# Next official EF-M Lens



## Haydn1971 (Jun 29, 2014)

Following the release of the Canon EF-M 55-200 and the third party Tamron EF-M 18-200, what's next for the EF-M range from Canon, the four lens range is nice, but perhaps limited in appeal, what would you like to see and also, what patents are out there currently ?

I've said a number of times that is like a compact pancake zoom, something like a 17-35mm range, but also a larger 15-85/135 would be a potentially big seller. Less appealing to me perhaps, but I'm sure a couple of fast primes would reinforce the appeal of the system, 35mm & 50mm perhaps.

I'm still also hopeful of a wider range of cameras, a EOS-M in a DSLR style, something like a thinner Canon 100D, with the M3 as a mid-range and a value version of the M3

Over to you !


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 29, 2014)

a 15-85 EF-M would be a winner


----------



## tayassu (Jun 29, 2014)

We shouldn't forget that the EOS M was "an experiment", as their CEO said. There are no real rumors about the long-awaited M3. I do still believe that Canon will go mirrorless with their 'normal' SLR's (I expect the 7DII to be the first one -> hybrid VF, stunning video functions, many autofocus points etc.) and they will have an EF mount, otherwise they would kill themselves after building up a lens system for, I don't know, 40 years?! I wouldn't bet on the M system.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 29, 2014)

tayassu said:


> We shouldn't forget that the EOS M was "an experiment", as their CEO said. There are no real rumors about the long-awaited M3. I do still believe that Canon will go mirrorless with their 'normal' SLR's (I expect the 7DII to be the first one -> hybrid VF, stunning video functions, many autofocus points etc.) and they will have an EF mount, otherwise they would kill themselves after building up a lens system for, I don't know, 40 years?! I wouldn't bet on the M system.



an experiment where every piece of glass for the system so far is damn good


----------



## bainsybike (Jun 29, 2014)

The 22mm pancake is a very nice equivalent to 35mm full frame. I'd like to see it joined by a ~30mm F2, 50mm equivalent.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 29, 2014)

A tiny, cheap 75mm/2.0 IS - optically as good as the 22/2.0. 

Everything else is covered: 11-22 / 18-55 / 55-250 / 22. 
no need to have multiple consumer zooms with overlapping focal length ranges.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 29, 2014)

but the 15-85 is an awesome single lens option for EF-S which is stellar and shouldn't be that hard to reproduce in EF-M mount
that said i will have a good look at the new tamron 18-200 though


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 29, 2014)

tayassu said:


> We shouldn't forget that the EOS M was "an experiment", as their CEO said. There are no real rumors about the long-awaited M3. I do still believe that Canon will go mirrorless with their 'normal' SLR's (I expect the 7DII to be the first one -> hybrid VF, stunning video functions, many autofocus points etc.) and they will have an EF mount, otherwise they would kill themselves after building up a lens system for, I don't know, 40 years?! I wouldn't bet on the M system.



I hoped for an EF-X mount which exhibits compatibility to EF-X-lenses with eXtremely small back focus - a large part of the lens might be inside the camera including focusing motor, IS system ...
This EF-X mount I hoped for would have been compatible to EF and EF-S lenses. No need for an adaptor would be interesting. The mount flange had made the cameras thicker but if the hypothetical EF-X 2.0 22 had nearly everything behind the mount it had to protrude just 3 or 4 mm and resulted in a moderately flat camera-lens-combo. The larger camera thickness would have allowed for a camera grip hiding a much larger battery to go for 500 or 600 shots.

So I like your idea to use the EF mount for future mirrorless cameras - hopefully Canon will read/hear us.

But so long the EOS M will be a very good camera with APS-C (sensor) quality and compact outline ... I like mine very much for what it is ...


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 29, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> a 15-85 EF-M would be a winner



+1, the smaller the better


----------



## Jamesy (Jun 29, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > a 15-85 EF-M would be a winner
> ...


+2. I think 15-85 would be a one stop shop vacation/walk-around for many people.


----------



## Quackator (Jun 29, 2014)

tayassu said:


> There are no real rumors about the long-awaited M3.



From somebody who should be in the know I got just one comment: It's coming!

Leads me to believe that photokina the latest we will know, too.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 2, 2014)

Digging around, there appears to be patent applications for the following Canon branded lenses...

16-120mm f3.5-5.6 - please ! Now !!!
18-200mm f3.5-6.3 - how very Tamron
22-46mm f3.5-5.6 - Presumably pancake, could be tempted ;-)


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 3, 2014)

Haydn1971 said:


> Digging around, there appears to be patent applications for the following Canon branded lenses...
> 
> 16-120mm f3.5-5.6 - please ! Now !!!
> 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 - how very Tamron
> 22-46mm f3.5-5.6 - Presumably pancake, could be tempted ;-)


I agree - the 16-120 could be a winner and the Tammy has #2 covered but I don't understand he last 
one. It is an overlap of the 18-55 kit lens unless there is something I'm missing. Pancake you say ? Pancake zoom?


----------



## bainsybike (Jul 3, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > Digging around, there appears to be patent applications for the following Canon branded lenses...
> ...


Yes, maybe something like http://www.dpreview.com/products/olympus/lenses/olympus_m_14-42_3p5-5p6_ez


----------



## axtstern (Jul 3, 2014)

The quality anchor for the APSC models was in my eyes always the 17-55 1:2.8.
With Canon being very carefull and Tamron having delivered their share maybe Sigma comes to the rescue?


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 3, 2014)

bainsybike said:


> Jamesy said:
> 
> 
> > Haydn1971 said:
> ...


