# Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 12, 2018)

```
<p>This has been a hard lens to pin down, likely because it’s still a long way off, with the expected announcement in August/September 2018 ahead of Photokina.</p>
<p>We <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/the-coming-ef-m-prime-to-be-50mm-equivalent-for-aps-c-eos-m-cr2/">reported last month</a> that the lens was going to be a 50mm equivalent for APS-C and that it was going to be fast.</p>
<p>We rate this information in two parts.</p>
<p><strong>The [<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-rumors-rating-system-explained/">CR3</a>] Part:</strong></p>
<p>The lens will have a focal length of 32mm and won’t have IS.</p>
<p><strong>The [<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-rumors-rating-system-explained/">CR2</a>] Part:</strong></p>
<p>The speed of the lens I haven’t been able to nail down with 100% certainty as of yet, it’ll either be f/1.4 or f/1.8 based on the conflicting information I have received.</p>
<p>Once I confirm 100% the speed of the lens, I’ll obviously let you know.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*

If it's f/1.4, I'm in. If it's f/1.8, that may not far enough off the 22/2.


----------



## eninja (Feb 12, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*

If f1.4, will the lens be like, attaching an EF 35mm 1.4 L to Eos M?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*

Smirk. 

- A


----------



## andrei1989 (Feb 12, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*



eninja said:


> If f1.4, will the lens be like, attaching an EF 35mm 1.4 L to Eos M?



noo...it will be something like a 50 1.8 without and adapter


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*



eninja said:


> If f1.4, will the lens be like, attaching an EF 35mm 1.4 L to Eos M?



No. It will be like attaching a slightly larger version of the ancient pre IS EF 35mm f/2. My guess is it will be about as big as the EF 50 f/1.4 USM, which is to say not that big at all. 

Sigma made an EF-S image circle 30mm f/1.4 and it was not that big if memory serves. 

- A


----------



## eninja (Feb 12, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*



ahsanford said:


> eninja said:
> 
> 
> > If f1.4, will the lens be like, attaching an EF 35mm 1.4 L to Eos M?
> ...



Certainly I was not referring to the size.
I mean like bokeh wise:
Eos M + EF-m 32mm f/1.4 ?= Eos M + EF 35mm 1.4 L ?= 6D + EF 50mm f/1.8


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*



eninja said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > eninja said:
> ...



Oh. No, it will have the light gathering of f/1.4, but the DOF/isolation of a full frame camera with a 50mm f/2.2 or so. 

As far as the _quality_ of the bokeh goes, that’s quite subjective and we’ll have to try it and see. 

- A


----------



## criscokkat (Feb 12, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*



ahsanford said:


> eninja said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



So it hits the target mark of people wanting a smaller camera with a standard lens *and* is great for cinematographers as well? 

This will probably sell very well. If I was in the M camp I'd buy it day one.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2018)

I stand corrected on the potential size of this. Sigma's crop-only 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM Art is just about as big as Canon's EF 35mm f/2 IS USM.

Can't post the picture today, but you can see a direct comparison here:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=838&LensComp2=0&LensComp=824

So I appreciate we need to consider the mirrorbox removal for an EF-M version, but one would think it would be about as big as these two lenses.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2018)

Also curious to see if we'll get a nano USM here, or if it will just be STM.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Also curious to see if we'll get a nano USM here, or if it will just be STM.



I'd guess STM.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Also curious to see if we'll get a nano USM here, or if it will just be STM.
> ...



Most likely, right? I'm also curious what they'll ask for it:

If it's f/1.4 Nano USM, you're into 'enthusiast money' territory -- esp. as this mount's first truly fast prime. I'm assuming you're in the $399-499 territory.

But if it's f/1.8 STM, you're really just replicating an EF 50 f/1.8 STM in crop, and that EF only costs $125. 

So depending on speed + AF, price could be all over the map. We'll have to wait and see.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Feb 12, 2018)

I'm surprised by no IS. I understand that will make it smaller and lighter, but it will also limit its appeal for some. Maybe not the hard core CR readers, but for the millions who have come to rely on having IS in all their lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I'm surprised by no IS. I understand that will make it smaller and lighter, but it will also limit its appeal for some. Maybe not the hard core CR readers, but for the millions who have come to rely on having IS in all their lenses.



Agree of course, but perhaps they wanted to minimize its size or not upstage EF here (who does not have IS in faster than f/2 primes wider than 85mm presently). 

