# any new rumors for the next EF-M lens?



## WorkonSunday (Apr 15, 2015)

can really do with a 18-70 or 16-70 like Sony's 16-70 F4 lens. very compact, good range, good aperture, decent sharpness.... 

or a pancake zoom would be good as well.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 15, 2015)

WorkonSunday said:


> can really do with a 18-70 or 16-70 like Sony's 16-70 F4 lens. very compact, good range, good aperture, decent sharpness....
> 
> or a pancake zoom would be good as well.


If I were a betting man, I'd say the 18-200 will get the STM treatment. It's the only non-USM, non-STM EF-S lens left. Beyond that, maybe another pancake, but since all but one EF-S lens is either STM or USM, I doubt we'll see much in the EF-S space. I could be completely wrong, of course 

Wow, I guess I was really out of it yesterday, I thought you said EF-S lens


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 15, 2015)

WorkonSunday said:


> can really do with a 18-70 or 16-70 like Sony's 16-70 F4 lens. very compact, good range, good aperture, decent sharpness....
> 
> or a pancake zoom would be good as well.



Can't really see that happening. They already have the 18-55 and 55-200. The EF-M lenses are already designed for minimum size... can't really see them getting smaller with larger zoom ranges.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 15, 2015)

It is possible that Canon decides to launch an EF-M 18-70mm F3.5-5.6 lens, which is small but not pancake.

As for the pancake zoom lens, this is just a dream. ??? Maybe that dream would be a nightmare EF-M 22-32mm F4.5-5.6 lens. :-\


----------



## DRR (Apr 15, 2015)

Fast primes would help round out the lens lineup for the mount and begin to attract different types of photographers to the system. Another 18-whatever slow zoom is not the answer. 

My 2 cents. ;D


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 15, 2015)

DRR said:


> Fast primes would help round out the lens lineup for the mount and begin to attract different types of photographers to the system. Another 18-whatever slow zoom is not the answer.
> 
> My 2 cents. ;D



+1,000,000

A fast f/~1.4 ~55mm lens would be awesome on the M. Combine that with the 22mm pancake and you got one heck of a nice little kit (35mm and 85mm equiv FL covered) in a tiny little package.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 15, 2015)

DRR said:


> Fast primes would help round out the lens lineup for the mount and begin to attract different types of photographers to the system. Another 18-whatever slow zoom is not the answer.
> 
> My 2 cents. ;D



This. The 3 current zooms are very good in good light for slow/non-moving things. There is a definite need for speed. Three or four fast primes (preferably pancakes) would be most welcome and make the "system" more attractive. I'm not holding my breath though.


----------



## WorkonSunday (Apr 16, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> WorkonSunday said:
> 
> 
> > can really do with a 18-70 or 16-70 like Sony's 16-70 F4 lens. very compact, good range, good aperture, decent sharpness....
> ...


me neither, but one can always hope. ;D 

a 16-70 or 18-70 would give a decent walk-around range up to 105mm FF eqv. 

fast primes are nice, but i really dont want canon going down the sony path where they lens and body (like A7ii) get bigger and bigger (i also own an A7r) and miss the major advantage of mirrorless. if users want ultimate AF speed and IQ, there are bigger offers from canon other lines. i think they need to make sure the M-line is more flexible/mobile but IQ sits just above bridge/m43 cameras.

the 11-22mm is pretty much perfect in size/IQ/price/weight. 18-55 is good, but i think upping the IQ and range by a bit would make the whole system much more attractive. i dont think going to 70mm would make the lens much bigger as proven by sony's 16-70mm.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 16, 2015)

As one of EOS M3 (and M1) owners, I have all four EF-M lenses.
I think we need Macro-lense for filling a blank of EF-M lineup.

Other than that, it's all covered.
We have F2 pancake, wide zoom (which is awesome one), standard zoom and telephoto zoom.
What more do you need for compact system like mirror-less camera?


----------



## DRR (Apr 16, 2015)

I sold my M (original, pre-firesale) last month. It was a wonderful little camera but it simply wasn't getting used enough to justify keeping it.

My main gripes - no viewfinder, and I didn't really like the ergonomics.

The M3 looks great to me - I wish the EVF was smaller or integrated, but still, a proper grip so you're not holding it with three fingers, is a step in the right direction. I love exposure compensation dial on top.