Cool - thanks for that - I am not all that up on m43 gear - that looks like it would be an ultra compact addition to the M lineup.


----------



## DRR (Jul 9, 2014)

What I want, would be a compact 55mm f/2. IS would seal the deal.

Between that and the 22mm f/2 you basically have the EOS M equivalent of 35/85 which is a small light versatile kit with fast glass. And still pocketable! 

Anything wider, or more tele, and the length of the lens has to increase significantly, which makes it much less pocketable.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 11, 2014)

tayassu said:


> There are no real rumors about the long-awaited M3.



long awaited? M2 came out last December 



Haydn1971 said:


> Following the release of the Canon EF-M 55-200 and the third party Tamron EF-M 18-200, what's next for the EF-M range from Canon, the four lens range is nice, but perhaps limited in appeal, what would you like to see and also, what patents are out there currently ?



I'd love a compact 16 to 17mm prime. Or for Sigma to make it's E mount lenses over to the M mount (easy flip for them).

15-85mm would be sweet as well - but it would have to be slow to keep the size down.


----------



## daemorhedron (Jul 11, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> long awaited? M2 came out last December



M2 was not officially released outside of Asia, so most people know of it but have no option to buy it. I did get a chance to test it out and while a smidge better, I found it too on par with the original to keep for the money. Especially since it could not run with Magic Lantern.



rrcphoto said:


> Or for Sigma to make it's E mount lenses over to the M mount (easy flip for them).



Good idea! =)

Personally, I would love a vastly improved/full frame version of the M but not sure if Canon will have something substantial out before the competition.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 11, 2014)

daemorhedron said:


> Personally, I would love a vastly improved/full frame version of the M but not sure if Canon will have something substantial out before the competition.



I would love that too, but it's beyond any doubt that the competition, such as it is, is already way ahead of them (esp Sony A7/a7r/A7s & A6000, or, if you don't mind the smaller sensors, the better M43 cameras)!


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 11, 2014)

Controversially perhaps, but I see full frame mirror less as a flash in the pan the Sony unit just can't be selling the numbers to be competitive against the likes of Fuji/m43/EF-M who are selling at much lower prices with much higher volumes.

The future for full frame mirror less is in my humble opinion going to be driven by replacements for the next generation full frame DSLR's - the 1Dx/5D/6D's a half decade from now with EVF's that work as well as OVF, offer real advantages over traditional mirror arrangements - shrinking to fit a bigger sensor is somewhat counter productive !


----------



## Zv (Jul 12, 2014)

DRR said:


> What I want, would be a compact 55mm f/2. IS would seal the deal.
> 
> Between that and the 22mm f/2 you basically have the EOS M equivalent of 35/85 which is a small light versatile kit with fast glass. And still pocketable!
> 
> Anything wider, or more tele, and the length of the lens has to increase significantly, which makes it much less pocketable.



+1 for a small 55 f/2 with or without IS. I find the M great at the wide end but for real telephoto work I much prefer the OVF of a proper DSLR. 55mm on M is about as long as I would like to go.


----------



## Cory (Jul 12, 2014)

Zv said:


> DRR said:
> 
> 
> > What I want, would be a compact 55mm f/2. IS would seal the deal.
> ...



:-*    ;D 8)


----------



## steyr (Jul 13, 2014)

I would like to see someone make a quality speedbooster adapter for the EOS M with EF lenses! I would buy one as soon as it's made, as long as AF still works reasonably well.

Theoretically, the adapter will offer a similar field of view as full frame and give 1 stop more light. That would make the M system really interesting...


----------



## Bob Howland (Jul 13, 2014)

steyr said:


> I would like to see someone make a quality speedbooster adapter for the EOS M with EF lenses! I would buy one as soon as it's made, as long as AF still works reasonably well.
> 
> Theoretically, the adapter will offer a similar field of view as full frame and give 1 stop more light. That would make the M system really interesting...



+1. This is a prerequisite for me buying into the M-system. (The other major prerequisite is a viewfinder, presumably an EVF.) Incidentally, since the Canon APS-C sensor size is 1.6X, the speedbooster could give 1-1/3 stops more light. However, to provide good corner resolution, it would probably have to be very good and therefore very expensive.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 15, 2014)

To build a "family" of lenses, you need to have a base of bodies to support them. With the latest telephoto,
I would guess that Canon is done with M lenses.


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 15, 2014)

dickgrafixstop said:


> With the latest telephoto, I would guess that Canon is done with M lenses.



Do you think they are going to kill off the M line?


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 15, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> dickgrafixstop said:
> 
> 
> > With the latest telephoto, I would guess that Canon is done with M lenses.
> ...



no.


----------



## ecka (Jul 15, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> steyr said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see someone make a quality speedbooster adapter for the EOS M with EF lenses! I would buy one as soon as it's made, as long as AF still works reasonably well.
> ...



Canon may end up making a mirrorless body with built-in speedbooster.
1. They would keep the EF mount and all FF lens support
2. No need for FF sensor, lower price, more sales, more profit
3. No more dust specks, no more sensor cleaning, just think about the level of weather sealing it could have 8)


----------



## axtstern (Jul 15, 2014)

Let throw my 2cents of opinion onto the pile.

From the first day I had the M I wished for a speed booster. Instead I bought a third party EF to EF-M adapter.
First of all be happy that none exist as you would only be tempted to waste money on a compromise which settles you for the worst of two worlds.

Why the adapter does not make sense?