- A


----------



## hachu21 (Feb 12, 2018)

Actual EF-M line :
- 5 Zooms
- Only 2 primes
- All 7 lenses are under 300g. (The sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM ART is 435g.)
- Only 1 is non-stabilized : the smallest one (22 pancake).
- All 7 lenses are STM type

Knowing Canon, they will stick to their product familly philosophy : Small, light and reasonably priced.

If the "no IS" is confirmed, I'd bet on another ultracompact/pancake lense.
STM seems obvious a this stage.
Aperture? f/1.4 seems a bit "out of the family" and has an impact on both cost and size/weight.

A good 32mm f/2 (f/1.8 maybe) pancake, as sharp as the 22mm seem a logical plan.

But it also depends on what will really be the M50. If it's a very video-centric camera, it could ask for really different EF-M lenses.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 12, 2018)

I'll probably buy it:

IS or not
f/1.4 or f/1.8
STM or Nano

But, my preference would be IS, f/1.4 and Nano. But, I understand it will probably not be any of these things.


----------



## hmatthes (Feb 12, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I'm surprised by no IS. I understand that will make it smaller and lighter, but it will also limit its appeal for some. Maybe not the hard core CR readers, but for the millions who have come to rely on having IS in all their lenses.



IS wouldn't really be necessary for a "normal" perspective lens. No full frame 50mm currently has IS. Seems like the wides and longs do get IS unless L series 2.8 lenses (16~35 & 28~70 L lenses of f/4 have IS, f/2.8 do not).
IS is, however, immensely popular and helps sales albeit at a higher cost and possible impact upon ultimate image quality. Adding electronics and another element does not come for free.
My guess would be that a EF-m fast normal would not need/have IS unless necessary for marketing...


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2018)

hachu21 said:


> Knowing Canon, they will stick to their product familly philosophy : Small, light and reasonably priced.
> 
> If the "no IS" is confirmed, I'd bet on another ultracompact/pancake lense.
> STM seems obvious a this stage.



Small? Yes. 

STM? Highly likely. 

Pancake? No. Not unless you consider the 50 f/1.8 stm a pancake. 

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 12, 2018)

curious lens if it comes in at a 32mm 1.4 with no IS.

it would be really the first time canon's doing a "fuji" versus something similar to a "sony" which is announce an odd focal length lens just to make purists that want a 50mm lens get what they want.

where sony would simply slap a 35mm 1.8 OSS out there and good it good.


----------



## transpo1 (Feb 12, 2018)

hachu21 said:


> Actual EF-M line :
> - 5 Zooms
> - Only 2 primes
> - All 7 lenses are under 300g. (The sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM ART is 435g.)
> ...



Makes sense. Doesn't the M5 have 5 axis electronic stabilization? Maybe the M50 will, too. I'd rather have IS in the lens, of course, but I'm just thrilled they may be putting 4K in one of these cameras and improving their lens lineup


----------



## slclick (Feb 12, 2018)

Well, add this to the 22 and use the 50 STM w/adapter (which works remarkably well, btw) and there's one version of the trinity. I'd prefer an ef-m 50 and an 85 for my needs.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Makes sense. Doesn't the M5 have 5 axis electronic stabilization?



...for video. Not for stills. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> curious lens if it comes in at a 32mm 1.4 with no IS.
> 
> it would be really the first time canon's doing a "fuji" versus something similar to a "sony" which is announce an odd focal length lens just to make purists that want a 50mm lens get what they want.
> 
> where sony would simply slap a 35mm 1.8 OSS out there and good it good.



Less of pulling a Fuji than showing off how small and simple a 50 (equivalent) double gauss lens is to make. For some magical reason, 50 primes can simultaneously be very fast and very small. See the non-L EF 50s for what I mean.

So I don’t see this as Canon going higher end like Fuji nearly so much as Canon dropping some long pre-existing FF know-how into a crop lens. That’s not a bad thing at all, but we should keep both feet firmly planted on the ground if we were hoping for a line of super fast EF-M primes — that’s not happening. 

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 12, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > curious lens if it comes in at a 32mm 1.4 with no IS.
> ...



really? so you know the design of it already?

it will still have to be a 32mm focal lens lens design, regardless of equivalence. the fact that the 50mm lenses are double gauss has no bearing whatsoever to this conversation.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 12, 2018)

hachu21 said:


> Actual EF-M line :
> - 5 Zooms
> - Only 2 primes
> - All 7 lenses are under 300g. (The sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM ART is 435g.)
> ...



another thing to add is that every EF-M lens seems to be exactly the same diameter, if that continues that limits the aperture as well.


