the aperture is slow but the IS compensates this so it about matches the 22 mm. The standard kit lens has aperture f/4.5 at 28 mm. Sure it is close with the 22 mm but that's not an issue as it is not expected that one carries both.
> ...



If you want a longer f/2.8 macro, size _isn't_ (see what I did there?) your main concern – adapt a 60/2.8 or 100/2.8 lens. As a macro lens, there will already be a size penalty, even with a narrower aperture (compare the 100/2 to the 100/2.8 nonL macro, or the 200/2.8L to the 180/3.5L). A 28mm f/3.5 macro would be no larger than the M11-22 or M18-55 zooms, and thus would fit well in the M system. A 60mm or longer macro with a wider aperture...not so much.


----------



## ahsanford (May 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you want a longer f/2.8 macro, size _isn't_ (see what I did there?) your main concern – adapt a 60/2.8 or 100/2.8 lens. As a macro lens, there will already be a size penalty, even with a narrower aperture (compare the 100/2 to the 100/2.8 nonL macro, or the 200/2.8L to the 180/3.5L). A 28mm f/3.5 macro would be no larger than the M11-22 or M18-55 zooms, and thus would fit well in the M system. A 60mm or longer macro with a wider aperture...not so much.



+1. As the clearly '3rd ranked' mount in the system, there will be trickle down opportunities to use EF-S or EF glass for more specific needs.

And I don't see this lens as a chance to get more bang for the buck at another FL. 'It should also be crazy fast or a useful alternate prime focal length' misses the point. *EF-M needs a macro lens* -- throw FL out for a moment -- and being on EOS-M platform, it probably should be small. Further EOS-M most certainly isn't collared for professionals (yet), and as such, IS is a really good idea for it.

So let's add it up: 

Is it a macro? Yes.
Is it small? Presumably. (This is probably what's driving the choice for a wider FL.)
Does it have IS? You betcha.

Job done.

- A


----------



## brad-man (May 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you want a longer f/2.8 macro, size _isn't_ (see what I did there?) your main concern – adapt a 60/2.8 or 100/2.8 lens. As a macro lens, there will already be a size penalty, even with a narrower aperture (compare the 100/2 to the 100/2.8 nonL macro, or the 200/2.8L to the 180/3.5L). A 28mm f/3.5 macro would be no larger than the M11-22 or M18-55 zooms, and thus would fit well in the M system. A 60mm or longer macro with a wider aperture...not so much.



Actually I requested a 35-40mm f/2.8, and while I certainly agree that it would be larger, I feel the added capability and versatility of the lens would be well worth the compromise. The 28mm is too niche for a system with only two primes. Obviously YMMV.


----------



## brad-man (May 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If you want a longer f/2.8 macro, size _isn't_ (see what I did there?) your main concern – adapt a 60/2.8 or 100/2.8 lens. As a macro lens, there will already be a size penalty, even with a narrower aperture (compare the 100/2 to the 100/2.8 nonL macro, or the 200/2.8L to the 180/3.5L). A 28mm f/3.5 macro would be no larger than the M11-22 or M18-55 zooms, and thus would fit well in the M system. A 60mm or longer macro with a wider aperture...not so much.
> ...



Where did I say a macro wasn't welcome?


----------



## AvTvM (May 7, 2016)

moSt people i know buy a macro lens and end up using it very rarely for macro shots. like myself. if i shoot something small/macro it is always a planned shooting and size if lens does not matter. i am very happy onbthose few occasions to use the excellent ef-s 60/2.8. i will never buy another crop sensor macro lens. if anything i'd buy the ef 100/2.8.


----------



## ahsanford (May 7, 2016)

brad-man said:


> Where did I say a macro wasn't welcome?



Fair -- you didn't. I just feel like you (and one other prior poster, I believe) might just want another fast prime for EOS-M more than you want a macro, or if it's a macro, _it would be nice if it were fast_. 

Take a number in that case (re: more primes please) -- I think everyone on this forum would agree with you. Canon is just keeping it simple and scratching a very clear gap (and nothing else) with this lens. Our primes will eventually come, I'm sure. 