1. Someone here mentioned it already... The M excels at the wide end, it sucks for tele based on handling and weight balance. I tried White L glasses on the M with my adapter. Awkward, slow, the older ones not even focusing and energy hungry. You do not get more than 80 shots out of my M with a single Patona battery when the 200 l 1:1.8 is attached. That is the need for 4 batteries for a single sports match. If you work with the M and anything longer than the 135 L you want the system stabilized by a tripod or at least by 2 hands and the viewfinder against your brow. A tripod simply speaks against the whole concept of the M and 2hands? Well you need one to hold the lens and the other to fondle the touchscreen so you really end up to hold the camera like an amateur waiter carrying a lobster plate. So the only reason why I carry the adapter and the M in my bag for the larger lenses is to have an emergency backup body.

2. No none STM lens makes sense on the M. Now for the speed booster to do a trick you want a full frame lens with STM ... The shorty forty maybe? Buy it, add a non existing speed booster for 500 bucks and you get a kind of 30mm 2.0 lens with some losses in IQ but the weight and size of a full frame zoom lens which has to compete with the 22mm 2.0 which comes with native EF-m mount.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 15, 2014)

My experience is different. I wil NEVER by some weirdo IQ-diminishing lens-adapter with glass elements in it. No way.

I like the Canon EF-M/EF-Adapter. Due to AF issues with many other EF-lenses I use it primarily with STM lenses: EF 40/2.8 and EF-S 55-250. Both work very well. Handheld handling with the telezoom is not great, but still OK for me. Most of the time I use it on my highly versatile "Micro"-Tripod (Cullman Copter, € 29) ... more stable than even the largest gorilla-pod. 
All settings including AF-points via touch screen, and shutter release using my old Canon RC-1 IR trigger which also works on my 7D. Bought a tiny Arca-compatible clamp and small Arca-compatible plates for both camera body and adapter foot, dirt-cheap, but really decent China-stuff, branded MENGS (via amazon).

Don#t have apic with EF-S 55-250 available, so here is one with EF-M 18-55. The Micro-Ballhead will just about hold the M plus EF-S 55-250 and adapter. It will definitely hold the new EF-M 55-200, easily.


----------



## steyr (Jul 17, 2014)

For me, a speedbooster would be ideal, as long a IQ doesn't suffer unacceptably. Just imagine using a 35mm f2 IS. It would become equivalent to 1.4 IS in terms of light gathering! Or the 35mm 1.4L becomes f1.0. Correct me if I'm wrong, but because the FOV becomes similar to full frame, you can get shallower depth of field since you can frame closer to the subject.


----------



## DRR (Jul 18, 2014)

steyr said:


> For me, a speedbooster would be ideal, as long a IQ doesn't suffer unacceptably. Just imagine using a 35mm f2 IS. It would become equivalent to 1.4 IS in terms of light gathering! Or the 35mm 1.4L becomes f1.0. Correct me if I'm wrong, but because the FOV becomes similar to full frame, you can get shallower depth of field since you can frame closer to the subject.



That is correct , you get shallower depth of field than without a speed booster.

However, remember, the speed of a lens is relative to sensor format to begin with. So while f/1.0 sounds great, you have to multiply by 1.6x in order to gain equivalency to full frame, so f/1.0 on the EOS M would give the equivalent DOF as a f/1.6 on a FF camera. 

So what the speed booster accomplishes in both DOF and FOV, is it "undoes" the crop factor limitations of the smaller sensor. Lenses become wider and faster, but that counteracts the effect of using a "full frame" lens on a crop camera. The lens would perform similarly as it would on FF.

That is my understanding of it anyway.


----------



## ecka (Jul 18, 2014)

DRR said:


> steyr said:
> 
> 
> > For me, a speedbooster would be ideal, as long a IQ doesn't suffer unacceptably. Just imagine using a 35mm f2 IS. It would become equivalent to 1.4 IS in terms of light gathering! Or the 35mm 1.4L becomes f1.0. Correct me if I'm wrong, but because the FOV becomes similar to full frame, you can get shallower depth of field since you can frame closer to the subject.
> ...



Yes. It's almost like they are covering one lie with another. The speed booster doesn't need any focal length or aperture conversions, you'll just get a FF image with it on, while using a lower ISO (which is a subjective value anyway). It just takes the FF image and "squeezes" it into APSC sensor, that's all, no magic, no FL/aperture widening. Can't imagine why are they making it that much more confusing ... although, BS works great for justifying the high price .


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 18, 2014)

Admittedly I have not looked into Speedboosters but I wonder how they increase stops of lights passing through them? Changing perspective such as what an extender does I get but extenders degrade the amount of light rather than boost it.


----------



## rs (Jul 18, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> Admittedly I have not looked into Speedboosters but I wonder how they increase stops of lights passing through them? Changing perspective such as what an extender does I get but extenders degrade the amount of light rather than boost it.


A teleconverter enlarges the image projected by the lens. This is much like moving a projecter further away from a projector screen - much of the image is missing from the screen, and even though the quantity of light coming out of the projector is no different, what is on the screen is bigger and dimmer. 

Do it the other way only works if you're using a lens designed for a larger format. It telecompresses the light into a smaller imaging circle, producing a brighter, smaller image. Same concept as a projector throwing out too big an image for a screen, so you move it closer.

Obviously using a larger projector screen (read: sensor) in the first place would have captured the same quantity of light, even through the intensity per unit area on the screen (sensor) is lower.

Or a different way of looking at it is the focal length has changed due to a teleconverter or telecompressor, but the physical aperture still has the same diameter. Therefore the aperture ratio (f stop) has to change. 