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 12, 2018)

No IS would be a real shame. Right now I am using adapted EF-S 35mm f/2.8 and utilizing its IS for like 2-3 stops of lower ISO during evening shots. EF-M 32mm f/1.4 would mean 1 stop higher ISO than now. :'(

Personally this specification seems little odd to me based on other EF-M lenses. Most of them have something extra, something to sell the lens with. The 22 is ultra small, 28 has macro and LED light, 18-150 long reach, 11-22 is great for vlogging, 15-45 is collapsible... is the 1.4 aperture enough to sell the lens to masses, especially on 50mm equivalent that is not ideal for portraits?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> really? so you know the design of it already?



Of course I don’t know what it is. But ask yourself a few questions:

1) Does Canon want ‘crop-specific’ and ‘high end’ to coexist? I would contend the answer is no. Just ask every EF-S user who has been frustrated at how few quick lenses have been offered in that mount. 

2) Do you expect an EF-M lens like this to get a distance scale, mechanical FTM focusing, etc? I do not. EF-M thus far has been an entirely FBW system. 

And I think this thing dies a horrible market death if it’s above a certain price, say $499. That tells me that this is mid-grade non-L EF quality (feature-wise) _at best_. So it could be delightfully small and sharp, but this will not be a high end instrument. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> Personally this specification seems little odd to me based on other EF-M lenses. Most of them have something extra, something to sell the lens with. The 22 is ultra small, 28 has macro and LED light, 18-150 long reach, 11-22 is great for vlogging, 15-45 is collapsible... is the 1.4 aperture enough to sell the lens to masses, especially on 50mm equivalent that is not ideal for portraits?



I agree the platform has been innovative and feature-specific clever with its lens offerings. 

But at some point the platform needs to grow up and simply offer something similar to what we have on other mounts. So the masses may not be clamoring for this lens, but a good number of the people on the forum here would snap it up on day one regardless of STM / Nano USM and the aperture. 

...or this lens is being done for EF-M and not EF-S for a very special reason: some people here have suggested that Canon’s upcoming FF mirrorless might take a page out of Sony’s book and keep the same mount as crop. It is possible that all of the current EF-M lenses and this new one will fit/work on the new FF platform (albeit cropped). Maybe that’s why EF-M is getting what appears to be the special treatment over EF-S here?

(Or Canon might just ‘pull a 24 pancake / 35 macro’ here and just offer a close to the same variant of this lens in EF-S later.)

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Makes sense. Doesn't the M5 have 5 axis electronic stabilization?
> ...



And three of the axes are digital, not optical/mechanical.


----------



## hachu21 (Feb 12, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Small? Yes.
> STM? Highly likely.
> Pancake? No. Not unless you consider the 50 f/1.8 stm a pancake.
> 
> - A


I agree a 50mm really pancake seem difficult, but Something more like the EF 40mm f/2.8 is maybe possible? 
As you pointed out, some designs are jumping from one mount to another.
We didn't see little brothers for this 40mm yet. maybe a jump from FF to APSC is not that simple.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2018)

hachu21 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Small? Yes.
> ...



Sure, it could be delightfully small, but prior crop 30-ish f/1.4 lenses still have some size to them. 

See my prior TDP link on how big the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art was. It’s small, but it’s no pancake. And neither is the Fuji 35 f/1.4. Both appear to be about as big as the Canon EF 35 f/2 IS.

But who knows? Perhaps Canon pulls a rabbit out of a hat and comes up with something amazingly tiny. We’ll see.

- A


----------



## Act444 (Feb 12, 2018)

If it’s a 1.4 I’ll likely go for it...but at 1.8 I’d rather it have IS if it’s to distinguish itself enough from the 22/2. 

Bottom line: the EF-M system needs more fast lenses.


----------



## hachu21 (Feb 12, 2018)

Act444 said:


> If it’s a 1.4 I’ll likely go for it...but at 1.8 I’d rather it have IS if it’s to distinguish itself enough from the 22/2.


22mm => 35mm equivalent field of view
32mm => 50mm equivalent field of view

As primes both have their own use-cases.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 12, 2018)

hachu21 said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > If it’s a 1.4 I’ll likely go for it...but at 1.8 I’d rather it have IS if it’s to distinguish itself enough from the 22/2.
> ...



+1. I live in the 24 to 50 mm full frame equivalent space, and I disagree with those who say that a 22 and 32 on crop are not that different. 

In broad strokes, I see the 15 crop / 24 FF for landscape work, the 18-22 crop / 28-35 FF as a killer general purpose focal length, and a 32 crop / 50 prime as the shortest focal length that gets you large aperture work that really pops. 

