# 35L II and New EF-M zoom coming on 8/14?



## ahsanford (Jul 15, 2015)

CW/PR/Digicame believe that we have our two new lenses for next month:

http://digicame-info.com/2015/07/ef35mm-f14l-ii-usmef-m15-45mm.html

EF-M gets a 24-72 equivalent zoom... _and they put STM on it._ Classic. Probably should have expected it for a non-constant aperture lens like this, but the 24-70-ish equivalent had me hoping it might be USM. 

And the 35L II looks like it's finally happening. If the 100-400 II was the White Unicorn, what do we call this long overdue follow-up? The Black Badger, perhaps?

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 15, 2015)

I'm not sure what the point of an EF-M 14-55 is. The existing 18-55 matches well with the 11-22, and f/6.3 on the long end?? Perhaps the 14-55's advantage will be size (relative to the 18-55), but if I'm bringing the M, I'm either using the 22 f/2 alone or bringing all the lenses and a slight decrease in size in one lens won't make much of a difference.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 15, 2015)

Those would be reasonable releases...ok..wait...some people will be over the moon about the 35 L II. 
The EF-m 15-45 is a bit odd as the current EF-m 18-55 is actually very nice for what it is. The primary benefit I could see from an 15-45 would be a size reduction.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jul 15, 2015)

As far as efm lens is concerned, I think a superzoom like tamron 18-200 would be nice. But tamron doesn't work on m3 and is not balanced well. It'd be nice to have a canon version with some weight reduction. And yes, there is nothing sexy about 15-45. To me it's not useful. 

I'm not going to fantasize about efm primes. Probably won't happen. 

35Lii... I wonder if it has IS and it's probably going to cost $2000...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2015)

Some time back I was really excited about a 35L II. That was before the 24-70/2.8L II came along... Now, my 35L gets used primarily for indoor ambient light shooting, so weather sealing isn't needed and it's plenty sharp for my uses. So, I suspect I'll pass on a 35L II if one comes along, other lenses are much higher on my priority list.



Random Orbits said:


> I'm not sure what the point of an EF-M 14-55 is. The existing 18-55 matches well with the 11-22, and f/6.3 on the long end?? Perhaps the 14-55's advantage will be size (relative to the 18-55), but if I'm bringing the M, I'm either using the 22 f/2 alone or bringing all the lenses and a slight decrease in size in one lens won't make much of a difference.



Perhaps if they use a retract-for-storage design like the 11-22 it could be smaller than the M18-55, else I don't expect a significant difference in size. 

For those who don't have the M18-55, I can see the attraction - the difference between 24mm and 29mm (FF FoV) doesn't sound like much, but it is certainly noticeable.

With my M18-55, about 15% of my shots are above 45mm and about half of those are at 55mm. At the other end, 34% of my shots are at 18mm and most of them could have used a bit wider angle. So for me, I could see _replacing_ my M18-55 with an M15-45 (likely ordered from Canada : ).


----------



## WorkonSunday (Jul 15, 2015)

hmmm reduced tele length and F6.3 at the tele end for the M lens, sounds just like what Sony did with their 18-55 (into 16-50mm)

perhaps we have a pancake lens incoming! ;D


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 15, 2015)

EF-M 15-45 does sound somewhat weird. Considering f/6.3 I'd also guess on a size-reduced "pancake" kit-zoom with small "parking position". 


In most European countries EOS M3 is not sold "body only" but just as a kit with 18-55. Original M was only offered in kit with 18-55 (plus ST-90EX flash) or with 22/2 (plus EF/M adapter). Not very many M/M3 owners around who want a normal zoom kit lens and don't have the 18-55 yet. 

I don't think I'd switch my 18-55 for a 15-45 since I need the longer end more often. If I need wider I use the excellent 11-22. 

The EF-M lens I#d really want from Canon is an ultracompact EF-M 75/2.0 IS STM "pancake" tele - optically as good as the 22/2 and at a similar price.


----------



## mxma1 (Jul 15, 2015)

Well if anything, I'll take the fact that perhaps Canon will put out more EF-M lenses. But I think if you asked 100x EOS M shooters what they wanted, none would say a new kit lens with a f/6.3 max aperture at the tele end...