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (May 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If you want a longer f/2.8 macro, size _isn't_ (see what I did there?) your main concern – adapt a 60/2.8 or 100/2.8 lens. As a macro lens, there will already be a size penalty, even with a narrower aperture (compare the 100/2 to the 100/2.8 nonL macro, or the 200/2.8L to the 180/3.5L). A 28mm f/3.5 macro would be no larger than the M11-22 or M18-55 zooms, and thus would fit well in the M system. A 60mm or longer macro with a wider aperture...not so much.
> ...



the 28mm macro will most likely be around the same size or smaller than the Sony E 30mm 3.5 macro.

so slightly smaller than the 11-22mm with no extension, and MUCH smaller than the 60mm 2.8

not to mention. it should be cheap. probably be around $200-$250, which is what the Sony 30mm macro is.

Also interestingly it's a focal that atypically iphone users would see in macro mode. something to also consider.

we're not talking about a big, or expensive lens here, and easily adds to the lens portfolio.

when i first thought about it - it was a WTF.. but it's growing on me. not to mention, with 24MP, tight working distance isn't nearly as much of a problem.

I like the fact that the 11-22 is "near macro" being around 1:3 having a longer focal there would be handy. and the 60mm is nice on the M3, but it's big and it's off balance.


----------



## Woody (May 8, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Anyhow back to the EF-M 28mm F/3.5, I'll pick it up, assuming it's sub $300 and small. It exemplifies why the M rocks, small, and powerful. I never shoot macro because, I even get picky with my M setup these days with what I throw in the bag. Tiny cheap macro pancake? Sure, throw it in. Might start taking more macro shots, if I actually have a macro lens on me at all times, what a thought. Same idea why I bought the M to begin with, to have a camera that doesn't suck on me all the time for personal use.



Sony has an equivalent APS-C E-mount lens: 
Sony 30 mm f/3.5 macro (1:1), 138 g, US$253
http://www.sony.com.sg/electronics/camera-lenses/sel30m35

So, I guess there must be fans for small lightweight macro lenses.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 8, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



egami / CR / CW only cover 1/100th of canon's patents and when it comes to lens patents .. religiously get them wrong.

so unless you have scoured canon's lens patents yourself .. that's probably incorrect.

each canon lens patent atypically has anywhere up to 10+ embodiments for use.


----------



## noncho (May 9, 2016)

Some of the comments here are very interesting - encourage such lens because will be small and light and fine to use EF to EF-M converter for longer macro and portraits?

Come on, many more people want small and light 50 and 85 F2(or 40 and 75 etc) without bulky converters than short macro...


----------



## dcm (May 9, 2016)

noncho said:


> Some of the comments here are very interesting - encourage such lens because will be small and light and fine to use EF to EF-M converter for longer macro and portraits?
> 
> Come on, many more people want small and light 50 and 85 F2(or 40 and 75 etc) without bulky converters than short macro...



You never know - those might be coming as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2016)

noncho said:


> Come on, many more people want small and light 50 and 85 F2(or 40 and 75 etc) without bulky converters than short macro...



I guess you know that because you've done more and/or better market research than a multinational $30B-market-cap company like Canon? They've sold over 110 million lenses, but they don't understand the market as well as you. :


----------



## AvTvM (May 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> noncho said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, many more people want small and light 50 and 85 F2(or 40 and 75 etc) without bulky converters than short macro...
> ...



correct. Some truths are self-evident. No research needed whatsoever. 

An optically decent, compact, and highly affordable EF-M 80/2.4 IS STM would without any doubt sell *much better* than a stupid, dark, miserable wide-angle - Sony-me-too! - macro lens. 

It is always funny to watch when Neuro and the rest of the Canon Defense League resort to "Canon's superior Market research" and "gazillions of units sold in the distant past" theme. Plus some personal attacks at other posters ... always a sure sign they are out of arguments. 

To me, Canon's market research seems to have been hired from Kodak, Nokia or Blackberry.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > noncho said:
> ...