In fairness, everybody uses these lenses a little differently. But my take is the more primes the better. 

- A


----------



## Act444 (Feb 12, 2018)

hachu21 said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > If it’s a 1.4 I’ll likely go for it...but at 1.8 I’d rather it have IS if it’s to distinguish itself enough from the 22/2.
> ...



I realize that; should probably have clarified I was speaking on a more personal needs level.


----------



## bhf3737 (Feb 12, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*



eninja said:


> If f1.4, will the lens be like, attaching an EF 35mm 1.4 L to Eos M?



A close lens with similar spec is Fujifilm 35mm f1.4 that has 52mm filter size, approx. 2.56 x 2.16" (65 x 55 mm) dimensions and 187g weight. Something similar in size to EF-M 11-22mm. It is not a big lens but not a pancake either.


----------



## TTran (Feb 12, 2018)

EF-M 32mm f/1.4 plus a 4K (full width) APS-C body will be an instant buy for me. Until then I'll just keep using the 80D with the 35mm f/2 IS USM


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 12, 2018)

hachu21 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Small? Yes.
> ...



yes you have.
the 22 EF-M and the 24mm EF-S are the little brothers.

the common tessar like design of the pancake lenses are built around the registration distance of the lens elements to the sensor.

the EF-S 24mm cheats because it has a large ingress, and minimizes distortion because it's APS-C and not full frame.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 12, 2018)

I would be surprised if the lens is f/1.4, and shocked if it doesn't have IS. Eight months is too long to wait to find out. I'm impatient [CR4]

Now what about that f/4 standard zoom?


----------



## Woody (Feb 12, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*



neuroanatomist said:


> If it's f/1.4, I'm in. If it's f/1.8, that may not far enough off the 22/2.



My sentiments precisely.


----------



## slclick (Feb 12, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*



Woody said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If it's f/1.4, I'm in. If it's f/1.8, that may not far enough off the 22/2.
> ...



This is being repeated however if we were talking FF would this point even come up considering the pretty large focal difference between 35 and 50? It really makes no sense to me just because it's the M mount that it is. 28 and 35, sure...40 and 50, I get that but semi wide to normal? What evs.....


----------



## siegsAR (Feb 13, 2018)

I'm very happy Canon is adding another native EF-M lens. But this focal length(1.6x factor considered) doesn't have appeal to me;
my preferred walkaround prime fl(FF equiv.) is 35-45mm, 50 and above is a bit narrow. I had the 35mm f2 is on 6d before, it felt wide(ish); 50mm II on 6d, narrow.

Although there's the 22m already, I would love to see a native EF-M 24 and 28 mils _further _down the road, even if they start at f/2.


----------



## bdbender4 (Feb 13, 2018)

Sign me up! Personally I like the 50mm+/- equivalent focal length. F/stop, IS, whatever - it's not like we have a lot of other choices, eh? I do have the 22mm.

I have recently been using the nicely compact Fuji 35mm f/2 without IS with no problems. I just had to get back in the habit of watching the minimum shutter speed. My Fuji X-T20 is driving me nuts, though. Even though the Fuji lenses are very nice and very plentiful, the Fuji bodies, of which I have had several..... nuff said.

Got the M5 back out again today, before I saw this. Like I said, sign me up. 8)


----------



## NorbR (Feb 13, 2018)

I'll probably be in the minority, but I'd prefer if it were f/1.8 or even f/2.

I can live with no IS, but then I'd want a lens that is small and light. Something in the spirit of the 22/2. Of course it will have to be bigger than that lens, but I'd hope for something in the same ball park, just a bit longer. And I don't think that would be possible with a f/1.4, because physics. Then it gets closer to the size of e.g. the Sigma 30mm DC, and that's already significantly bigger.

So a small, cheap 32mm f1.8 please. And keep the f/1.4 and f/1.2 for the future full frame line


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 13, 2018)

I feel like Canon would do well just to make another 22mm pancake in f1.4.

The biggest advantage of short flange systems is the focal length range from 18-35mm, so they should really be making their best lenses in that range.

Canon may as well never actually produce a 50mm lens for EF-M because it would be exactly the same as an EF-S design.


----------



## Talys (Feb 13, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*



slclick said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



In my opinion, the major difference between a 22/2 and 32/1.8 prime lens is NOT the field of view, because there are relatively few places where you can't just move to capture more or less of the frame; and if that mattered so much, you'd just pop on a zoom, of which there are good choices in the that FL for EF-M.