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 15, 2015)

mxma1 said:


> Well if anything, I'll take the fact that perhaps Canon will put out more EF-M lenses. But I think if you asked 100x EOS M shooters what they wanted, none would say a new kit lens with a f/6.3 max aperture at the tele end...



Yeah... all the clamor here was for fast primes and pancakes. Two slow normal zooms instead of one is... confusing. It absolutely wouldn't be USM though - USM is for premium lenses now; STM is for the consumer-grade ones. There won't be a USM EF-M for a while, if ever.

This also leaves me disappointed at no 70-300 IS STM announcement.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 15, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> EF-M gets a 24-72 equivalent zoom... _and they put STM on it._ Classic. Probably should have expected it for a non-constant aperture lens like this, but the 24-70-ish equivalent had me hoping it might be USM.



Probably not worth going the USM route for Eos M, given that any advantage of a faster motor will be far outweighed by a slower AF detection system...



neuroanatomist said:


> Some time back I was really excited about a 35L II. That was before the 24-70/2.8L II came along... Now, my 35L gets used primarily for indoor ambient light shooting, so weather sealing isn't needed and it's plenty sharp for my uses. So, I suspect I'll pass on a 35L II if one comes along, other lenses are much higher on my priority list.



Agreed. I do use it for shallow DoF environmental portraiture, but I doubt that situation will present itself too frequently in the midst of a downpour in my case! The current 35L has the additional advantage of matching my other two primes for filter size. 



neuroanatomist said:


> With my M18-55, about 15% of my shots are above 45mm and about half of those are at 55mm. At the other end, 34% of my shots are at 18mm and most of them could have used a bit wider angle. So for me, I could see _replacing_ my M18-55 with an M15-45 (likely ordered from Canada : ).



Again, agreed. I don't have the EF-M 18-55. If I were to get a zoom for my Eos M, I would prefer the 15-45.


----------



## bf (Jul 15, 2015)

Ef-m 15-45 sounds a pointless release to me!


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 15, 2015)

I'm thinking that the 15-45mm is sounding like a pancake zoom.


----------



## TommyLee (Jul 16, 2015)

so where are the tests on this 35L II lens....
how long do I have to wait......??

why the big delay?

...............................

sorry ...had to do that......

////////

I believe....
it.... HAS TO... come out ....beating...the sigma 35 'A'.....
and if it does...I will switch ...Sigma to Canon


----------



## Act444 (Jul 16, 2015)

bf said:


> Ef-m 15-45 sounds a pointless release to me!



Not if it is significantly more compact than the current EF-M 18-55....

Plus, the extra 3mm on the wide end could make a really big difference in terms of general walkaround use. Often I find 18mm to be not wide enough (especially since the M's form factor "forces" you to hold the camera out in front of you, shrinking the FOV further)...

As for the new 35L, finally. Don't know if it's something I'll spring for, but I had the original at one point and other than the softness/PF below F2, it was a great performer.


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 16, 2015)

I bought a 35 prime before I bought a 50 (Both Sig ARTs) and after getting the 50, I almost never touched the 35 anymore. What excites me about the Canon 35L II is that it bodes well for a 50L II perhaps in the next year or so. I expect this new 35 to be fantastic (on par with the ART but with more pleasing bokeh) and the 50 to be perhaps the same or better. When that happens, I'll likely sell my two ART primes and buy the Canon 50L II. Really looking forward to seeing some reviews from the gang at LensRentals and Digital Picture.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 16, 2015)

If I didn't already have the 18-55, I would consider the M 15-45. But, unless it has a significant advantage over the 18-55 (size or IQ) I will pass. The extra 3mm on the wide end would be nice at times, but not sure I want to go from 55 to 45 on the long end. Even though I have an EF-M adapter, I almost never use it since when I use the M, I'm looking for small size and portability.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 16, 2015)

Missed the good discussion today while traveling!

1) 15-45 = 24-72 = makes perfect sense to me, if it were a nice 15-45 f/4 IS USM. But this variable aperture nonsense and another STM lens is another reason to not take EF-M seriously. Adapters are weaksauce -- I want native glass optimized for the mount to be no bigger than needed. And as I guy who only shoots stills, STM stands for 'Shots To be Missed' because of the lower focusing speed compared to USM.