You know this...how? Because _you personally_ would buy one? You seem to be the only person surprised that Canon hasn't yet made the perfect camera for you. Another typically ridiculous and baseless argument from a member of the mirrorslapped brigade. 

Please, dazzle us with all the research you've done, your data, the millions of buyers you've surveyed. Oh, wait...you're just sharing your opinion. Yet somehow you think your opinion carries more weight than the *ILC market leader*. Lol.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> SL1 is a formidable little camera...



For shame, how dare you suggest a camera with —gasp— a mirror! Such antiquated technology, imminently ******* to failure.


----------



## AvTvM (May 10, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> I'm just grateful the EF-M mount is getting a Macro, and sounds like a 35mm (converts to 56mm) f/1.8 which I can use for portraiture, ...



sorry to disappoint you, but the patent by *stupid Canon* is for a *stupid* slow 28mm *f/3.5 *lens ... not for a 35/1.8. 

28/3.5 "Macro" will be pretty much useless for portraiture due to focal length/AOV and slow aperture portraiture if you're after selective DOF and subject isolation and of very limited use for macro work since working distance will be only a few mm from front lens. So far, it is even unclear whether it will do 1:1 scale or only 1:2 "half-ass macro".

Such a lens really should have lowest possible priority in developing native EF-M lens lineup. Even *stupid Canon* should realize this. I could possibly see a native EF-M version of the EF-S 60/2.8 Macro - although personally i'd also not buy it since I am happy to use my EF-S 60 with adapter. 

A 28/3.5 "macro" would be a bad joke, whereas a decent, ultra-compact EF-M 80mm f/2.4 IS STM attractively priced at USD/€ 399 would sell like hotcakes. Alternatively Canon could shoot somewhat higher with an EF-M 80mm *f/2 * provided it is still acceptably compact and optically good - priced at maybe USD/€ 699. Of course they would sell significantly less units of that version. 

In the grand scheme of EOS-M affairs, any additional EF-M lenses have very low priority, as long as *stupid Canon* is not even able to launch a truly kick-ass EOS M4 camera body. Bare minimum would be full 80D functionality and performance in a EOS-M3/Sony A6300 form factor priced below the magic 1 grand mark = 999. Of course including a built-in first-rate EVF.  

No million $$$ market research needed. It is so obvious to anybody with a pair of eyes and some greyish neuro-matter in their skulls.


----------



## noncho (May 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> noncho said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, many more people want small and light 50 and 85 F2(or 40 and 75 etc) without bulky converters than short macro...
> ...



I'm so sorry that I didn't notice the crowd begging for short macro. 
This is a protection policy from Canon, they just want to sell more of the old 85 1.8 and revised 50 1.8 STM and make us use them with those bulky adapters. Many people who don't mind using adapters already moved to Sony.

How to take such system as a serious mirrorless player? 
Don't get me wrong, I have M + 3 lenses, but 4 years system and 1 native prime and no visible light in the tunnel for a little bit more telephoto prime lenses (50 2.0, 80 2.0 or 120 2.8) is not making me happy.


----------



## Woody (May 10, 2016)

noncho said:


> I'm so sorry that I didn't notice the crowd begging for short macro.
> This is a protection policy from Canon, they just want to sell more of the old 85 1.8 and revised 50 1.8 STM and make us use them with those bulky adapters. Many people who don't mind using adapters already moved to Sony.
> 
> How to take such system as a serious mirrorless player?



Errr... look carefully before you speak.

Sony has an equivalent APS-C E-mount lens:
Sony 30 mm f/3.5 macro (1:1), 138 g, US$253
http://www.sony.com.sg/electronics/camera-lenses/sel30m35

So, I guess we also cannot take Sony seriously as a mirrorless player...


----------



## AvTvM (May 10, 2016)

Woody said:


> Sony has an equivalent APS-C E-mount lens:
> Sony 30 mm f/3.5 macro (1:1), 138 g, US$253
> http://www.sony.com.sg/electronics/camera-lenses/sel30m35



equally stupid! :

APS-C MILC systems:
Sony A6300/E: cameras OK, lenses suck.
Canon EOS-M: lenses OK, cameras suck. 

