# Specs & Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 13, 2016)

```
Images of two lenses we were the first to report were coming have finally leaked out. The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II shows the digital display we mentioned a few months ago, along with the new EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM.</p>
<p>Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM II</p>
<ul>
<li>Lens construction: 12 group 17 sheets (one UD lens)</li>
<li>Nano USM</li>
<li>Full-time manual focus</li>
<li>Aperture blades: 9 (circular aperture)</li>
<li>Minimum focusing distance: 1.2m</li>
<li>Maximum magnification: 0.25 times (300mm time), 0.07 times (at the time of 70Mm)</li>
<li>Image stabilization: Four stops</li>
<li>Filter diameter: 67Mm</li>
<li>Maximum diameter × length: 80Mm × 145.5Mm</li>
<li>Weight: about 710G</li>
<li>Hood: ET-74B</li>
</ul>
<p>Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM</p>
<ul>
<li>Color: Black Silver</li>
<li>Lens construction: 13 group 17 sheets (one UD lens, 2 aspherical lens)</li>
<li>Stepping motor</li>
<li>Full-time manual focus</li>
<li>Aperture blades: 7(circular aperture)</li>
<li>Minimum focusing distance: 0.45m (wide angle is 0.25M)</li>
<li>Maximum magnification: 0.31 times</li>
<li>Image stabilization: 4 stops</li>
<li>Filter diameter: 55Mm</li>
<li>Maximum diameter x length: 60.9 × 86.5Mm</li>
<li>Weight: about 300g</li>
<li>Hood: EW-60F</li>
</ul>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 25%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-26851 gallery-columns-4 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef-m18-150_001.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef-m18-150_001-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="canon_ef-m18-150_001" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef-m18-150_001-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef-m18-150_001-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef-m18-150_002.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef-m18-150_002-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="canon_ef-m18-150_002" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef-m18-150_002-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef-m18-150_002-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef70-300_001.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef70-300_001-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="canon_ef70-300_001" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef70-300_001-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef70-300_001-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef70-300_003.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef70-300_003-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="canon_ef70-300_003" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef70-300_003-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/canon_ef70-300_003-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*

As an owner of the 70-300L I'll be interested to see how they differentiate the L vs new non-L


----------



## Talley (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*

still consumer. no tripod ring... no weather sealing... build quality will not be the same. but I bet everything will be good. IQ should be stellar!


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*

Nano USM confirmed for the 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS II. You can see the tiny Nano USM logo under the "stabilizer" text. I assume this means it will work with the power zoom-- cool!

This is the Nano USM text from the EF-S 18-135:






If you zoom in enough on the leaked images, you'll see the same N.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*

Just made this comparison gif for the other thread on these lenses.

Done using the rear lens caps for registration and scale, I have both styles on my desk.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*

I'll be watching this very, very closely.

300mm is as much length as some people ever had with other camera systems.
If Canon makes this sharp enough at 300mm it could end up being one of the best telephoto lenses ever made, regardless of cost.
I can't wait to see the Maximum Magnification spec on that thing.
As much as I love my Sigma 150mm Macro lens, using a 150mm Prime can be cumbersome in some circumstances, when I'm not going for the micron level Macro shots having a lens with some zoom could be nice.

And if that EF-M 18-150 is decent on both ends of the zoom range it could be another groundbreaking kit lens that's actually worth buying separately.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



privatebydesign said:


> Just made this comparison gif for the other thread on these lenses.
> 
> Done using the rear lens caps for registration and scale, I have both styles on my desk.


Thanks pbd. EFM lens is lot smaller.


----------



## crashpc (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*

Okay, now they have all that medicore $hit built. Now it's time for serious 300+mm and some primes - all M lenses.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



privatebydesign said:


> Just made this comparison gif for the other thread on these lenses.
> 
> Done using the rear lens caps for registration and scale, I have both styles on my desk.