The real difference between the two is the perspective. 22 and 32 are massively different in perspective, and using one or the other will just create a different image, if you have objects that you're capturing that are at different distances from you.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 13, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Canon may as well never actually produce a 50mm lens for EF-M because it would be exactly the same as an EF-S design.



...but EF-M will be around a lot longer than EF-S, right? At some point the Rebel mirrors will go away...

In that light, perhaps a 50 prime for EF-M isn't so crazy.

- A


----------



## Talys (Feb 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Canon may as well never actually produce a 50mm lens for EF-M because it would be exactly the same as an EF-S design.
> ...



but... but... what EF-S 50mm? 

Edit: oh, nvm. You mean, 50mm equivalent. I get it, now 8)

Yes, I agree. I think that EF-M is here to stay for a long time, and a 35mm crop (prime) makes a lot of sense. So does a EF-M 50mm / 1.4 or 1.8, too, IMO.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 13, 2018)

9VIII said:


> I feel like Canon would do well just to make another 22mm pancake in f1.4.
> 
> The biggest advantage of short flange systems is the focal length range from 18-35mm, so they should really be making their best lenses in that range.
> 
> Canon may as well never actually produce a 50mm lens for EF-M because it would be exactly the same as an EF-S design.



That is not the only solution. You can use a tele design (positive front group, negative rear group) to make it shorter - the negative group near the sensor is possible because of the lack of a mirror. Think about an EF-M 1.8 50 with the size of the current EF-S 1.8 50. So you have ~20mm less (which is the adapter length).

About tele design: It is comparable to teleconverters which enlarge the effective focal length by e.g. a factor of 2 without increasing the physical length of the lens itself. All teleconverters have the total effect of a negative lens. In a e.g. 

Personally I would prefer a 50mm lens 1.8 or 1.4 with IS, 1:4 max reprod. ratio in a relatively compact package.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 13, 2018)

not interested. 22/2.0 covers it for me. Will only spend money with Canon, if and when they bring a short tele for EF-M ... e.g. EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 13, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*



ahsanford said:


> eninja said:
> 
> 
> > If f1.4, will the lens be like, attaching an EF 35mm 1.4 L to Eos M?
> ...



As an EF-M lens it will definitely not be as big as EF 50/1.4 ... after all it is crop only, not FF image circle. It will have same barrel diameter as all other EF-M lenses. Sizewise similar to 22/2.0, just a bit longer and a bit larger front element [55 or 58mm filter diameter]. 

I expect it to be F/1.8, very compact, optically as good as 22/2.0 and also "very affordable" ... or even "dirt cheap".


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 13, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I feel like Canon would do well just to make another 22mm pancake in f1.4.
> ...



Good point, and the definition of “telephoto” is that the lens length is shorter than the focal length (800mm lenses are not 800mm long).
If I remember correctly this principle is generally limited but the throat diameter, which is maybe less of a concern on Mirrorless but eventually you also run into the angle of incidence problem anyway.
An 85f1.4 pancake would probably lose a couple of stops of light to pixel vignetting on the corners.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 13, 2018)

9VIII said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Moderate tele constructions are no problem, but a 85 1.4 pancake would be a great challenge. Using a 20mm focal length positive group and some negative group would lead to large problems. You need 20mm f/0.6 to make a 1.4 80mm with the negative rear group. I think your argument is correct.

And 20mm f/0.6 results in a 32mm diameter lens with 50dpt - use diamond with it's high refractive index and you have a chance that the lens is not a sphere with a lot of spherical aberrations


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 13, 2018)

Talys said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



No I meant a straight up ordinary 50mm lens, which as you point out would be equally pointless to do in EF-S (besides being able to optimize sharpness for the smaller image circle).
As discussed above there might be potential for something like an EF-M 50mm DO lens, but I wouldn’t count on compact designs on focal lengths much longer than that (especially not with a wide aperture).

In general I wouldn’t count on EOS-M having much of a future though. If Canon ever does make a short flange 35mm mount it would supplant EF-M immediately, we’ll see how Nikon plays it with their new Z mount, if it ends up being popular I can’t see Canon sticking with EF-M forever (besides it sticking around as the extension of the P&S division that it is).

Given how often we hear about curved sensor patents it’s pretty clear that Canon is working on something beyond EOS-M.
I have little doubt that whatever they come up with next will re-establish Canon as the top photography brand in _all_ categories.