Both companies are *really stupid*. : :


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2016)

noncho said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > noncho said:
> ...



Quite alright, Canon evidently did.


----------



## AvTvM (May 10, 2016)

* A built-in macro light. It can automatically illuminate when needed
* Maximum magnification is 1:2 times

as expected. half-ass "macro". Might be fine though for all those folks capturing flowers in their back yard. 
Curious to see a picture of the lens, especially what the built-in light looks like - one side only? Or complete LED-ringlight?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Such a lens really should have lowest possible priority in developing native EF-M lens lineup. Even *stupid Canon* should realize this. I could possibly see a native EF-M version of the EF-S 60/2.8 Macro - although personally i'd also not buy it since I am happy to use my EF-S 60 with adapter.
> 
> A 28/3.5 "macro" would be a bad joke, whereas a decent, ultra-compact EF-M 80mm f/2.4 IS STM attractively priced at USD/€ 399 would sell like hotcakes.
> 
> No million $$$ market research needed. It is so obvious to anybody with a pair of eyes and some greyish neuro-matter in their skulls.



As the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM is essentially a done deal, the joke is on you. 

Ladies and Gentlemen... In this corner...Canon, the $30B heavyweight champion global ILC market leader who's sold over 110 million lenses. And in this corner...AvTvM, the featherweight Internet yokel who's bought a handful of lenses and has a pair of eyes. DING. Punch. Hope AvTvM didn't lose too many teeth when his face hit the canvas.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 10, 2016)

EF-M 28mm F3.5 Macro IS STM (Google translated)
The world’s lightest macro lens
Hybrid IS
Image stabilization
45mm when converted to APS-C
A built-in macro light. It can automatically illuminate when needed
Maximum magnification is 1:2 times
Autofocus is done with stepping motors
One UD lens and two aspherical lens

At first I was meh, now I think this is nearly a "must have" like the 22mm.

Consider the 22mm pancake is 105g, and the Sony E Macro is 138g. this macro will most likely be somewhere around the SAME weight as a pancake 22mm. imagine - a macro lens including a built in light weighing in around the same as the 22mm pancake.

a 60mm macro or even a 50mm is useless as a carry around option in your pocket. a small light macro lens that you can toss into your pocket and bring with you just in case?

that has a built in LED light (assumption)?

that actually includes canon's Hybrid Macro IS?

what's not to love? assuming the price is also cheap - this is really a no brainer as a carry around "just in case" option.

for copy work, tripod,etc - wtf are people whining about? the 100mm 60mm canon EF options for that are fine. you don't bloody well care about weight, size,etc. What's missing is one you can carry around with you all the time.

I have the 60mm EF-s for my M's .. I never carry it unless I'm specifically shooting macros. this i'll always have with me.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 10, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> a decent, ultra-compact EF-M 80mm f/2.4 IS STM attractively priced at USD/€ 399 would sell like hotcakes.



Seriously you need to lay off the cough syrup.

an 80mm 2.4? what the heck would be the need? that's a pretty messed up useless lens spec if I ever heard one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2016)

Pretty cool. I bet this will sell quite well.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pretty cool. I bet this will sell quite well.



wow. this is definitely on the buy list.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 10, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty cool. I bet this will sell quite well.
> ...



"super macro mode" other sites are reporting 1.2x magnification. I thought it was a typo, but look at this pic:






This lens just MAY be 1:1.2

it would also explain the need for a built in ring light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> So far, it is even unclear whether it will do 1:1 scale or only 1:2 "half-ass macro".



Seems it will be a "double-plus ass" 1.2:1 /1.2x super-macro. With a built-in ring light. And small. And light.

But yeah, it's crap and you still know better than Canon what lenses will sell best. : : :


----------



## bainsybike (May 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Seems it will be a "double-plus ass" 1.2:1 /1.2x super-macro. With a built-in ring light. And small. And light.



Notice that it has a plastic mount, so maybe it'll be cheap as well. Looks like good news.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pretty cool. I bet this will sell quite well.