The lens cap comparison is not even remotely valid. The EF-M cap is much wider than the EF cap, which is narrow until the lip which contacts the mount. Your estimate exaggerates the size difference


----------



## Etienne (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*


Both are nice looking lenses!


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



Etienne said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Just made this comparison gif for the other thread on these lenses.
> ...



What part of "I have both styles on my desk" don't you understand? The M cap is wider than the EF cap at the base (closed end) and smaller at the lens end, as is my illustration. It might not be mm accurate but it is a pretty close approximation. Baseline is the mounting face.


----------



## d (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



Etienne said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Just made this comparison gif for the other thread on these lenses.
> ...



Disagree - the sizes look pretty much spot on to me. PBD takes their product comparison GIFs seriously, so I know I can depend on them!


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



d said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


----------



## johnctharp (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



H. Jones said:


> Nano USM confirmed for the 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS II. You can see the tiny Nano USM logo under the "stabilizer" text. I assume this means it will work with the power zoom-- cool!



You assume poorly: the presence or lack of Nano USM is not related to the powerzoom module except that they're both present in that single lens. One is for AF, the other is for zoom, and the powerzoom module requires gearing on the lens that doesn't appear to be present on the 70-300 II.


----------



## Woody (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*

Looks like I will be getting everything: M5 MILC, EF-M 18-150, EF-M 14-45 and EF 70-300 IS. ;D


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



dilbert said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like I will be getting everything: M5 MILC, EF-M 18-150, EF-M 14-45 and EF 70-300 IS. ;D
> ...



The 70-200 goes well with a 24-70, given that it's a Full Frame lens.
The 14-45 does leave a small gap between 45mm and 55mm where the crop kit zooms start.


----------



## symmar22 (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*

I'm just wondering why some people here think it should be stellar or even " the best telephoto ever made". Is there some new magic glass inside ? Most 70-300 4ish/5.6ish on the market fall into the "crappy zoom" category, with maybe the exception of the Canon 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 L IS, that is good to very good (for what it is). But very far from a true stellar lens like the 300 f2.8 L II. How come a plastic low end 70-300 could suddenly become the best 300 on the market ? That's a bit like comparing the Canon 50mm 1.8 to a Zeiss Otus.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



symmar22 said:


> I'm just wondering why some people here think it should be stellar or even " the best telephoto ever made". Is there some new magic glass inside ? Most 70-300 4ish/5.6ish on the market fall into the "crappy zoom" category, with maybe the exception of the Canon 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 L IS, that is good to very good (for what it is). But very far from a true stellar lens like the 300 f2.8 L II. How come a plastic low end 70-300 could suddenly become the best 300 on the market ? That's a bit like comparing the Canon 50mm 1.8 to a Zeiss Otus.


 It seems like it is easier and cheaper to come out with better lenses (IQ wise) than in the past due to the advancement in technology.


----------



## NorbR (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



dilbert said:


> The expectation is (obviously) for use with the EF-M mount cameras where the tripod mount comes via the EF to EF-M adapter.



Why would that be an concern for this specific lens?

It does not have a tripod ring mount because it will be light enough not to need it. Nothing more.


----------



## gn100 (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



dilbert said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like I will be getting everything: M5 MILC, EF-M 18-150, EF-M 14-45 and EF 70-300 IS. ;D
> ...



The 15-45 is an EFM lens, whereas the 70-300 is likely an EF lens ...... most people will probably pair a 15-45 or 18-55 with the 55-200 EFM if using an EOS M body, so either a small gap or no gap.

Any gap is not really an issue .... we can zoom a bit with our feet ...... or can crop a bit ..... I remember back to starting photography when most lenses were primes, so there were significant "gaps", yet everyone managed fine.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



dilbert said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like I will be getting everything: M5 MILC, EF-M 18-150, EF-M 14-45 and EF 70-300 IS. ;D
> ...