A telecompressor is just a way of using a smaller sensor to do most of what a larger sensor would do with that lens natively. Even though numbers all get shifted around (focal length, aperture ratio, ISO, but not physical aperture or shutter speed), the end result should be the same (presuming the telecompresor ratio is that same as the crop factor, and you tweak all the settings to create equivalence).


----------



## scyrene (Jul 18, 2014)

I'd love a small macro lens with reasonably long working distance. Would the M's design allow for an equivalent to the 100L macro or 180L in a much smaller package? I've found the M a really good macro camera, with both the 100 and the MP-E - most of the time I'm using Live View for macro work anyway (especially with the MP-E) so the lack of a viewfinder isn't a problem.

But these lenses are rather bulky on the small body.


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 18, 2014)

rs said:


> Jamesy said:
> 
> 
> > Admittedly I have not looked into Speedboosters but I wonder how they increase stops of lights passing through them? Changing perspective such as what an extender does I get but extenders degrade the amount of light rather than boost it.
> ...


Much clearer now - thanks for this!


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 20, 2014)

One slight frustration with the EOS-M system is the currently three different filter sizes across four lenses - is that really necessary ?


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 20, 2014)

Haydn1971 said:


> One slight frustration with the EOS-M system is the currently three different filter sizes across four lenses - is that really necessary ?


Agreed - this is certainly a pain. Even if you buy a CPL for the biggest lens you still would need a step-down ring for the others which adds bulk. I would imagine they made the lenses as small as possible to keep weight down hence the three sizes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2014)

Haydn1971 said:


> One slight frustration with the EOS-M system is the currently three different filter sizes across four lenses - is that really necessary ?



I agree it's to keep lenses as small/light as possible. Personally, I'm not too fussed about it. If I'm going to use a CPL or ND, I'm likely setting up on a tripod...in which case, I wouldn't be using the M.


----------



## bf (Jul 30, 2014)

Al tough I wonder if "they" listen to our dreams, I'd like to have a nice fast native prime EF-M portrait lens. Something between 65-95mm F2 or faster! Like what the u3/4 guys use for street portraits in our APS-C system with much nicer bokeh!


----------



## pablo (Jul 30, 2014)

Canon shouldn't make any more specific ef-m lenses in my opinion, i say this as a huge fan of the m, eyebrows may raise, so here's my logic:

- The m is already well served with all feasable focal lengths. you want more than 200mm? You don't want a pocket camera

- The lenses that exist are modestly priced, okay, lacking l's or super fast apertures, if you want those you really want an slr

- at the moment the m is effectively discontinued in the us and eu. no m2. m marked down and selling out. we need a new m model, perhaps with more external control etc to suit more advanced users also

- I think the key to the success of the m system is the gateway to the ef-s and ef system. The ef-m basics are well covered. I would like to see a lower cost canon branded adaptor, perhaps ef-s only, and made of plastic (strong enough to handle the existing ef-s lenses, all consumer grade) say for £30 rather than £100' or even free in the box...., if folk want access to ef then let them pay more, or give then a deal when buying their mX

I would guess that the majority of folk in eu or us are buying an m to augment their eos system.

- i would rather see canon get back to making more lower cost primes, if nikon can make a g grade 35mm f2 then why can't canon (anymore) the old 24 28 and 35 were super, compact, cheap, perfect for ff ef, users, accesable to the rebel market, and adaptable to the m (and still compact, even with adaptor)

At this exact moment in time, the m looks like a dead end in western markets. Don't get me wrong, I love mine (bought a second yesterday) but I feel its greatest success will be acheived as a gateway camera to an established and well serviced system (upper hand over nex, m43, nx etc)

The m system has enough of it's own lenses that are specific to the m, the real value for me lies in adaptability, and better budget offerings from Canon, which they did once, which nikon can do, and which would enliven the health if the ef system as a whole and have a trickle down for the m.


----------



## crashpc (Jul 30, 2014)

I do agree on longer focal lenghts, and bigger lenses, but there is still something to do, and as you mentioned, it lags especially at primes. I want f/1.8 M primes! Small 12mm, 32mm and 50mm primes. (35,50 and 80mm FLs).


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 30, 2014)

crashpc said:


> I do agree on longer focal lenghts, and bigger lenses, but there is still something to do, and as you mentioned, it lags especially at primes. I want f/1.8 M primes! Small 12mm, 32mm and 50mm primes. (35,50 and 80mm FLs).


Agreed. Something like a Fuji 56/1.2 equivalent would round this out as a nice compact portrait kit. The kit lens has you at 5.6 when at 55mm - making the next town in focus


----------



## pablo (Jul 30, 2014)

to be fair, you could adapt a 50mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4... and still have a great compact portrait kit.

Canon just aren't going to make a budget f1.2...

Samyang have came into the market with ef-m dedicated 12 f2.0... I personally would prefer an EF or EF-s version, as at this price point I wouldn't want the lens to die with my M. And if I could also use it on my 7 or 600... win win win win win.


----------



## DRR (Jul 30, 2014)

crashpc said:


> I do agree on longer focal lenghts, and bigger lenses, but there is still something to do, and as you mentioned, it lags especially at primes. I want f/1.8 M primes! Small 12mm, 32mm and 50mm primes. (35,50 and 80mm FLs).



I would be _thrilled_ if they did this. (Although a 12mm would be a 20mm equivalent. The current 22mm is roughly a 35mm equivalent.)