Interesting!


----------



## rrcphoto (May 10, 2016)

a rough guess on the size is around 60mm x 47mm (DxL)







to put it into perspective 
- the 60mm EF-S is 69mm x 73mm
- the Sony E 30mm is 60x55mm
- the Fuji 60mm 2.4 "half assed" 1:2 macro is 64x70mm


----------



## Woody (May 10, 2016)

The specs look mighty attractive. Whoever says Canon has lost its creativity can go eat some dung. ;D


----------



## AvTvM (May 10, 2016)

how many shots will you get out of an EOS M/2/3/10 battery charge using that ring light lens? 

Other than that I must give it to stupid Canon, that for once they were *stupid innovative* with that light. Normally I would have expected such an Inspector-gagdet type lens with built-in ring-light from Yongnuo or some other Chinese outfit. ;D


----------



## rrcphoto (May 10, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> how many shots will you get out of an EOS M/2/3/10 battery charge using that ring light lens?
> 
> Other than that I must give it to stupid Canon, that for once they were *stupid innovative* with that light.



you're never done are you?

the lens looks brilliant .. and you're STILL sniveling.

it's arguably the smallest and they claim the lightest macro lens out there today. you can take it with you anywhere. appears to have a 1.2:1 magnification mode on top of 1:1, it doesn't replace the other macros in canon's arsenal, but adds a damn nice carry around anywhere macro that looks like it'll be alot of fun.

not all of us want big lenses for the M - that's not it's charm. suck it up and deal with it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> how many shots will you get out of an EOS M/2/3/10 battery charge using that ring light lens?
> 
> Other than that I must give it to stupid Canon, that for once they were *stupid innovative* with that light. Normally I would have expected such an Inspector-gagdet type lens with built-in ring-light from Yongnuo or some other Chinese outfit. ;D



LED lighting is quite efficient – an LED flashlight will run for hours on a AAA battery. 

There is a Chinese 1-5x Macro for the EOS M with built-in lighting, although it requires a USB power source. 




rrcphoto said:


> the lens looks brilliant .. and you're STILL sniveling.



Well, that's what happens when you get slapped too many times by a mirror...


----------



## dcm (May 10, 2016)

Like what I'm hearing so far, more than I expected. I do a fair amount of manual focus fine tuning for macro with my 100L on FF. I wonder how easy it will be to manually fine tune focus on this lens.


----------



## AvTvM (May 10, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> the lens looks brilliant .. and you're STILL sniveling.
> 
> it's arguably the smallest and they claim the lightest macro lens out there today. you can take it with you anywhere. appears to have a 1.2:1 magnification mode on top of 1:1, it doesn't replace the other macros in canon's arsenal, but adds a damn nice carry around anywhere macro that looks like it'll be alot of fun.
> 
> not all of us want big lenses for the M - that's not it's charm. suck it up and deal with it.



I am the first one wanting small lenses and have posted that many times. 

Not sure, whether I want them Inspector gadget style though. But lets wait and see reviews, user reports ... and images captured with it that are truly ... innovative. 8)

PS: to me the lens looks a bit like a donkey penis with a ring light up front. ;D


----------



## brad-man (May 10, 2016)

I still wish it were longer and faster, but I must admit it looks intriguing. Does the light have variable brightness or does one size fit all? I'll be looking forward to reviews and pricing...


----------



## rrcphoto (May 10, 2016)

brad-man said:


> I still wish it were longer and faster, but I must admit it looks intriguing. Does the light have variable brightness or does one size fit all? I'll be looking forward to reviews and pricing...



going by the switch on the lens, I'm thinking it's a dumb on/off macro light.

otherwise that would assume that flash control is also supported by the lens pins.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 10, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> PS: to me the lens looks a bit like a donkey penis with a ring light up front. ;D



I'll leave that one to your obvious expertise in the matter.


----------



## brad-man (May 10, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > I still wish it were longer and faster, but I must admit it looks intriguing. Does the light have variable brightness or does one size fit all? I'll be looking forward to reviews and pricing...
> ...