How often do you need to fill that gap? Filling all gaps makes a kit heavy, and the idea of the M is small and light, which is why all the M zoom lenses are slow. It would be akin to carrying a 24-70 and a 100-400.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 13, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> Images of two lenses we were the first to report were coming have finally leaked out. The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II shows the digital display we mentioned a few months ago, along with the new EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM



So Canon started making lenses that are f/6.3 on the long side, like 3rd party manufacturers?


----------



## Etienne (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



d said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Personally, I'd rather Canon came out with some really good primes with IS and nanoUSM. I'd prefer f/1.2, but would be ok with f/2 (which is more likely). Wishlist:

EF-M 15mm f/1.4 IS
EF-M 22mm f/1.2 IS
EF-M 50mm f/1.2 IS
EF-M 135mm f/2 IS


----------



## Vivid Color (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



gn100 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...



My first SLR was a Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic that was fully manual except for the light meter. I had four primes, or, as they were called at the time, fixed focal length lenses: 28 mm, 55 mm, 105 mm, and 200 mm. I thought I had the whole range from 28 mm to 200 mm covered.


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 13, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> So Canon started making lenses that are f/6.3 on the long side, like 3rd party manufacturers?



not the first.. ef-m 55-200 and 15-45 are both 6.3


----------



## JoeDavid (Sep 13, 2016)

There is no good reason for that lens to be slower than f5.6. It should be smaller anyway based on the image circle size. The only reason is that it is cheaper to manufacture. Another example of Canon creating a distinction between camera lines.


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 13, 2016)

JoeDavid said:


> There is no good reason for that lens to be slower than f5.6. It should be smaller anyway based on the image circle size. The only reason is that it is cheaper to manufacture. Another example of Canon creating a distinction between camera lines.



smaller than? ???
it's smaller than the equivalent ef-s 18-135 which is 5.6..


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 13, 2016)

JoeDavid said:


> There is no good reason for that lens to be slower than f5.6. It should be smaller anyway based on the image circle size. The only reason is that it is cheaper to manufacture. Another example of Canon creating a distinction between camera lines.



The level of BS here is extreme.

it's smaller than the EF-S 18-135mm in all dimensions including filter size which is from 67mm to 55mm.

and there's no sensor size difference there. Nor with the Fuji 18-135mm,etc. As a matter of fact, there IS no 18-135mm being made that is NOT a APS-C or smaller sensor for the love of God.. 

it's the smallest APS-C 18-135mm being made and lightest. (quite possibly the cheapest if canon keeps to it's tradition on EF-M lenses being under $300)

and it's only 1/3 of a stop at the long end .. if you can't work around that .. you need to pick up a different hobby.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



symmar22 said:


> I'm just wondering why some people here think it should be stellar or even " the best telephoto ever made". Is there some new magic glass inside ? Most 70-300 4ish/5.6ish on the market fall into the "crappy zoom" category, with maybe the exception of the Canon 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 L IS, that is good to very good (for what it is). But very far from a true stellar lens like the 300 f2.8 L II. How come a plastic low end 70-300 could suddenly become the best 300 on the market ? That's a bit like comparing the Canon 50mm 1.8 to a Zeiss Otus.



I think the term "best" in this context means "best for me" and not "best for everyone". For some, pretty strong optics, cheap build, a good IS unit, low bag weight and a cheaper retail price is the golden ticket to photographic nirvana. For others (me included) we just go "mehh". 

If I wanted a travel tele...I would choose a 100-400IIL or a 70-300L or even a 70-200 f4LIS and a 1.4x tele. 
While the current 70-300mm IS lens is very good optically, it's not good enough with my opinion of sharpness. Although it's a lot better than most of the 70-300 "plastic fantastic" dross that is out there. None of them are as good as an L lens.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 13, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> JoeDavid said:
> 
> 
> > There is no good reason for that lens to be slower than f5.6. It should be smaller anyway based on the image circle size. The only reason is that it is cheaper to manufacture. Another example of Canon creating a distinction between camera lines.