----------



## bf (Jul 30, 2014)

For the current EOSM body, considering the AF problems and lack of MF needs ([crisp] view finder or a polished manual focus interface similar to what fuji xt-1 has) I don't like the adapter idea. Besides, someone like me bought this since it was cheap and I don't have an EF or EFS system around me! Nowadays in USA you can find deals for a genuine adapter around $50; however I could not find a role to consider it yet. 
On the other hand, I do like to see a prosumer mirror-less body with the EF mount. I prefer it with a full-frame sensor cheaper than 6d! Something like Sony's Alpha 7 line.


----------



## pablo (Jul 30, 2014)

tempted to say, get an alpha then (at 6x -12x the price)


----------



## slclick (Jul 30, 2014)

I wonder if I would have had the native 22 (I love 35mm FF) instead of the adapter and my lineup of glass that I would have kept the M. Would that really have been a tradeoff for all the other reasons I didn't personally like the body?

I really WANT to like the M but I'm too attached to a viewfinder. Funny though I would never think of that issue when shooting with my phone.


----------



## pablo (Jul 30, 2014)

native 22 is a beautiful wee lens, slightly nostalgic to shoot on 35mm framing... I had an old SR-T303 with a 35mm f1.8


----------



## bf (Jul 30, 2014)

pablo said:


> tempted to say, get an alpha then (at 6x -12x the price)



I considered it but the mount is so wired for me. I would if it had a Nikon or Canon mount. Same as here I don't like the Minolta lens+adapter approach.


----------



## pablo (Jul 31, 2014)

a nikon v or j then.









ffffftttttt.


----------



## HaroldC3 (Jul 31, 2014)

pablo said:


> to be fair, you could adapt a 50mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4... and still have a great compact portrait kit.



Yes but what if Canon made the EF-M version with IS? Talk about a sweet lens!


----------



## lescrane (Jul 31, 2014)

any reviews of the Tamron 18-200 for EOS M out there? I'm not finding them...


rt


----------



## Zv (Jul 31, 2014)

pablo said:


> to be fair, you could adapt a 50mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4... and still have a great compact portrait kit.
> 
> Canon just aren't going to make a budget f1.2...
> 
> Samyang have came into the market with ef-m dedicated 12 f2.0... I personally would prefer an EF or EF-s version, as at this price point I wouldn't want the lens to die with my M. And if I could also use it on my 7 or 600... win win win win win.



Yes, exactly that. You can easily use a FD 50 f/1.4 with an adaptor (which I have done btw and it works great) and still retain a certain amount of compactness. Yes it would be nice to see an EF-M 50mm prime but it's never going to be f/1.2, maybe f/1.8 if we're lucky. Why? Think about what and who this camera was intended for. We already know that the majority of rebel owners only use the kit lens so we could probably extend that to the M and say that most would use the kit lens or lenses that come with the camera. Established photographers who need that little extra shallow DOF look are more than likely already shooting with EF primes on a FF camera, in which case the M only functions as a secondary or back up body. That's how I view the M - not as a complete solution but more as an addition to an existing Canon kit. 

Besides a 50mm f/1.2 made exclusively for the M would likely be too expensive for most people that the M is marketed for. How many would they sell? Not likely that many compared to say a 50mm f/2 IS STM that was priced at a few hundred bucks.


----------



## pablo (Jul 31, 2014)

or a pancake 50mm f2 IS in EF mount.... much more incentive for canon. all eos users happy.


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 1, 2014)

pablo said:


> or a pancake 50mm f2 IS in EF mount.... much more incentive for canon. all eos users happy.



there is already the wonderful 40/2.8 pancake. It has STM focus drive and terefor works really nicely with adapter on the EOS-M. No need for a 50mm pancake in addition. 

BUT ... I'd buy a similarly good/compact and cheap EF 75mm/2.8 "pancake" immediately. As a matter of fact I'd pre-order it.

Personally I have no desire whatsover for f/1.2 lenses, and least of all for 50 or 55mm focal length. Neither for EF, nor for EF-S nor for EF-M. All I want is a newly designed, kick-ass EF 50/1.4 II IS that even surpasses the Sigma 50 Art - at a price below USD/€ 1000.


----------



## Jamesy (Aug 1, 2014)

A 50/1.2 would be roughly equivalent to 85mm, f1.8/2.0 on FF - couple that with the compact size of the an M-mount and that would be a sweet/compact combo in low light or for portraits.

Source:
http://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#fmt=7&ap=1.189207&fl=50&dst=10&u=us


----------



## pablo (Aug 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> pablo said:
> 
> 
> > or a pancake 50mm f2 IS in EF mount.... much more incentive for canon. all eos users happy.
> ...



But a pancake 50mm f2 IS would be a stop faster and have IS. Also on APS-C (the M format for the time being) it would be equivalent to roughly 80mm, so a nice short tele for portraits. I find the idea of a 40mm just a bit befuddling on aps-c, especially with an unexceptional aperture. 

If we were talking about full frame, yeah I can see the point. On APS-c all I can see that the 40mm has going for it is the quirk factor. Just an opinion.


----------



## bf (Aug 1, 2014)

Bottom Line: We need a nice EF-M portrait tele. Please optimize it Canon! Thanks!


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 9, 2014)

Current list of Canon EF-M patents...

9-18mm f4.0-5.6
10-20mm f4.0-5.6
16-120mm f3.5-5.6
18-40mm f4.0-5.6 - Pancake
18-55mm f4.0-8.0 - Pancake
18-200mm f3.5-6.3
22-46mm f3.5-5.6 - Pancake

Some odd conflicting sizes here, what's missing are the primes


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> All I want is a newly designed, kick-ass EF 50/1.4 II IS



How did I miss the EF 50/1.4 IS (aka, version I)?