The switch could control variable brightness by the number of presses, rather like the drawer full of flashlights I have. One click-low, two clicks-brighter, and so on. The 1:2 magnification as well as the focal length is disappointing, but that ring light is potentially awesome.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> to me the lens looks a bit like a donkey penis





brad-man said:


> I still wish it were longer



Way, way too much information.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2016)

brad-man said:


> The 1:2 magnification as well as the focal length is disappointing, but that ring light is potentially awesome.



It looks more like it's actually 1.2:1 magnification.


----------



## brad-man (May 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > to me the lens looks a bit like a donkey penis
> ...



Get your mind out of the gutter. Have we been drinking?




neuroanatomist said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > The 1:2 magnification as well as the focal length is disappointing, but that ring light is potentially awesome.
> ...



That would be as awesome as the ring light may be. What would be the working distance for that? Around 8mm ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2016)

brad-man said:


> What would be the working distance for that? Around 8mm ;D



You want that to be longer, too?


----------



## brad-man (May 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > What would be the working distance for that? Around 8mm ;D
> ...



That's why I like macro lenses. They make _everything_ look bigger!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2016)

;D


----------



## AvTvM (May 11, 2016)

brad-man said:


> That's why I like macro lenses. They make _everything_ look bigger!



;D ;D


----------



## rrcphoto (May 11, 2016)

and it's out!

300 USD.

61x46mm and 130g - the lightest and smallest 1:1 macro for a regular ILC camera. even flips and goes to 1.2x magnification!

lights you can have left or right one on, or both, and two levels of brightness.
includes the lens hood! 

Only in the AvTvM Universe™ could someone complain about this.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2016)

Sweet! Will be ordering one...


----------



## aussielearner (May 11, 2016)

This statement at the end of their product release got me.

"A firmware update will be released at the end of May for the EOS M3 and EOS M10 which will help you take full advantage of the AF speed capable when shooting movies with the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM."

I wonder why no firmware update/release for the M2. It was my understanding that the M10 and M2 are the same internally when it came to sensor and AF - only that the M10 had the Digic6 processor.

I'm wondering why the M10 can handle more "AF speed" whilst the M2 can't? Is the M2's DiGiC processor too slow to handle AF at a higher speed?


----------



## Woody (May 11, 2016)

Putting the patents and rumors together, these are the EF-M lenses that will get released in 2016/2017:

15 mm f/2
28 mm f/3.5 macro HIS (done)
35 mm f/1.8
9-18 mm f/3.5-4.5
16-80 mm f/2-6
50-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 DO

Previously, we have the following EF-M lenses:
22 mm f/2
11-22 mm f/4-5.6 IS
18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
55-200 mm f/4.5-6.3 IS

So, by the end of 2017, we should have at least 10 EF-M lenses.


----------



## Maximilian (May 11, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> and it's out!
> 
> 300 USD.
> 
> ...


Wow! (price) And wow! (weight) And wow! (1.2x mag) And wow! (functionality of included light)
For EOS-M this one looks pretty interesting. 

But Canon will stay not innovative. ;D


----------



## AvTvM (May 11, 2016)

To date 5 EF-M lenses have been released:
22 mm f/2 STM
11-22 mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
15-45 mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM 
18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
55-200 mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

plus today's announcement: 
28 mm f/3.5 macro HIS (done)



Woody said:


> 15 mm f/2
> 35 mm f/1.8
> 9-18 mm f/3.5-4.5
> 16-80 mm f/2-6
> ...



I expect only 1 more EF-M for 2016 ... maybe 50-300 DO. 2017 ... ? 

Of all the patents floating around, I'd only be somewhat interested in 35/1.8. 
What I am really waiting: an ultracompact, moderately fast EF-M 80/2.4 IS STM portrait tele. Even f/2.8 would be fine, if it is really small and usable fully open.


----------



## axtstern (May 11, 2016)

There seems to be some kind of extension for the donkey pe.... in the package:


This is not fair... since weeks I try to convince myself that I hate my M3 but the 11-22mm prevents any success, now this lens will make it even harder.