> ...



I think it's the first Canon "slower than f5.6" lens.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 13, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > JoeDavid said:
> ...



nope. the 15-45 EF-M and 55-200 are both 6.3


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 13, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Images of two lenses we were the first to report were coming have finally leaked out. The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II shows the digital display we mentioned a few months ago, along with the new EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM.
> ...



Please note that the lenses that have max apertures smaller than f/5.6 are EF-M lenses, and the Ms don't use a separate phase detect autofocus system. It is all done on the chip. The smaller max apertures also reduce the size of the lenses; not so much the length but the width, which makes the system much easier to carry than a EF-S or EF system.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



GMCPhotographics said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just wondering why some people here think it should be stellar or even " the best telephoto ever made". Is there some new magic glass inside ? Most 70-300 4ish/5.6ish on the market fall into the "crappy zoom" category, with maybe the exception of the Canon 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 L IS, that is good to very good (for what it is). But very far from a true stellar lens like the 300 f2.8 L II. How come a plastic low end 70-300 could suddenly become the best 300 on the market ? That's a bit like comparing the Canon 50mm 1.8 to a Zeiss Otus.
> ...



you combine the cheaper lenses with DPP's DLO and you get very close to L quality.


----------



## JoeDavid (Sep 13, 2016)

If they go to f8 it could be even smaller. I don't have a problem with the math, it's just not a system for me. Low light performance suffers the smaller you go. If you are willing to use the required higher ISO settings then good for you but it begins to negate the benefits of the larger sensor over say the 1" sensor size.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



NorbR said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > The expectation is (obviously) for use with the EF-M mount cameras where the tripod mount comes via the EF to EF-M adapter.
> ...



+1. That new 70-300 is going on a lot more current 6D / future 6D2 bodies than it will go on an EOS-M rig.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Only 80 grams heavier...
> 
> And same single UD element..
> 
> I'm now very suspicious of any improvement in IQ.



it's not the same: 
New: 17 elements 12 group one UD lens
Old: 15 elements, 10 groups, one UD


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 13, 2016)

andrei1989 said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > So Canon started making lenses that are f/6.3 on the long side, like 3rd party manufacturers?
> ...



The reason (one would presume): tradtional EF / EF-S lenses require an SLR focusing setup, and as Neuro has pointed out a few times, Canon caps max aperture at f/5.6 to work on all EF / EF-S mount bodies -- i.e. Canon does not want to field AF lenses that do not have working AF on some bodies (without a teleconverter).

Third parties don't seem to care and have offered f/6.3 max aperture lenses that worked on EF / EF-S bodies.

But _*with mirrorless*_, the AF comes straight off the sensor and will resolve with an f/6.3 lens. That's likely why EF-M has made the exception to the f/5.6 rule.

- A


----------



## vscd (Sep 13, 2016)

It seems the 70-300 (or 75-300) lenses are the inventionline on Canon. back in 1996 or so it was the first one with Image Stabilization, now it has a LCD Display. There was even a (bad) DO-Line of it.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> andrei1989 said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



yes. there's someone that says that DPAF sensor in the 5D Mark IV is having no problems focusing down to F/11.

so 6.3 is pretty easy once you move away from PDAF.

the light loss of 5.6 to 6.3 is negligible.

heck, it's a 300g lens. it's the heaviest EF-M at that.

I think people that have never picked up and played with an EF-M and it's lenses pooh pooh this more .. they just see specs.. combine this and the 11-22mm at 220g and you have a pretty credible lens kit for 520g and a total weight under 1kg.


----------



## Josh Denver (Sep 13, 2016)

Anyone noticing Canon is drastically changing their lens design aesthetic? Outer design that is. 

Their new lenses are ''slick''. They have different ''colour''. The Zoom rings are ''metalic'', the texture is lowered, making it one slick piece design, much like Tamron newest lenses actually. 