2) I contend the 35L II is an important product offering. It simultaneously represents:


...the first like for like product (same FL, same aperture) as the Sigma Art Series. I know Canon doesn't formally 'respond' to third party manufacturers, but folks will naturally compare the performance and value of this new lens against the stellar Sigma 35 Art.


...the first L prime (that's not a big white) since the 100L in 2009. Will we see fancy pants coatings? An ultralight design? Something new?


...the first lens to be released in the 50 MP era.

So it's a big deal, I argue. I'm also curious to see if Canon offers us a $2k prestige lens or a competitive $1250 lens.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 16, 2015)

bholliman said:


> If I didn't already have the 18-55, I would consider the M 15-45. But, unless it has a significant advantage over the 18-55 (size or IQ) I will pass. * The extra 3mm on the wide end would be nice at times*, but not sure I want to go from 55 to 45 on the long end. Even though I have an EF-M adapter, I almost never use it since when I use the M, I'm looking for small size and portability.



+1 on the blue stuff. Kit 18-55 lenses are 28.8mm in the FF equivalent, so I think there's a huge change between ~29 and 24mm.

After all, there's a reason Canon offered that 15-85 EF-S lens -- the kit lens handcuffed folks quite a bit on the wide end.

- A


----------



## twagn (Jul 16, 2015)

Unless an obvious optical improvement over the 18-55, I see no reason for it. Canon should make a dedicated macro EF M


----------



## Pookie (Jul 16, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Some time back I was really excited about a 35L II. That was before the 24-70/2.8L II came along...



Indeed... my 35L is one of the loneliest primes I own since getting the 24-70 II.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2015)

The product differentiation between a 35 f1.4 L MkII at around $1,500, and the 35 f2 IS at $500 makes the L MkII a hard sell imho, especially seeing as how the IQ from the f2 IS is so good and the size and weight so small.

The differences between the 35 f1.4L MkI, which I never was happy with on digital cameras, and the old 35mm f2 made the L a comparative easy sell. Certainly the 35 f2 IS out performs the MkI 35 L by a long way in everything but that one stop.


----------



## sfunglee (Jul 16, 2015)

Are the 35L ii c/w weather shield?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 16, 2015)

sfunglee said:


> Are the 35L ii c/w weather shield?



It will be sealed.


----------



## caMARYnon (Jul 16, 2015)

dilbert said:


> And if Sigma's 35/1.4 Art isn't enough to worry Canon, the Sigma 24-35 is there too as the review from slrgear shows it to be quite fine from an optical perspective.


Indeed


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 16, 2015)

Funny how things leak out 

The performance of the 35 L II is quite interesting to me, because it'll show how Canon is rating the performance of Sigma and how they think to react.

The EF-M will surely be interesting to those looking for a small travel lens or an always-on-body lens.
For the latter I sometimes think if they really need a system camera. 
For me the F6.3 would be the dealbreaker, allthough I can understand the compromise for smaller size.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 16, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> For me the F6.3 would be the dealbreaker, allthough I can understand the compromise for smaller size.


^^^ That .... and...


bholliman said:


> If I didn't already have the 18-55, I would consider the M 15-45. But, unless it has a significant advantage over the 18-55 (size or IQ) I will pass. The extra 3mm on the wide end would be nice at times, but not sure I want to go from 55 to 45 on the long end.


^^^that

The lenses I am actually tempted by for my "M" kit are the M11-22 and M55-200. I could see those combining to be a very nice travel kit. But, I still do not use my M enough to justify much more of an investment. It is a very good camera, but my 5DIII is great. But, at some point I may upgrade to the M3 and add a couple more lenses to fill out my "M" kit. We'll have to see about the M 15-45, to see if it worth swapping out my current M18-55.

BTW, it is surprising that this thread is mostly about the M and not the 35 L II.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 16, 2015)

docsmith said:


> I still do not use my M enough to justify much more of an investment. It is a very good camera, but my 5DIII is great.