----------



## preppyak (Aug 9, 2014)

tayassu said:


> I do still believe that Canon will go mirrorless with their 'normal' SLR's (I expect the 7DII to be the first one -> hybrid VF, stunning video functions, many autofocus points etc.) and they will have an EF mount, otherwise they would kill themselves after building up a lens system for, I don't know, 40 years?! I wouldn't bet on the M system.


What is the point in going mirrorless and keeping the EF mount? I get the lens compatibility, but by keeping the EF mount, you basically limit the size of the camera to, at best, be the size of the SL1. Can't really make it smaller than that, and if you want more processing power (many point AF, etc), it'd have to be bigger.

So, if you're not gaining size, I'm not seeing the point in going mirrorless and EF mount.



ecka said:


> Canon may end up making a mirrorless body with built-in speedbooster.
> 1. They would keep the EF mount and all FF lens support
> 2. No need for FF sensor, lower price, more sales, more profit
> 3. No more dust specks, no more sensor cleaning, just think about the level of weather sealing it could have 8)


This is an interesting concept, but, I have to imagine that technologically it'd be pretty complex. And, since those speedboosters all run in the $4-600 range, you're talking a big price addition to any body. 

if they implemented that, it'd have to come in a prosumer or higher level body, as they wouldn't be able to price it <$1000 most likely.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 9, 2014)

scyrene said:


> I'd love a small macro lens with reasonably long working distance. Would the M's design allow for an equivalent to the 100L macro or 180L in a much smaller package? I've found the M a really good macro camera, with both the 100 and the MP-E - most of the time I'm using Live View for macro work anyway (especially with the MP-E) so the lack of a viewfinder isn't a problem.
> 
> But these lenses are rather bulky on the small body.



The 100 f/2.8L IS Macro works very well on the EOS-M. I hold the lens by the barrel, and use touch shutter. With IS on, you can get pretty good macro shots. Also good on a tripod. Give it a try!


----------



## scyrene (Aug 10, 2014)

Etienne said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love a small macro lens with reasonably long working distance. Would the M's design allow for an equivalent to the 100L macro or 180L in a much smaller package? I've found the M a really good macro camera, with both the 100 and the MP-E - most of the time I'm using Live View for macro work anyway (especially with the MP-E) so the lack of a viewfinder isn't a problem.
> ...



Oh I have, and it does work well. That lens is a dream in almost every situation  But it dwarfs the body. Since we were dreaming up what we'd like as the next EF-M lens, my vote is for a macro lens that's much smaller (assuming it's possible; although I doubt it would ever happen).


----------



## moreorless (Aug 25, 2014)

Haydn1971 said:


> Current list of Canon EF-M patents...
> 
> 9-18mm f4.0-5.6
> 10-20mm f4.0-5.6
> ...



My guess is we'll only see one pancake see the light of day and that both the other UWA's were rejected in favour of the 11-22mm although I spose the 9-18mm might be a future higher end option.

The 16-120mm is interesting simply because that focal length range points to something large and expensive you'd expect to see a more advanced body released for.


----------



## DRR (Aug 27, 2014)

preppyak said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Canon may end up making a mirrorless body with built-in speedbooster.
> ...



I do like that idea! Canon would certainly have to recoup R+D costs but I think they'd be able to build this into a body for much less than the $400-600 other companies need to charge to recoup their costs. For one, it's a simpler, fixed design, it becomes part of the body as opposed to a standalone unit. The numbers for Canon would be significantly less than it costs Metabones to make a widget because Canon has economies of scale on its side. Still, I agree it would first arrive on a much higher end camera and eventually trickle down - but I really like the idea of a built in speedbooster.


----------



## crashpc (Aug 27, 2014)

Agree. Sounds like very good idea!


----------



## moreorless (Aug 28, 2014)

If anyone does that my guess would be Pentax as they've got no FF sales to damage.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Dec 26, 2014)

Dec 2014 update

Current list of Canon EF-M patents...

9-18mm f4.0-5.6
10-20mm f4.0-5.6
16-120mm f3.5-5.6
18-40mm f4.0-5.6 - Pancake
18-55mm f4.0-8.0 - Pancake
18-200mm f3.5-6.3
22-46mm f3.5-5.6 - Pancake
70-400mm f4.5-7.2

Anymore to add ?


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 26, 2016)

Old thread I realise, but are there any recent patents for the EF-M mount ?


----------



## brad-man (Mar 27, 2016)

I believe there was something mentioned about an EF-M 60 f/3.5 for macro. While that would be a nice lens to have, personally, I would appreciate 3 or 4 fast primes (faster than 2.5). I am presently satisfied as far as zooms are concerned.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 27, 2016)

Being playing around with my 135L and 35IS today in prep for my highland trip.. Yes, agreed, some more primes would be nice, the 50mm Samyang just isn't doing it for me


----------



## Etienne (Mar 27, 2016)

Haydn1971 said:


> Being playing around with my 135L and 35IS today in prep for my highland trip.. Yes, agreed, some more primes would be nice, the 50mm Samyang just isn't doing it for me



The 35 f/2 IS is really nice. Might work well paired with 24 f/2.8 IS and 100 f/2.8L IS macro for a light weight travel set


----------



## crashpc (Mar 27, 2016)

Haydn: 70-400mm looks usable to me. It would be nice to have native sharp 50mm f/1.6 IS STM


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 28, 2016)

crashpc said:


> Haydn: 70-400mm looks usable to me. It would be nice to have native sharp 50mm f/1.6 IS STM



not needed. EF 50/1.8 STM via adapter does the trick nicely. Dead sharp. Dirt cheap. Best focus drive for mirrorless. Very compact on EOS-M even with adapter. 