Still the one thing holding me back is the lens selection. I loved the 22mm pancake. An absolutely incredible lens, especially at that size, cost, and weight. A small 55/1.4 would be the ideal prime to add, IMO. I can shoot all day with 35/85. I don't need another slow zoom. I've heard the IQ across all the native M-mount lenses is excellent. If they could begin to engineer primes I think they're set for the future.

Eventually I think EF-M will replace EF-S and the Rebel line will go mirrorless. It'll take a while for that to fully happen but I don't see a point to EF-S down the road. EF-M with its shorter flange focal distance is going to take over. You can always still mount EF-S or EF with an adapter. But you can't go the "other way" (without a speed booster)

Anyway I guess we'll see what's in the cards. For now I'm very happy with my FF+primes.


----------



## crashpc (Apr 26, 2015)

I´m really starving for rumored EF-M 50mm and patented 70-400mm. If these lenses appeared, I´d drop all EF and EF-S leses alltogether.


----------



## WorkonSunday (May 6, 2015)

my M3 just arrived. totally love the 11-22 + m3 combo. also using my trusty leica 28-50mm to cover the normal range. both lens are very similar in size and share 55mm filter. rather perfect combo. 

i dont think a pancake zoom is totally out of touch. since the 11-22 needs to be extended before use. they can do the same with the 18-55. so the lens becomes a pancake when not deployed then extend exactly like a 11-22 when turned on. abit like sony's 16-50, panasonic 14-42 PZ, olympus 14-42 EZ. but of course, degraded IQ is expected.

I owned a A6000 + 16-70 before, and i would love to use the same lens on M3. shame the flange distance is the same, otherwise i can wise for a third party adaptor 

would love to see the rumored 70-400mm. but i read the patent, the image height is only 13.Xmm which is less than 14.xmm on aps-c. so may be it's for some kind of 1" or m4/3 system.


----------



## moreorless (May 6, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> As one of EOS M3 (and M1) owners, I have all four EF-M lenses.
> I think we need Macro-lense for filling a blank of EF-M lineup.
> 
> Other than that, it's all covered.
> ...



Maybe a 2:1 F/2 macro?

Besides that I tend to agree Canon have most of the bases covered for a camera like this, if/when they introduce a higher end M camera then I think the demand for more specialist lenses might increase.


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 6, 2015)

A repackaged 50mm f1.8 STM with a EF-m style mount and body ?


----------



## bholliman (May 8, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> As one of EOS M3 (and M1) owners, I have all four EF-M lenses.
> I think we need Macro-lense for filling a blank of EF-M lineup.
> 
> Other than that, it's all covered.
> ...



Fast primes and a macro lens. I agree with those hoping for a 50/55mm f/1.4.


----------



## Luds34 (May 13, 2015)

bholliman said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > As one of EOS M3 (and M1) owners, I have all four EF-M lenses.
> ...



Yeah, that is (my) one lens missing. I'd probably stop shopping Fuji X and upgrade one of my M's to an M3 and be content with my little "travel" system.


----------



## -1 (May 13, 2015)

I think that Canon is unhappy with the Ms present userbase. They won't release interesting new cameras or lenses till it's totally and completly gone. Then they are going to release an a6000 competitor and a 50/1.2...


----------



## WorkonSunday (May 13, 2015)

i own an a6000 with SEL1670z, i must say my m3 with 24-105L AF faster ;D

but of course, DR and continuous shooting is no match, the a6000 EVF is abit better too.


----------



## archiea (May 13, 2015)

DRR said:


> I sold my M (original, pre-firesale) last month. It was a wonderful little camera but it simply wasn't getting used enough to justify keeping it.
> 
> My main gripes - no viewfinder, and I didn't really like the ergonomics.
> 
> ...


DRR, if its any consolation, the EVF's larger size helps keep your face back from the rear LCD, which makes it schnoz freiendly.. ;D


----------



## Tinky (May 13, 2015)

Absolutely with those calling for more fast compact primes. Keep it small. 

I guess I would really like to see more EF pancakes at modest prices that all EOS users could utilise, i.e. the shorty forty on an EF-m adaptor isn't too bad size wise...