----------



## Rocky (Feb 13, 2018)

My personal perspective: Canon has already made a mistake for not putting IS in the 22/2.0. There has been quite a few occasions that I wished the 22/2,0 has IS. It will be a bigger mistake of not to put IS in the new 32mm EF-M lens. The 32mm EF-M will not have the same design as the 50 mm EF due to the shorter flange distance of the M camera. Just like the 22/2 EF-M does not share the same design as the 35/2.0 EF lens.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 13, 2018)

Rocky said:


> My personal perspective: Canon has already made a mistake for not putting IS in the 22/2.0. There has been quite a few occasions that I wished the 22/2,0 has IS. It will be a bigger mistake of not to put IS in the new 32mm EF-M lens. The 32mm EF-M will not have the same design as the 50 mm EF due to the shorter flange distance of the M camera. Just like the 22/2 EF-M does not share the same design as the 35/2.0 EF lens.



I fully agree: While the EF f/2 22 is a great lens the lack of IS reduces the universality of this lens dramatically. After learning the benefits of IS with the f/4 70-200 I will never buy another lens without IS. Except it is a specialty lens like tilt-shift e.g.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 13, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Given how often we hear about curved sensor patents it’s pretty clear that Canon is working on something beyond EOS-M.
> I have little doubt that whatever they come up with next will re-establish Canon as the top photography brand in _all_ categories.



I really doubt curved sensors are going to go here.

stacked sensors IMO, are pretty much a given though.

stacked sensors will give canon's mirrorless a boost it needs to really kick it up a notch for the dr zealots that still for some reason lurk in the dark shadows and for AF performance, and possibly to do things such as sony's liveview EVF display.


----------



## okaro (Feb 13, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*



Talys said:


> In my opinion, the major difference between a 22/2 and 32/1.8 prime lens is NOT the field of view, because there are relatively few places where you can't just move to capture more or less of the frame; and if that mattered so much, you'd just pop on a zoom, of which there are good choices in the that FL for EF-M.
> 
> The real difference between the two is the perspective. 22 and 32 are massively different in perspective, and using one or the other will just create a different image, if you have objects that you're capturing that are at different distances from you.



A major difference is bokeh. 32 mm f/1.4 has twice the aperture size of 22 mm f/2.0 so it has also twice the maximum blur. Making a second 22 mm would make absolutely no sense.


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 13, 2018)

I think, Canon M series has enough lens for me to switch to Mirrorless. Time to make a switch with next batch of M cameras. Though few lens in numbers, seems to cover most of the needs of end users.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 13, 2018)

Talys said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...but EF-M will be around a lot longer than EF-S, right? At some point the Rebel mirrors will go away...
> ...



Forget specific focal lengths, I mean _in general:_ EF-M has a brighter future than EF-S. 

If mirrorless is indeed the future, it makes sense to slowly climb up the SLR pecking order and replace them with mirrorless versions, likely with an EF-M Rebel someday replacing the standard EF-S Rebel SLR. 

So I see neat new crop lenses -- like this first non-pancake / non-macro prime -- possibly _only_ going to EF-M before too long.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 13, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> I really doubt curved sensors are going to go here.



100% agree unless Canon has figured out how to (a) curve the sensor differently for different focal lengths and (b) reverse the curving effect so that EF-S / EF glass can still work with such a sensor.

The (a) limitation implies that if Canon is doing anything with a curved sensor, a fixed lens premium compact might be the better call. Imagine an RX1R II or Leica Q with an even shorter (physical length) lens. :

And not figuring out (b) is a death sentence as it eliminates Canon's #1 advantage in ILC market: all the lenses that came before.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I really doubt curved sensors are going to go here.
> ...



FWIW, Canon has patents covering both (a) and (b) – dynamically variable sensor curvature where 'flat' is one of the possibilities. But a patent isn't a product, and even if Canon has worked out all the details to produce curved-sensor ILCs, I don't think we'll be seeing them soon. 

Agree that a fixed lens implementation is the likely first place we'll see this. Possibly a high-end model, but also possibly a superzoom model – consider a PowerShot with a 24-600mm equivalent zoom lens that's the size of a G9X-type camera.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 13, 2018)

There's certainly plenty of room for reasonable doubt that Canon will make anything significant out of their next generation of camera tech, but look at the track record: Fluorite, Electronic AF, IS, Diffractive Optics, 35mm Digital Sensors, 35mm Digital Video, and more recently Dual Pixel AF...
Over the last decade has any other company actually done anything as significant as any of Canon's top achievements? Is Canon just "over the hill" and it's all a downward spiral from here?

I hate to draw comparisons between hobbies because the industries are so different, but look at Nintendo, the company that founded the modern videogame industry when they regained consumer interest after the "videogame crash" of 1983, and they invented most elements of the modern console controller, they invented intuitive controls in a 3D space (Mario 64), then they invented the motion controls that took the world by storm back in 2006, and now they have the fastest selling system in U.S. history (the Switch) because Google and Apple couldn't recognize good gaming if it hit them in the face.