It's hard to explain look:

-The new 18-135mm 







-The new 50mm






-The new 70-300mm






-The new 24-105mm


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 13, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Fascinating.



I am not remotely the expert on this. Others will chime in with specifics.

But consider that with LiveView on a Canon SLR today, you can resolve AF with teleconverter + lens combinations at much narrower apertures (f/8, f/11 in some cases) than what you can do through the viewfinder on some bodies, presumably for the same reason -- if you are resolving the AF from the live sensor data, you are bypassing the traditional SLR focusing (#3 and #7 in the diagram here).

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 13, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> Anyone noticing Canon is drastically changing their lens design aesthetic? Outer design that is.
> 
> Their new lenses are ''slick''. They have different ''colour''. The Zoom rings are ''metalic'', the texture is lowered, making it one slick piece design, much like Tamron newest lenses actually.
> 
> It's hard to explain look:



Yep. This is not new so much as an evolution over time. Canon does this periodically when they update their lenses. I would say the L / premium non-L / budget non-L updates are quite different stylistically. (I personally don't give a rat's a-- about how it looks provided it's not neon yellow or something.)

But the style can't limit the usage of the product. Canon is excellent at this while others have stumbled here. Sigma's Art primes were made to look pretty/premium/luxe from the outside with a glossy finish section of the barrel, which is nuts. Any outer surface of the lens that doesn't have controls/rings _is something you might grip it with_ (when shooting, mounting/unmounting, etc.). Why they'd made a surface glossy and not textured for gripping is beyond me -- one might imagine sweat / moisture + a glossy finish lens would lead to sloppy handling and possibly a dropped lens during unmounting.

- A


----------



## scrup (Sep 13, 2016)

Anyone know if the digital display will show the approximate distance to subject in focus?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 13, 2016)

scrup said:


> Anyone know if the digital display will show the approximate distance to subject in focus?


Yes, with 99 % certainty .


----------



## bainsybike (Sep 13, 2016)

I wonder whether the 18-150 lens has a metal mount and barrel like the 3 original M lenses, or if it's all plastic like the later offerings.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Josh Denver said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone noticing Canon is drastically changing their lens design aesthetic? Outer design that is.
> ...



+1. On the L front, I see the 100L macro in 2009 (was it?) as the big 'style change' lens -- the move to very high quality engineering plastic, the textured surfaces, etc.

Since then, the stylistic changes in (non-white) L lenses has been pretty consistent other than perhaps a font change or other little detail. Off the top of my head, the 24-70 f/2.8L II, 24-70 f/4L IS, the 16-35 f/4L IS, 35L II, 11-24L, and the new 16-35 f/2.8L III share those basic stylistic elements. I can't speak for the recent white L lenses (200-400, 100-400 II) as I haven't studied them as closely.

Non-Ls are a different animal in that there are a host of price points that drive a different use-case and market appeal. After 2012, I thought all non-Ls would start to look like the excellent 24/28/35 non-L IS lenses, but we're getting a bit of a mixed bag with non-Ls as some are pancakes, some are budget APS-C kit, some are bone simple like the 50 f/1.8 STM, some are focus by wire, some are not, etc. --> and that leaves a small amount of 'style proliferation' in the portfolio.

- A


----------



## d (Sep 13, 2016)

The M5 with the 18-150:


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 13, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



GMCPhotographics said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just wondering why some people here think it should be stellar or even " the best telephoto ever made". Is there some new magic glass inside ? Most 70-300 4ish/5.6ish on the market fall into the "crappy zoom" category, with maybe the exception of the Canon 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 L IS, that is good to very good (for what it is). But very far from a true stellar lens like the 300 f2.8 L II. How come a plastic low end 70-300 could suddenly become the best 300 on the market ? That's a bit like comparing the Canon 50mm 1.8 to a Zeiss Otus.
> ...



Not to mention the fact that a bag of L lenses are great for working out in the hotel while on the road.  Same reason I bought so many flashes and batteries.