But if you are going to make more ef-m specific lenses to my mind it makes perfect sense to fit in with the CSC ethos, rather than do a lot of R&D to shrink lenses that already exist in the EF or EF-s mount.

Zooms are never going to be all that compact, especially telezooms.

Something like a fast 24mm equivalent (16mm?) the existing 22mm, the existing 40mm (with a cheaper lighter ef-m converter) and a 70mm (see the pentax 70mm f2.4) would give the traveler or street shooter a nice range of compact lenses to choose from, and may actually give the M the tools to compete with the OM-Ds etc.


----------



## ad (May 14, 2015)

WorkonSunday said:


> would love to see the rumored 70-400mm. but i read the patent, the image height is only 13.Xmm which is less than 14.xmm on aps-c. so may be it's for some kind of 1" or m4/3 system.


When talking about lenses, image height refers to the radius of the image circle, which for Canon APS-C needs to be ~13.5mm.
This could indeed be an interesting lens, but mostly I'd also want something like a 50/1.4. The EF lens with adapter works, but leaves a few things to be desired (mostly size and AF).

ad


----------



## AvTvM (May 14, 2015)

-1 said:


> I think that Canon is unhappy with the Ms present userbase. They won't release interesting new cameras or lenses till it's totally and completly gone. ...



Hehe! funny way to look at it. In reality it's the other way round: Canon userbase is unhappy with Canon's mirrorless offering. And refuses in large parts to buy sub-par EOS-M bodies without EVF and without compelling sensor and AF performance. 

As far as EF-M lenses go, i would love to buy a highly compact "pancake-ish" portrait lens - something like a EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM for USD/Euro 299 ... optically as good as the 22/2.0. 

Macro? Native EF-M lens not urgently needed since EF-S 60 is available, cheap, optically excellent and works well via adapter. Still "compact enough" for typical Macro use cases.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> -1 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that Canon is unhappy with the Ms present userbase. They won't release interesting new cameras or lenses till it's totally and completly gone. ...
> ...



I think your logic is flawed, maybe because of one too many mirrorslaps to the head. If your reasoning were correct, we'd see sales of those other MILC brands with EVFs and 'compelling sensor and AF performance' driving overall MILC sales up. Instead, while dSLR sales are dropping, MILC sales aren't rising.


----------



## AvTvM (May 14, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > -1 said:
> ...



You sound like a broken record. Very repetitive. Whenever you run out of real arguments you'll quote some vague sales statistics. So predictable. 

But let's look at sales: 
1. what is Canon's market share in mirrorslappers? APS-C and FF?
2. What is Canon's market share in the mirrorless market? APS-C? And FF? 

Why is that so? Because Canon is "unhappy with their userbase" or because their userbase is unhappy with Canon's half-assed APS-C mirrorless cameras? Or with the total lack of any Canon FF-sensored mirrorless system?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2015)

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that R&D resources are finite? Sales statistics are hard numbers that drive business decisions. 

Canon has the biggest slice of the larger pie (dSLRs), and a medium-small slice of the much smaller pie (MILCs). Until the sizes of the pies change, continuing to eat the bigger pie is a more effective way to get nutrients. Others may choose to eat the smaller pie, because less of it is being eaten by the bigger eaters. Still others may also focus on growing the apples used to make the pies.


----------



## crashpc (May 14, 2015)

Sales statistics are going down inevitably. But they still dance on the sinking boat, not willing to change anything. I am Canon user, I love their lens range, but I simply won´t buy any other Canon body untill they wake up.


----------



## Tinky (May 14, 2015)

Another way to put Neuros argument (I don't mind putting selective quotes out of context for Neuro, it's kind of his signature..) might be that because sales of DSLRs are down, CSCs are actually performing ahead of the market.

Except in Canons case.

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that anybody anywhere who says anything less than entirely complimentary about Canon will invite a correction from Neuro quoting things like 'science' and 'facts' and his seemingly telepathic hotline to the Canon R&D and marketing teams.