This company has been proclaimed "dead" or "irrelevant" just as often as they've been proclaimed the greatest thing ever to happen to the industry.

Sound familiar?

My argument is relying on some gross generalizations about company culture and progress continuing over long stretches of time, but the two companies rely on similar principals, they're both "user experience" focused and they tend to look for completely new angles on the base concept of their product instead of trying to iterate to the maximum degree.

As far as I'm concerned it's an inevitability that Canon will continue to create new products that catch everyone by surprise and change the industry in unexpected ways.


----------



## Talys (Feb 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> So I see neat new crop lenses -- like this first non-pancake / non-macro prime -- possibly _only_ going to EF-M before too long.



Yes, I certainly agree with that. In the last few years, I don't think there has been more than 1 interesting EFS lens a year that Canon's produced - the last ones I recall are the EFS35 macro and EFS 18-135 USM (Nano), quite far apart.

I think that Canon will slowly update its more popular EFS lenses to be aesthetically more pleasing, without changing the optical formula or optics -- like they did with EF 70-300. Maybe, they'll give more of them Nano USM instead of STM. That will give lip service to supporting EFS without real R&D dollars going into it.

At the end of the day, I think that it comes down to there not being a huge market for "buy EFS because it's smaller", since EFM is the way to go there.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



curved sensors would crimp their ability to do stacked sensors.

stacked sensors will be far far important to mirrorless overall than curved sensors given the fact that canon needs to catch up on so many mirrorless fronts and that road is paved via stacked sensors.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 13, 2018)

Talys said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > So I see neat new crop lenses -- like this first non-pancake / non-macro prime -- possibly _only_ going to EF-M before too long.
> ...



The wild card is if Canon follows through on this new EF-M lens and makes an EF-S version. They did this with the pancake and wide illuminated macro (not exact like for likes, but very close), and they very well might do this again with this 32mm fast prime. We shall see.

- A


----------



## mpphoto (Feb 14, 2018)

For comparison's sake, here are the Canon EF-M 22mm f/2, Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 (E-mount), and Sigma 30mm DC DN Contemporary f/1.4 (E-mount). The two E-mount lenses have a 52mm filter size. The Sigma definitely sticks out when mounted on a Sony a6000, but the image quality is worth it. That's one of my favorite lenses for the Sony and I was wishing Sigma would make an EF-M version. Hopefully this Canon 32mm f/1.4 is real and performs as well as the Sigma.


----------



## bf (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 Announcement Coming for Photokina [CR2/CR3]*



neuroanatomist said:


> If it's f/1.4, I'm in. If it's f/1.8, that may not far enough off the 22/2.


Agreed! It's better be 1.4 with a reasonable price. Then, I'm in!


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 14, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I am also hoping for EF-S version. They did release EF-S macro lens after few months of releasing EF-M macro lens.


----------



## JoFT (Feb 15, 2018)

It is great to hear that Canon is adding prime lenses to the EF-M ecosystem. I do love my EOS M5. And I did a lot of photos with the 35mmL f1,4 MkII... Awesome combo in terms of IQ but it looks ridiculous. 


Therefore I hope this lens comes pretty compact, lightweight and in f1.4...


I will get it... definitely...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Feb 20, 2018)

Let's be honest, this lens needs to happen. We need to have a serious lens added to the lineup of the EOS-M system. This would be a really incredible lens to add to my travel kit. I hope we see it happen.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Feb 20, 2018)

Hopefully it's built like the 22mm and not all plastic.


----------



## beachcolonist (Mar 11, 2018)

Time proven focal lengths that satisfy for their field of view are 24, 35, 50, 85 .... What is the motivation to create un classic, questionable angles of view at for instance 32mm? It's absurd, and wrong. 

People have not been staring through lenses for 100 years without coming to some aesthetic conclusions that stand the test of time. So along comes some pack of children at an engineering shop with probably no understanding of visual history of art decide to reinvent the wheel, just a little bit off of circular. Brilliant.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 11, 2018)

beachcolonist said:


> Time proven focal lengths that satisfy for their field of view are 24, 35, *50*, 85 .... What is the motivation to create un classic, questionable angles of view at for instance 32mm? It's absurd, and wrong.
> 
> People have not been staring through lenses for 100 years without coming to some aesthetic conclusions that stand the test of time. So along comes some pack of children at an engineering shop with probably no understanding of visual history of art decide to reinvent the wheel, just a little bit off of circular. Brilliant.