----------



## George D. (Sep 13, 2016)

Are we to assume the lens LCD (focus) display gets its power from the camera? Should this feature pass to the EF line, notably the L, does it affect battery life. I guess particularly if you're track focusing display figures would be always on the move meaning constant power drain. CR can enlighten?


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Sep 13, 2016)

George D. said:


> Are we to assume the lens LCD (focus) display gets its power from the camera? Should this feature pass to the EF line, notably the L, does it affect battery life. I guess particularly if you're track focusing display figures would be always on the move meaning constant power drain. CR can enlighten?



Yes the LCD would take extra power but to see an effect on battery life it would have to be significant compared to the rest of the power the camera uses. In this case, no it is not significant. Most of the power draw would be the sensor, processors, focusing motor and back LCD.


----------



## George D. (Sep 13, 2016)

Sure, least effect but cumulative. +5-10% of usage, I don't know. Let's see if implemented in forthcoming EF lenses.

I assume this draws about same or more power like the LCD screen on top of the camera. It's like having 2 LCD screens working instead of one.


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Sep 13, 2016)

George D. said:


> Sure, least effect but cumulative. +5-10% of usage, I don't know. Let's see if implemented in forthcoming EF lenses.
> 
> I assume this draws about same or more power like the LCD screen on top of the camera. It's like having 2 LCD screens working instead of one.



No, less than 5-10%

More like 1%...maybe.


----------



## George D. (Sep 13, 2016)

Mind the M5 does not have an LCD screen on top of the camera, so less of a drain there.


----------



## crashpc (Sep 13, 2016)

When I put battery in my camera, it shows some stats on the top display no matter if it is on, or off. This works for two or three weeks before the battery drains. So this little display really is nonissue.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 13, 2016)

crashpc said:


> When I put battery in my camera, it shows some stats on the top display no matter if it is on, or off. This works for two or three weeks before the battery drains. So this little display really is nonissue.



That's exactly what frustrates me when people say that this is just going to drain battery. Having the LCD on all day is probably going to use less power than the lens uses while focusing for a couple minutes. 

I would be very happy if they introduce these LCDs with a light-up option though. It would be great for night photography to be able to manually set to infinity focus without looking in the dark, since the infrared hard stop goes slightly past infinity. Obviously that wouldn't be the use for a 300mm f/5.6 lens, but I'm hoping this style continues onto some wide-angle lenses.


----------



## scrup (Sep 13, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> scrup said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone know if the digital display will show the approximate distance to subject in focus?
> ...



Lets hope they add this to the exif data to be captured.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 13, 2016)

Sdiver2489 said:


> George D. said:
> 
> 
> > Are we to assume the lens LCD (focus) display gets its power from the camera? Should this feature pass to the EF line, notably the L, does it affect battery life. I guess particularly if you're track focusing display figures would be always on the move meaning constant power drain. CR can enlighten?
> ...



An AF motor or the IS unit will have a far more effect on the cameras battery than a small LCD screen.


----------



## George D. (Sep 14, 2016)

Screen displays focus distance and 6-bar horizontal/vertical IS operation. Most likely this is movie mode necessity working all the time - more of a gimmick in stills. I'm not saying it's critical but instead of finding ways to reduce power (thus battery size) the trend goes opposite.


----------



## d (Sep 14, 2016)

George D. said:


> Screen displays focus distance and 6-bar horizontal/vertical IS operation. Most likely this is movie mode necessity working all the time - more of a gimmick in stills. I'm not saying it's critical but instead of finding ways to reduce power (thus battery size) the trend goes opposite.



If the minuscule power draw of an LCD is potentially going to bother you (keeping in mind the several years that Lorus digital watch you got for your ninth birthday ran off its tiny factory-fitted button battery before needing it replaced), Canon offer plenty of lenses without an inbuilt LCD.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 14, 2016)

The diameter and length of the 18-150 lens are exactly the same as the diameter and length of the 55-200, down to the tenth of a millimeter? This strikes me as unlikely.