Anyway, hand grenade launched, the weather is good here and it's heading towards dusk, so I think I'll go and get some fresh air just now.

x


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Why is it so hard for people to grasp that anybody anywhere who says anything less than entirely complimentary about Canon will invite a correction from Neuro



You just need to read more. Being critical of Canon is fine – they've screwed the pooch on several occasions. I do tend to correct statements that are factually wrong, arguments based on logical fallacies, ignorance of business acumen, unwarranted assumptions that one's own viewpoint represents that of the majority...and occasionally, punctuation.


----------



## Tinky (May 14, 2015)

It's the unwarranted assumptions bit that has me spluttering out my cocoa here. If only I had the time and a fine (or maybe not so fine) toothed comb...

It's an opinion forum. There is an element of the clue in the title. 'Rumor'. Speculation. It's not the spirit of absolutes. Nobody (perhaps yourself excluded) claims to have all the answers. It's good to talk. Mostly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...unwarranted assumptions that one's own viewpoint represents that of the majority...





Tinky said:


> It's the unwarranted assumptions bit that has me spluttering out my cocoa here.



I see – so, when people who want more low ISO DR make statements such as, "Unless Canon delivers more low ISO DR, photographers will switch to better systems and Canon is *******," those statements are...what? Fact? Logical conclusions based on available data?


----------



## Tinky (May 15, 2015)

Your unwarranted assumptions generally.

It's an opinion forum. You are predictably aggressive in making your points.

So do you have a hotline to Canon's head of marketing? Or is it unwarranted assumptions?


----------



## archiea (May 15, 2015)

My interpetation is that Canon dipped into the corporate parts bin (as far as sensors, lens design and menu with the M1 and now the powershot body with the M3) and created the albatross that is the EOs-M platform. The AF and speed suffer because its a component that is derived from the SECONDARY focusing system of their rebel and EOS dlsrs. Meanwhile other cmaera makers, especially the micro 4/nerds, created their system from the ground up. Its like Tesla building a sport car from the ground up while Lincoln puts one of the luxury sedans on a diet and calls it sports car. (in fact thats what my 2004 ford thunderbird is).. 

Its common for large manufactuers to do this since they have alot of assets they can leverage vs a frisky start up or platform reboot. 

That being said, the japanese love their M3's, and so do I. Theres ALOT of choices in cameras out there and its easy to pin point how any of them SUCK. Whats harder is taking any of those capable system and making great photos from them!! 

I for one am happy with the EOS-M3, minus a few menu quibbles that could be fixed with firmware. When I need speed, I grab the DSLR. But I luv that canon tooks some bits, shrunk them and alloed me to hook my flashes to them.. Woudl I love a FF mirrorless from canon, sure! In the meantime I use the M3 as a really poor man's Leica!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2015)

archiea said:


> My interpetation is that Canon dipped into the corporate parts bin



I think it is also them dipping a toe into the water. Whereas other MILC makers have a lineup of cameras, Canon has one. It seems likely they simply think the market isn't ripe for a major investment. I suspect they were quite encouraged that their first foray into the space – the original EOS M – was the #2 MILC body in the largest MILC geographical market.


----------



## Tinky (May 15, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> archiea said:
> 
> 
> > My interpetation is that Canon dipped into the corporate parts bin
> ...



"I suspect". Unwarranted assumption? and as fallacies go, you ignore the markets in which the camera was heavily discounted and where certain models and lenses were not marketed.

Not saying you are wrong, I respect your right to an opinion... sorry, unwarranted assumption.


----------



## Tinky (May 15, 2015)

archiea said:


> My interpetation is that Canon dipped into the corporate parts bin (as far as sensors, lens design and menu with the M1 and now the powershot body with the M3) and created the albatross that is the EOs-M platform. The AF and speed suffer because its a component that is derived from the SECONDARY focusing system of their rebel and EOS dlsrs. Meanwhile other cmaera makers, especially the micro 4/nerds, created their system from the ground up. Its like Tesla building a sport car from the ground up while Lincoln puts one of the luxury sedans on a diet and calls it sports car. (in fact thats what my 2004 ford thunderbird is)..
> 
> Its common for large manufactuers to do this since they have alot of assets they can leverage vs a frisky start up or platform reboot.
> 
> ...



Oh no, a car analogy! lol. My next analogy is going to be in reference to microwave ovens I think.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2015)

Tinky said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > archiea said:
> ...