Only EF-M lens really missing is a short tele - EF-M 80mm/2.4 IS STM, as compact as posible and as optically good as 22/2.0 please.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 28, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> not needed. EF 50/1.8 STM via adapter does the trick nicely. Dead sharp. Dirt cheap. Best focus drive for mirrorless. Very compact on EOS-M even with adapter.



I'd disagree here, using the adapter isn't a reasonable solution moving forward with the native mirrorless offerings from Fuji, M4/3 and Sony - especially with such a key prime.



AvTvM said:


> Only EF-M lens really missing is a short tele - EF-M 80mm/2.4 IS STM, as compact as posible and as optically good as 22/2.0 please.



As discussed elsewhere, the EF-M mount requires initailly a trio of primes that provide users with a degree of flexibility, I'd like to see longer tele primes, but given the small size, I'd pitch that users would prefer options towards wide and standards as follows

- UWA something like a 10/11mm prime (16/17mm)
- WA 15mm (24mm)
- standard 22mm we have (35mm)
- a fast standard 32/35mm (50/56mm)
- a short tele to give a FF focal length in the 80-100mm range

My money would be on the fast prime first, followed by the UWA, then a selection of more zoom lenses to better fit with a higher grade EOS-M body


----------



## Zv (Mar 28, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > Haydn: 70-400mm looks usable to me. It would be nice to have native sharp 50mm f/1.6 IS STM
> ...



I somewhat agree about the 50 STM. It is really good on the EOS M and actually not that big even with the adaptor. However, crashpc did mention the need for an IS version which I think the EOS M can use since t's likely to be used without a viewfinder to steady things. 

I am really impressed with the 50 STM on the EOS M2, this might be my new fave combo for people / street and small events. 

For anything more tele I prefer using a DSLR. Just feels easier to use.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 28, 2016)

1. EOS M cameras need a build in viewfinder.
2. Fast EF-M primes are minority program. Not urgent.
3. Compact EF-M lenses are a priority. 
4 only lens missing is EF-M 80/2.4 IS STM.

Macro? EF-S 60:2.8 + adapter. Got it, works nicely.
50mm lens? EF 50/1.8 STM + adapter. Got it, works nicely.
UWA? EF-M 10-20! Best APS-c zoom lens on the market. Optically excellent, durt cheap and compact. got it, works nicely. No need whatsoever for a 10mm prime!


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 28, 2016)

AvTvM - I respectfully truly disagree ;-)


----------



## brad-man (Mar 28, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 1. EOS M cameras need a build in viewfinder............................._Um, no it doesn't. EVF-DC1 is fine_
> 2. Fast EF-M primes are minority program. Not urgent................_Yes urgent. Needed for low light._
> 3. Compact EF-M lenses are a priority......................................._We already have those._
> 4 only lens missing is EF-M 80/2.4 IS STM................................_See Haydn's response_
> ...



I bought the adapter with the original M. I like that I have it. I very rarely use it. I don't want to use it. I bought into this system for size and IQ. I need fast primes because I want to shoot in available light. I don't want to carry the adapter or a flash. I want any primes I buy for this system to be fast because I only want to buy them once. One day, and I don't know when that day will arrive, Canon is going to release a really good enthusiast version with this mount. If your needs are different, fine. But you are not speaking for all of us...


----------



## Zv (Mar 29, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 1. EOS M cameras need a build in viewfinder.



Regarding built in EVF I also disagree. Part of the appeal of the EOS M, M10 and M2 is the small size. An EVF would undoubtedly add some bulk. I think the shape and size is spot on for these bodies. They can fit into a large or medium jacket pocket. 

Maybe the M3 and M4 could have one since that seems to be aiming at a more enthusiast level.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 29, 2016)

Zv said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > 1. EOS M cameras need a build in viewfinder.
> ...



M3 is not much smaller than Sony A6000/63000 ... EVF fits into a small package, if done right. 
Konowing Canon, there will be lower end models galore without EVF for the next 10 years to come. No need to worry about models without EVF. ;D


----------



## crashpc (Mar 29, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > Haydn: 70-400mm looks usable to me. It would be nice to have native sharp 50mm f/1.6 IS STM
> ...


No, my 50 f/1.4 wide open on my M is dead sharp. :-! Some say sharpest piece they have seen to date...
In fact, it wouldn't have to be big lens. The front element it pretty deep in there, and the adapter is making it even larger. 1.6 version could be clearly smaller than 1.8 STM with adapter, and with IS, it would really be quite tempting offer.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Apr 1, 2016)

Current list of Canon EF-M patents...

Zooms
9-18mm f4.0-5.6
10-20mm f4.0-5.6
16-120mm f3.5-5.6
18-40mm f4.0-5.6 - Pancake
18-55mm f4.0-8.0 - Pancake
18-200mm f3.5-6.3
22-46mm f3.5-5.6 - Pancake
55-290mm f/4.5-6.3
55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO
70-400mm f4.5-7.2

Primes
55mm f3.5 Macro
600mm f5.6 DO

Just talk of Canon EF-M lenses 
18mm f2.0
35mm f1.8

Anymore to add ?


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 1, 2016)

Haydn1971 said:


> - UWA something like a 10/11mm prime (16/17mm)
> - WA 15mm (24mm)
> - standard 22mm we have (35mm)
> - a fast standard 32/35mm (50/56mm)
> - a short tele to give a FF focal length in the 80-100mm range



Completely agree with a set of "standard" or "common" primes needed for the system. The adapter talk is fun for playing around, but is no replacement for a dedicated lens lineup. This is even more true when you look at the competition.