----------



## axtstern (May 11, 2016)

Forgot to mention this two comments


Two curved flash units surround the front element of the lens, with the ability to illuminate both simultaneously, or one at a time. Users are also able to adjust the brightness of the Macro Lites between “bright” and “dim” settings.
Hybrid IS, the same feature as found on Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens, helps reduce camera shake for enjoyable handheld photography.

from the anouncement


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2016)

*Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia*



Frodo said:


> If a new prime, why so close to the solitary 22mm.



Incidentally, for those 'concerned' that the FL is close to the 22mm, consider that:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Canon offers both 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS primes, and those are even closer
[*]22mm to 28mm is 27% longer, nearly the same as the difference between 300mm and 400mm
[*]The 28/3.5 Macro has IS, the 22/2 doesn't
[/list]

In any case, the lens is official and supposed to be released at the end of June. While a certain failure in the AvTvM Universe™, out here in the real world this is likely to be a very popular lens – I bet it will spur people to buy into the EOS M system. 

While it's a small demographic, I bet this will be really popular with dentists/orthodontists and other medical professions where close-up documentation is important.


----------



## ahsanford (May 11, 2016)

*Re: New EF-M Lens registered in Russia*



neuroanatomist said:


> While it's a small demographic, I bet this will be really popular with dentists/orthodontists and other medical professions where close-up documentation is important.



As well as photographers specializing in army man / action figure environmental portraiture.

- A


----------



## koenkooi (May 11, 2016)

aussielearner said:


> This statement at the end of their product release got me.
> 
> "A firmware update will be released at the end of May for the EOS M3 and EOS M10 which will help you take full advantage of the AF speed capable when shooting movies with the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS STM."
> 
> ...



My guess is that they only update the powershot based firmware. The M1 and M2 used an EOS based firmware, the M3 and M10 use a powershot based firmware. 
This is one of the reasons why I hold on to my M1, the lack of hotshoe on the M10 is another.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2016)

koenkooi said:


> This is one of the reasons why I hold on to my M1, the lack of hotshoe on the M10 is another.



+1, reasons I bought the M2 when my M died, instead of the M3 which had been out for a while and was avaiable in the US (vs. the M2 which I had to buy internationally).


----------



## ritholtz (May 11, 2016)

If you are already married, waste of money I guess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v5gS7J1ohM


----------



## dcm (May 12, 2016)

Includes a lens cap, lens hood, and lens dust cap - all the available accessories. And shares 43mm filters with the 22 when using the lens hood. More to like.

Already ordered.


----------



## d (May 12, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> If you are already married, waste of money I guess.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v5gS7J1ohM



Worth noting that in the part of the video set a couple of years from now they're still using the same prime on the same body - doesn't bode well for the future of the M-mount!


----------



## brad-man (May 12, 2016)

d said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > If you are already married, waste of money I guess.
> ...



I would respectfully disagree. It indicates that the camera and lens were built to last and that the couple were so satisfied with the performance that they felt no need to upgrade. Of course it could also mean that having a child is so damn expensive that they couldn't afford to.


----------



## d (May 12, 2016)

brad-man said:


> I would respectfully disagree. It indicates that the camera and lens were built to last and that the couple were so satisfied with the performance that they felt no need to upgrade. Of course it could also mean that having a child is so damn expensive that they couldn't afford to.



Both good points!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 12, 2016)

brad-man said:


> It indicates that the camera and lens were built to last...



Yeah, my first thought on seeing that was that their hypothetical M10 lasted a lot longer than my actual M, which died for no apparent reason (I replaced it with an M2, which was only $20 more than Canon USA's flat-rate repair fee for the EOS M).


----------



## Random Orbits (May 12, 2016)

d said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > If you are already married, waste of money I guess.
> ...



That's because they don't want to fuel speculation on what the M8 looks like!


----------



## Rocky (May 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > It indicates that the camera and lens were built to last...
> ...


Another proof that the big company has forced us into a " throw away society ".


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2016)

Rocky said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



True, although I haven't thrown it away just yet...


----------