Indeed, it was quite unwarranted for me to assume people would be capable of grasping the point of the argument without me spelling out every little detail and then connecting the dots for them. My bad. 

The global MILC market is much smaller than the dSLR market. In the analogy, that means Canon knows the water is tepid. Some market signs point to MILCs growing, perhaps becoming dominant at some future time. In the analogy, Canon knows they have to go swimming in that pool. Canon is making a limited investment in the MILC space now, one body series and a handful of dedicated lenses. In the analogy, that's them dipping their toe in the water. They were encouraged because their initial foray into the market was very successful in the largest part of the global MILC market. The are continuing their limited investment, updating their one model and releasing additional lenses slowly and only in significant global market segments. In the analogy, the water isn't warm and inviting, so Canon didn't dive head-first into the deep end of the pool. But they can slowly wade into the shallow end, with confidence they'll swim effectively in the whole pool once the water warms up. 

My, that was tedious – like explaining a concept to a 5-year old – but hopefully you understand the point now.


----------



## AvTvM (May 15, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> The global MILC market is much smaller than the dSLR market.



Not "the market" per se. Only the fact that neither Canon nor Nikon offer compelling MILCs. 

If Canon and Nikon today both would sell fully competitive 
* APS-C MILCs covering the range between USD 499 for the low end [basically EOS M3 cperformace and features] and USD 1499 for direct competitors to Samsung NX-1 / Fuji XT-1 competitors ... plus a suitable range of native lenses [EF-M price/performance is excellent, just a few more needed] 
- FF MILC system - fully competitive with Sony A7/II/R lenses more compact than Sony FE-lenses 
the same instand the MILC market would be 85% and DSLRs would be relegated to 15%. 
As simple as that.


----------



## untenchicken (May 15, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




Neuroanatomist, you really think you are so much better than the rest of us, don't you 
Thank god your pictures are so brilliant………. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The global MILC market is much smaller than the dSLR market.
> ...



_Per se: through itself without referring to anything else, intrinsically, taken without qualifications._ 

So, you're saying that the global MILC market, which comprises 23% of the total global ILC market in 2015 YTD according to CIPA, is *not* 'much smaller than the dSLR market'?? Clearly, you have lost touch with reality. 

The P&S market is in a rapid decline, yet the value of P&S shipments for 2015 YTD is _still_ 2.8x greater than MILC shipments, and the value of dSLR shipments is 1.4x that of P&S. 

If you'd like to speculate on what might happen if this or that other thing happens, it's best to first obtain at least a basic grasp of the relevant facts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2015)

untenchicken said:


> Neuroanatomist, you really think you are so much better than the rest of us, don't you
> Thank god your pictures are so brilliant………. :



Thanks for sharing your opinion. Too bad the Belgian chocolate business isn't working out so well in Japan (although I'm partial to Swiss chocolate, personally). At least you can buy Canon's full MILC lineup, if that's any consolation.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 15, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The global MILC market is much smaller than the dSLR market.
> ...



You should append that with "that's my assumption, based on no actual evidence of any sort".


----------



## Tinky (May 15, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> My, that was tedious – like explaining a concept to a 5-year old – but hopefully you understand the point now.



It was quite tedious. And entirely superfluous. And consisting entirely of unwarranted assumptions.

More pictures might have helped my inner 5 year old.

I'm just rattling your cage ever so slightly John, a wee taste of what you do to others. 

You don't know what Canon are thinking John. Not that it matters. I think they are gutted that their biggest markets have rejected the camera. But I don't know that. I think they marketed it wrong. And I think to a degree they still are. But somebody else might disagree. But I don't anticipate getting all passive aggressive about it.

You post a hell of a lot John. And you seem to know your 'really right stuff', but I don't see much evidence anywhere else, in your ideas, writing or experience, that make me particularly want to doff my cap at your every utterance. And it seems increasingly, I'm not alone. You don't speak for Canon, and you've little right to speak to some folks the way you do. Your big white lenses might make you the 'daddy' at school sports day, but you just come across as a bit of a bully sometimes.

It's nice to be nice. Even a 5 year old can just about grasp that.

As a business model, not being that bothered about shifting lots of boxes in the worlds largest and most free economy... it's not brilliant.