As for the integrated EVF, fine that some may not like/need/want one. However some of us like to shoot through a viewfinder. I don't think anyone is suggesting there can't be an M model that is ultra compact (and EVF-less) like the original M or the M10, just put a model out that includes one.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Apr 1, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> Completely agree with a set of "standard" or "common" primes needed for the system. The adapter talk is fun for playing around, but is no replacement for a dedicated lens lineup. This is even more true when you look at the competition.



Two things persuaded me to stay with the EOS-M, firstly I like the option to use the adapter with my EF lenses, even just for a play... Second, and perhaps critical is the sheer cost of primes on the Fuji range, I was looking at lenses that were going to cost more than the equivalent Canon model for FF ! Once you head down that route, the Fuji size benifits don't add up anymore either



Luds34 said:


> As for the integrated EVF, fine that some may not like/need/want one. However some of us like to shoot through a viewfinder. I don't think anyone is suggesting there can't be an M model that is ultra compact (and EVF-less) like the original M or the M10, just put a model out that includes one.



Agreed totally, the use of the rear screen feels odd after using the DSLR, but oddly natural after using an iPhone camera or similar - having an EVF would be a good option for the larger and more costlier EOS-M range - we have two in the market at once now, there will be room for a third high end model, but it needs the fast primes !


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 1, 2016)

I will not buy fast EF-M primes. If I buy expensive lenses, they gotta be for FF image circle. Most ridiculous is Fuji, where people are buying f/1.2 crop lenses for 1 grand and more. Me, I am smarter and buy f/1.8 lenses for FF instead, like the compact and decent 50/1.8 STM ... and use them on crop as well. 

For EF-M all I want is a native short/portrait tele like an EF-M 80mm/2.4 STM IS ... as small as possible, optically as good as the 22/2.0 and similarly cheap. No interest in anything else.

If however, Canon *ever* comes up with a great FF MILC, then I'll purchase more expensive FF glass for it. But I am not going to spend big bucks on APS-C lenses.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Apr 1, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> I will not buy fast EF-M primes.



We know this ;-) Other people do want EF-M primes !


----------



## Zv (Apr 2, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> I will not buy fast EF-M primes. If I buy expensive lenses, they gotta be for FF image circle. Most ridiculous is Fuji, where people are buying f/1.2 crop lenses for 1 grand and more. Me, I am smarter and buy f/1.8 lenses for FF instead, like the compact and decent 50/1.8 STM ... and use them on crop as well.
> 
> For EF-M all I want is a native short/portrait tele like an EF-M 80mm/2.4 STM IS ... as small as possible, optically as good as the 22/2.0 and similarly cheap. No interest in anything else.
> 
> If however, Canon *ever* comes up with a great FF MILC, then I'll purchase more expensive FF glass for it. But I am not going to spend big bucks on APS-C lenses.



I kinda agree I also want cheap and small primes but I recognize that others might want something else. I guess what would please everyone is a nice variety of cheap f2 primes and less cheap f1.4 primes for the M so we can decide for ourselves. Right now we have zippo except the 22mm which comes free with every M purchase!


----------



## Zv (Apr 2, 2016)

I would really like an EF-M version of the 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM. I used to own the EF-S one and it was awesome. That would be something, eh? Really want constant aperture zooms. I'd probably even take an f/4 version if they made it though I'd want more range instead. Maybe a 15-70 F/4, kind of like a mini 24-105L.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 2, 2016)

Zv said:


> I would really like an EF-M version of the 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM. I used to own the EF-S one and it was awesome. That would be something, eh? Really want constant aperture zooms. I'd probably even take an f/4 version if they made it though I'd want more range instead. Maybe a 15-70 F/4, kind of like a mini 24-105L.



Both of those lenses would certainly be extremely useful, but they would be quite large (relatively speaking). I want Canon to simply give us some version of the trinity with an UWA thrown in. My vote would be for:

EF-M 14 f/2
EF-M 38 f/1.8 IS
EF-M 65 f/2.4 IS with macro

I am not a lens designer, but I believe these lenses could be manufactured to Canon's high IQ standard while remaining reasonably compact. Put a lens in each pocket and you're ready to go.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Apr 15, 2016)

Current list of Canon EF-M patents...

Zooms
9-18mm f4.0-5.6
10-20mm f4.0-5.6
16-80mm f2.0-6.0
16-120mm f3.5-5.6
18-40mm f4.0-5.6 - Pancake
18-55mm f4.0-8.0 - Pancake
18-200mm f3.5-6.3
22-46mm f3.5-5.6 - Pancake
55-290mm f/4.5-6.3
55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO
70-400mm f4.5-7.2

Primes
55mm f3.5 Macro
600mm f5.6 DO

Just talk of Canon EF-M lenses 
18mm f2.0
35mm f1.8

Anymore to add ?


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 16, 2016)

Instead of all those futile lens patents I'sd rather have Canon come up with an EOS M4 body that is up to par with Sony A6300. Waste of research resources.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Instead of all those futile lens patents I'sd rather have Canon come up with an EOS M4 body that is up to par with Sony A6300. Waste of research resources.



As always, you know better than Canon how Canon should invest Canon's resources. : : :


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of all those futile lens patents I'sd rather have Canon come up with an EOS M4 body that is up to par with Sony A6300. Waste of research resources.
> ...



yes, I do. Canon is a pretty stupid company.


----------