+1 This is where I'm at with my EOS-M. Its a nice little camera, but I'm always going to use my 5DIII or 6D unless I'm just wanting something really small and light. Looking at my picture stats in LR6, I'm only using the M for 4% of my pictures in 2015, so at this point, I really don't feel like I can justify spending much to expand my M kit.



docsmith said:


> BTW, it is surprising that this thread is mostly about the M and not the 35 L II.



This surprises me as well. Personally, I have very little interest in the 35L II. I own the terrific 35/2 IS and it's everything I want in a 35mm prime. I value size, IS and moderate price over ultimate IQ.

As others have pointed out, it will be interesting to see how this new lens performs and is priced in response to the excellent Sigma Art.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 16, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > If I didn't already have the 18-55, I would consider the M 15-45. But, unless it has a significant advantage over the 18-55 (size or IQ) I will pass. * The extra 3mm on the wide end would be nice at times*, but not sure I want to go from 55 to 45 on the long end. Even though I have an EF-M adapter, I almost never use it since when I use the M, I'm looking for small size and portability.
> ...



Agreed, 15mm vs. 18mm is a big deal. I'm used to shooting with my 24-70 on my FF camera's so when I use the 18-55 on the M, I'm often wishing it would go wider.

An EOS-M 15-85 would be awesome, especially if it was constant f/4! That said, this lens would be somewhat pricey, so not sure I'd buy give my limited use of the M. 

The M lenses I'd most like to see are fast primes that are fairly compact.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 16, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> CW/PR/Digicame believe that we have our two new lenses for next month:
> 
> http://digicame-info.com/2015/07/ef35mm-f14l-ii-usmef-m15-45mm.html
> 
> ...


Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L II USM, I unofficially dub thee: "Nightfury"

I always wanted a Nightfury, it's finally coming <tears-of-joy> :'( </tears-of-joy>


----------



## Jamesy (Jul 16, 2015)

If the 15-45 is as sharp as the 11-22 then it would be very interesting as a general walk-around travel lens. I own the 11-22, 18-55 and 22/2 and a 15-45 might fill that gap nicely - although 6.3 on the long end really sucks. I understand the longer glass often requires this to keep the weight down but not on a short zoom.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 16, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> So it's a big deal, I argue. I'm also curious to see if Canon offers us a $2k prestige lens or a competitive $1250 lens.
> 
> - A


Split the difference - I wouldn't complain with a $1600-1800 price point.


----------



## zim (Jul 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> The product differentiation between a 35 f1.4 L MkII at around $1,500, and the 35 f2 IS at $500 makes the L MkII a hard sell imho, especially seeing as how the IQ from the f2 IS is so good and the size and weight so small.
> 
> The differences between the 35 f1.4L MkI, which I never was happy with on digital cameras, and the old 35mm f2 made the L a comparative easy sell. Certainly the 35 f2 IS out performs the MkI 35 L by a long way in everything but that one stop.




And that the MkII doesn't have IS blurs the lines for me too. I'd much rather have it than not I don't see wide apertures and IS mutually exclusive they both expand a lenses repertoire


----------



## jcarapet (Jul 16, 2015)

I'm just looking forward to the mark 35L 1st gens that will be sold for cheap by upgraders. Not a lens I need for my focal range, but a nice to have. 

Looking for a next gen 24mm L would be my preference. Need to check out the Sigma on that.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The product differentiation between a 35 f1.4 L MkII at around $1,500, and the 35 f2 IS at $500 makes the L MkII a hard sell imho, especially seeing as how the IQ from the f2 IS is so good and the size and weight so small.
> ...



Clearly you haven't used the 35 f2 IS, the 24 TS-E MkII with 1.4TC, or the 16-35 f4 IS, all of which are excellent 35mm lenses.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Jul 16, 2015)

i'm not sure the new 35 with do that well after sigma's. the 35 art is incredible, and it'll be 1/3 the cost of the 35LII.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 16, 2015)

PureClassA, why don't you use the 35 Art much now that you have the 50 Art? Just your style of shooting? It is hard for me to imagine that the 50 Art can be much better than the 35 Art, which I find terrific. I rather like 35mm as a general fast lens. Just curious. I don't do portraiture.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jul 16, 2015)

I think an updated 135L with IS would be very exciting.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


In fairness I think Dilbert was referring to 35mm (preferably fast) primes:
1. the 35 f/2 IS has dark corners (massive vignette, about 3Ev) wide open. Even closed down to 5.6 it is still there at almost 1Ev.
2. the TS-E 24L-II with 1.4xTC has a max aperture is of f/5.6 and by that setting most 35mm primes are showing decent performance in the corners.
3. The 16-35 is not a fast and not a prime. 