People have not been doing math for centuries longer than photography has existed without being able to determine that 32 multiplied by 1.6 (the crop factor of the sensor for which this lens is designed) is 51.2, which is pretty darn close to the 50mm focal length you mention above. 

So along comes someone on an Internet forum with probably no understanding of digital photography and math who decides to criticize what he doesn't understand. Brilliant.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 11, 2018)

beachcolonist said:


> Time proven focal lengths that satisfy for their field of view are 24, 35, 50, 85 .... What is the motivation to create un classic, questionable angles of view at for instance 32mm? It's absurd, and wrong.
> 
> People have not been staring through lenses for 100 years without coming to some aesthetic conclusions that stand the test of time. So along comes some pack of children at an engineering shop with probably no understanding of visual history of art decide to reinvent the wheel, just a little bit off of circular. Brilliant.



“Aesthetic Conclusions”?
I’m betting he hates ice cream too.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 12, 2018)

beachcolonist said:


> Time proven focal lengths that satisfy for their field of view are 24, 35, 50, 85 .... What is the motivation to create un classic, questionable angles of view at for instance 32mm? It's absurd, and wrong.
> 
> People have not been staring through lenses for 100 years without coming to some aesthetic conclusions that stand the test of time. So along comes some pack of children at an engineering shop with probably no understanding of visual history of art decide to reinvent the wheel, just a little bit off of circular. Brilliant.



Now that's just good comedy...


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 12, 2018)

I've also come to realize that the Zoom Lens is the ultimate injustice in this world.
Who'd have thought that everything wrong with society could be summed up so simply?


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 17, 2018)

While this lens is a good companion for the M50 - no IS means no easy buy for me.
Now it depends on (1) overall IQ at f/1.4 and (2) size. If they manage to make it very small e.g. like EF-M 15-45 it would make the M50 (and all other EOS-M cameras) a nice low light compact camera.

Very interesting ... but no IS ... today we have vast amounts of options but that doesn't make it easier ... because a lot of options are not the one we/I need/want.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 17, 2018)

beachcolonist said:


> Time proven focal lengths that satisfy for their field of view are 24, 35, 50, 85 .... What is the motivation to create un classic, questionable angles of view at for instance 32mm? It's absurd, and wrong.



Let's take a variety of photos at 'classic' angles such as 24mm and 35mm and 'questionable' angles such as 32mm and 29mm and get you to tell us which ones are classic and which ones are wrong.

Because clearly the wrong ones will stand out like a sore thumb.


----------



## BillB (Mar 17, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> beachcolonist said:
> 
> 
> > Time proven focal lengths that satisfy for their field of view are 24, 35, 50, 85 .... What is the motivation to create un classic, questionable angles of view at for instance 32mm? It's absurd, and wrong.
> ...




If these in classic focal lengths are so questionable, why do we have zooms and why do so many people buy them?


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 17, 2018)

BillB said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > beachcolonist said:
> ...



Just my reasons to use zooms:
[list type=decimal]
[*]UWA-Zoom: no UW primes were available at the time I wanted a UWA zoom for APS-C (EF-S 10-22)
[*]Tele-Zoom: Like to avoid changing lenses due to sensor dirt: EF 70-200 f/4 non-IS, used primarily as a convenient way to shoot focal lengths of 70 / 100 / 135 / 200 mm. I like to set a desired focal length and use the zoom afterwards like a prime.
[*]200mm lens, compact with IS: only option is now the EF 70-200 f/4 IS with some shorter focal lengths available if needed.
[/list]

If I cannot change my location, a zoom is welcome to make the right framing before composition to get the maximum sensor area of the wanted shot.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 17, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> Tele-Zoom: Like to avoid changing lenses due to sensor dirt: EF 70-200 f/4 non-IS, used primarily as a convenient way to shoot focal lengths of 70 / 100 / 135 / 200 mm. I like to set a desired focal length and use the zoom afterwards like a prime.
> 200mm lens, compact with IS: only option is now the EF 70-200 f/4 IS with some shorter focal lengths available if needed.
> If I cannot change my location, a zoom is welcome to make the right framing before composition to get the maximum sensor area of the wanted shot.



Interesting. My usage of lenses is exactly opposite. 

* I only buy and use primes if there is no zoom available .. mostly when i really want a faster lens than what is available in zooms (f/1.8, 1.4). 

* i only use my zooms like a prime when i am focal length limited .. stuck at maximum or minimum focal length and no wide/longer (zoom) lens at hand.

hehehehehe ;D


----------