----------



## untenchicken (May 16, 2015)

Tinky said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Your big white lenses might make you the 'daddy' at school sports day,
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2015)

untenchicken said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Feel better now? :

(Even though you managed to mangle the quotation syntax...maybe that happens when you get too excited.)


----------



## untenchicken (May 16, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> untenchicken said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...




I dare you, no DOUBLE dare you not to insist (like a 5 year old!!) to have the last word in this matter…. 8)


----------



## untenchicken (May 16, 2015)

Tinky said:


> You post a hell of a lot John. And you seem to know your 'really right stuff', but I don't see much evidence anywhere else, in your ideas, writing or experience, that make me particularly want to doff my cap at your every utterance. And it seems increasingly, I'm not alone. You don't speak for Canon, and you've little right to speak to some folks the way you do. Your big white lenses might make you the 'daddy' at school sports day, but you just come across as a bit of a bully sometimes.
> 
> It's nice to be nice. Even a 5 year old can just about grasp that.




Amen to that by the way… (hope I didn't screw up the syntax blablabla here again, cause I'm very excited :-[


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2015)

Back to the original topic...

In recent history, Canon has released more zooms than primes, especially at the consumer level. OTOH, there's the spate of wide non-L IS primes very recently. 

Still, I think we likely won't see many more M lenses soon. They've got UWA, standard, and telephoto zooms and a fast prime, which is a reasonable lineup for one body. I wonder how many 18-55 vs 22/2 kits are sold? Canon knows, that could guide the M lens roadmap (or maybe has, thus the two newer zooms).

Pure speculation, but I wonder if the next M lens could be an equivalent to the EF-S 60/2.8 macro, maybe f/3.5 to make it smaller.


----------



## untenchicken (May 16, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Back to the original topic...
> 
> In recent history, Canon has released more zooms than primes, especially at the consumer level. OTOH, there's the spate of wide non-L IS primes very recently.
> 
> ...




Guess who has the last word after all (in a very sly way)


----------



## untenchicken (May 16, 2015)

Tinky said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > *Canon knows*, that could guide the M lens roadmap (or maybe has, thus the two newer zooms).
> ...




Tinky 'The Dragon Slayer' ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2015)

Tinky said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > *Canon knows*, that could guide the M lens roadmap (or maybe has, thus the two newer zooms).
> ...



I wondered how many 18-55 vs. 22/2 kits Canon has sold, and stated that they know. So, you're suggesting that Canon _doesn't_ know how many 18-55 vs 22/2 kits they've sold? Or maybe you're suggesting my assumption that Canon keeps inventory and sales records is unwarranted? Reflect on that, was it courteous? Was it fun? 



neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder how many 18-55 vs 22/2 kits are sold? Canon knows, that could guide the M lens roadmap (or maybe has, thus the two newer zooms).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2015)

untenchicken said:


> By the way, were you excited this time neuroanatomist, because you seemed to have messed up your own syntax blablabla this time…



No, just reposting the full text of the statement Tinky partially quoted, since he did so in such a way as to change the meaning.


----------



## AvTvM (May 16, 2015)

While agreeing to the (unwarranted) speculation that the next EF-M might be a 60ish Macro, I'd still much rather buy a compact EF-M tele-prime somewhere between 75/2.0 and 85/2.4 - with IS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> ...I'd still much rather buy a compact EF-M tele-prime somewhere between 75/2.0 and 85/2.4 - with IS.



So would I. 

Actually, I might prefer a fast 50mm (f/1.8 or f/2) with IS.


----------



## crashpc (May 17, 2015)

So would I....

But I see their attempt of 22mm lens weird. I hope they will continue with this weirdness. What about 22/f2 - 32/f2 - 52/f2 - 62/f2 lens line? It would be very close to 35-50-85-100mm. Not that much glass, so it doesn´t need to be that expensive as FF counterparts...


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 18, 2015)

untenchicken said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > untenchicken said:
> ...



I don't see you giving up the last word, either.


----------



## WorkonSunday (May 19, 2015)

another 4/3" lens!!
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-05-11

one hack of a setup to have these 4/3" if they are indeed the new range!


----------



## andrewflo (May 20, 2015)

An EF-M ~50mm prime (equal or smaller size to the EF 50mm f/1.8 variants) would really round out the existing 4 lens lineup. 