P.S. The 24-70L II is also not a prime but is reasonably fast and pretty much like a barrel full of primes. That should have been your go-to lens if zooms were on the table.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jul 16, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> 1. the 35 f/2 IS has dark corners (massive vignette, about 3Ev) wide open. Even closed down to 5.6 it is still there at almost 1Ev.



No?! It isn't as huge as you say....


----------



## caMARYnon (Jul 16, 2015)

davidcl0nel said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > 1. the 35 f/2 IS has dark corners (massive vignette, about 3Ev) wide open. Even closed down to 5.6 it is still there at almost 1Ev.
> ...


2.3EV wide open and 0,5EV closed down to 5.6 according to photozone.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



That might be what you took him to mean, in which case he is still missing the 35 f2 IS which is a very good design and vignetting is simplicity itself to correct, but that isn't what he said so isn't what I replied to.

As for the 24-70 f2.8 MkII, yes it is a good and many many people have also compared it to some of the best primes in the range, but dilbert has previously dismissed it because of barrel distortion so I didn't include it.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



+1 The 35 f2 IS is an excellent lens and vignetting is almost a non-issue. 



keithfullermusic said:


> i'm not sure the new 35 with do that well after sigma's. the 35 art is incredible, and it'll be 1/3 the cost of the 35LII.



A new Canon L will certainly have excellent autofocus which is something the Sigma Art's lack. Their AF is considered average at best and poor/erratic by others.

I imagine the IQ of a 35LII will be very close to the Art given the quality of Canon's recent L lenses, and yes, the intro price will be probably be in the $1,600-1,800 range. Buyers will have to decide if a red ring, better AF, Canon's excellent service support network and weather sealing are worth the delta in price.

Personally, I'm very happy with my 35/2 IS.


----------



## TeT (Jul 16, 2015)

caMARYnon said:


> davidcl0nel said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Its is easily noticeable many charts and tests confirm this...

Its a canon non L prime (as well as many non L zooms). it has dark corners... that's what they do...

Most non L (non top of the line for any maker) caliber lenses are dark in the corners as well...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 17, 2015)

caMARYnon said:


> davidcl0nel said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...


I guess it depends on how you define "the corner". If the corner is the the value at the corner then this chart may help:







Alternatively, if the corner is a zone near and including the corner then 2.3 EV is a fair value to quote.


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 17, 2015)

Had I never bought the Canon 16-35 f4L after buying the two ARTs, I'd still use it. And the 50 is a wee bit sharper than the 35, but barely distinguishable. That's not my reasoning though. I do tend to do more portraiture and 35 frankly just doesn't do it for me, unless I'm shooting really wide and my subject is merely a small piece of the framing. That's more rare for me. But if that happens, I'm not shooting at 1.4. I'll be down to f4 .... and thus the Canon zoom does the same job for me. Plus it's just another lens I have to debate over when traveling "which three do I take this time...hmmmm" and more and more I'm favoring my personal trinity of the Canon 16-35 F4L, 70-200 f2.8 IS II, both flanking my standard Sig Art Prime at 50mm. I get wide coverage for landscaping, tele zoom for reach, and one ultra fast bad ass prime for general street and artistic shots.

I'm already considering selling my 35 Sig now, but I'm waiting to see what I want to replace it with. 

I think the new 35L2 is gonna be in the $1500 range +/- $150. SO, maybe 10% more for the 50 when it shows up. Canon knows they have real competition from Sigma. They make more per unit at $1800 but I bet they only sell half as many or less than they would at a slimmer margin of $1400. 



NancyP said:


> PureClassA, why don't you use the 35 Art much now that you have the 50 Art? Just your style of shooting? It is hard for me to imagine that the 50 Art can be much better than the 35 Art, which I find terrific. I rather like 35mm as a general fast lens. Just curious. I don't do portraiture.


----------