----------



## gmrza (Sep 14, 2016)

andrei1989 said:


> JoeDavid said:
> 
> 
> > There is no good reason for that lens to be slower than f5.6. It should be smaller anyway based on the image circle size. The only reason is that it is cheaper to manufacture. Another example of Canon creating a distinction between camera lines.
> ...



I think this is an area where it may be worth holding back in respect of going for an EOS-M. If Canon is mainly going to bring out slow lenses with an EF-M mount, that devalues the proposition of the EOS-M.
I get it that a f/5.6 or f/4 lens would be bigger, but that may be a compromise that needs making. If I were to be saddled with EF-M lenses being so slow at the long end, I would be forced to use EF lenses with an adapter.
I would want to see Canon bring out some faster EF-M lenses before committing to buying an EOS-M.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 14, 2016)

scrup said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > scrup said:
> ...



Hasn't canon been doing that for ages with compatible usm lenses? A while ago I made a plot for the distances used for my 100mm non-L macro: https://www.flickr.com/photos/koenkooi/17183246476


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 14, 2016)

gmrza said:


> andrei1989 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeDavid said:
> ...



yes, i have the same reluctance...i would switch to M if they had something like the 70-200 f/4 or equivalent and some fast(er) primes. i know there is the 22/2 but something like 35 and 50 would be nice. i like the fuji system a lot but i don't think canon will make the M line at that level...speaking of lenses of course..


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 14, 2016)

*Re: Images of the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM & EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Leak Out*



symmar22 said:


> I'm just wondering why some people here think it should be stellar or even " the best telephoto ever made". Is there some new magic glass inside ? Most 70-300 4ish/5.6ish on the market fall into the "crappy zoom" category, with maybe the exception of the Canon 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 L IS, that is good to very good (for what it is). But very far from a true stellar lens like the 300 f2.8 L II. How come a plastic low end 70-300 could suddenly become the best 300 on the market ? That's a bit like comparing the Canon 50mm 1.8 to a Zeiss Otus.



I was using the term "best ever" in a bit of a broad sense, but it might not be too much of a stretch.
I don't expect Big White performance out of a kit zoom, except if you count the 400f4DO.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=338&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
That's still a $200 (grey market) lens being compared with something that costs many thousands of dollars.

The current 55-250IS STM has amazing sharpness, Canon is now putting better glass in their kit zooms than ever before.
Here it is compared with the original 100-400IS.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=856&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Given the crop factor on the 55-250STM, that's exactly the same field of view out of both lenses. Your basic modern plastic is almost as good as L glass from 18 years ago.

Now lets see what they can do at 300mm.


----------



## weixing (Sep 14, 2016)

andrei1989 said:


> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > andrei1989 said:
> ...


Hi,
Mirrorless doesn't mean small lens. If your sensor is big, fast lens will also tend to be big also. Just look at Sony Mirrorless FF lens... just as big as DSLR FF lens.

Have a nice day.


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 14, 2016)

weixing said:


> andrei1989 said:
> 
> 
> > gmrza said:
> ...



yes, that is true, as long as you keep the same lens design and just change the body to include the adapter...which sony did for its lenses..fuji, as far as i know, has different designs made for the shorter distance and the size of the sensor

we are going a bit off topic here..anyway, my point was that i would like to see more quality glass for the M, which i think can be done at a lower price point than EF lens..


----------



## vscd (Sep 14, 2016)

scrup said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > scrup said:
> ...



I doubt that. The only lens I own which was writing this in the EXIF Data was the Canon 85mm 1.2L II. The data was also only in the exifdata when the flash was turned on and fired, if I remember correctly.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 15, 2016)

dilbert said:


> $549 for the new 70-300 ...
> 
> So not expecting that much of an IQ upgrade.



Except that Canon's last telephoto kit lens is keeping pace with lenses worth three times more than this.
At this point just about anything could happen.


----------