But without putting words in Canon's mouth, it sort of feels like it's unlikely they'll put R&D money into it because of the EF to EF-M adapter already giving EOS M shooters a 50mm f/1.8 at their disposal.

However, the prospect of being able to carry a 2nd prime in my pocket sounds great. And that's not possible with an EF lens + adapter.

My next top choice would be a f/2.8 zoom (18-55mm would be fine). But personally, I'm not holding my breath. I'm just thankful they even released an M3 at all.


----------



## Eagle Eye (May 22, 2015)

I'd love an 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM with a 55mm filter thread to match the 11-22. Add a 31mm f/1.8 and a 53mm f/1.8 (preferably with matching filter threads) and my kit would be set.


----------



## WorkonSunday (May 28, 2015)

just want to share that Tamron just posted on facebook that the 18-200mm (EOS-M mount) can be fixed via firmware update. The lens need to be sent back to customer service centers tho i.e. grey import will not be accepted.


----------



## archiea (May 28, 2015)

andrewflo said:


> An EF-M ~50mm prime (equal or smaller size to the EF 50mm f/1.8 variants) would really round out the existing 4 lens lineup.
> 
> But without putting words in Canon's mouth, it sort of feels like it's unlikely they'll put R&D money into it because of the EF to EF-M adapter already giving EOS M shooters a 50mm f/1.8 at their disposal.
> 
> ...



I got the Voigtlander f1.5 leica M mount with the fotodiox leicaM-EosM mount. It makes a great portrait lens for the eos-M3. 

you can see this Battle of the Bokeh's Here..

http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=217


----------



## andrewflo (May 29, 2015)

archiea said:


> andrewflo said:
> 
> 
> > An EF-M ~50mm prime (equal or smaller size to the EF 50mm f/1.8 variants) would really round out the existing 4 lens lineup.
> ...



Very cool! I'm sure that's a pleasure to shoot with. But tbh I'm not sure it's for me 

I would hope more for something ultra compact (like the EF-M 22mm or the EF 50mm minus any adapters). And not costing $600-$800 would also be a nice feature 

Do you have any other vintage lenses with your M? I picked up a Helios 44-2 58mm and it's pretty fun! Need to pull it back out especially now that the M3 has focus peaking built in.


----------



## bobestremera (Jun 13, 2015)

Disagree a little here. for the 50mm, 1.8 or f2 should be the target. Faster gets bigger, won't balance well and be much more expensive. Small primes should be Canon's focus for the M just like Fuji did to make their system so desirable. I think the M needs a small 35mm (50mm FF equiv), 50mm (85mm FF equiv) then maybe something wider, around 21-24mm FF equiv. THEN, they will have everything covered and be competitive.


----------



## Tinky (Jun 13, 2015)

i absolutely agreee.

play to the unique strengths. If folk want big telezooms etc there already is the regular, and easily adaptable very fine range of ef and ef-s lenses, often at a lower equivalent price.

keep them very compact. 

I love what canon are doing with the 40, 24 and 50. Lenses that would sit well on an m via adaptor (please make a cheaper tough plastic version guys, or bundle one with every m....). The 40 and 50 can be used on any eos body of course... the ef-s on aps-c or m... more of this kind of thing please. How about a 60 or 70mm f2? a nice wee portrait lens for the m? or even better a very compact 60 or 70 that can be used on the ef-s or ef-m, or a collapsable that will do all 3?


----------



## WorkonSunday (Jun 17, 2015)

bobestremera said:


> Disagree a little here. for the 50mm, 1.8 or f2 should be the target. Faster gets bigger, won't balance well and be much more expensive. Small primes should be Canon's focus for the M just like Fuji did to make their system so desirable. I think the M needs a small 35mm (50mm FF equiv), 50mm (85mm FF equiv) then maybe something wider, around 21-24mm FF equiv. THEN, they will have everything covered and be competitive.



i agree compactness should be the main focus. my brother has a fuji XF 10-24. while it is very nice lens, im so glad i went with EF-m 11-22mm. my only wish is the APS-C is 1.5x instead of 1.6x which currently makes the 11mm just that bit less wide. but that requires a fundamental rethink for all lens i.e. im sure it will never happen ;D


----------

