# More Mentions of EF-M Prime Lenses [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 5, 2015)

```
<p>We’re told again that two new EF-M prime lenses will appear in the first quarter of of 2016.</p>
<ul>
<li>EF-M 15mm f/2 STM</li>
<li>EF-M 35mm f/1.8 STM</li>
</ul>
<p>While we’ve been told by multiple people that the EF-M 35mm f/1.8 STM was coming, this is the first mention of an EF-M 15mm f/2 STM. </p>
<p>We speculate that we’ll see a macro for the EOS M system sooner than later. </p>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2015)

A 15mm EF-M = a 24mm prime in FF. Lovely, but who the hell was asking for this? 

EOS-M has an ultrawide zoom and an adjacent wide prime with the 22mm f/2. Surely a native sized portrait lens or macro lens was a bigger need for the platform, right?

And why does EOS-M go with faster max aperture small primes without IS, while EF gets slower max aperture primes _with_ IS? Everything about this seems inconsistent.

- A


----------



## cellomaster27 (Nov 5, 2015)

man, they both sound attractive given the compact size of the M system. when is the m4 coming out? or the FF ML?


----------



## BRunner (Nov 5, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> EF-M 15mm f/2 STM
> EF-M 35mm f/1.8 STM



Yess pleasse! And EF-M 60mm f/2 STM 1:2 Macro later....


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 5, 2015)

BRunner said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > EF-M 15mm f/2 STM
> ...



umm that'd be freaking huge.

it would be larger and heavier than the 60mm EF-S macro and 1:2? ew.


----------



## longtallkarl (Nov 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> A 15mm EF-M = a 24mm prime in FF. Lovely, but who the hell was asking for this?



i was! (in my mind at least... didn't actually mention it to anyone.) but i'm very pleased about this rumor! i'd much prefer a fast 15mm than the slow uw zoom in this range.

-k


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2015)

longtallkarl said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > A 15mm EF-M = a 24mm prime in FF. Lovely, but who the hell was asking for this?
> ...



Fascinatingly enough. Nikon refreshed it's wider mid-level FF primes recently, and unlike Canon's 24 2.8 / 28 2.8 / 35 2.0 with IS, they opted for _f/1.8 lenses without_ IS.

EF-M would appear to be doing the same: the prime lineup would now be EF-M 15 f/1.8, 22 f/2, 35 f/1.8.

I personally prefer the IS USM goodness of Canon's refreshes, but yes, I wish my 28mm f/2.8 IS USM was f/2 like the 35mm is.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 5, 2015)

More EF-M lenses is good news. But i'm not going to buy a 15 or 35 prime. Happy with 11-22 and 22/2. 
i would buy a portrait tele prime WITH IS - eg a EF-M 80/2.0 or even 2.8 IS STM - provided it has good IQ, compact size and reasonable price. EF-M Macro? not interested at all, EF-S 60/2.8 Macro via adapter is fine with me.

Urgently wanted: fully competitive, kick ass EOS M4.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Urgently wanted: fully competitive, kick ass EOS M4.



+1. 

But I'm not as hopeful as you are: I'll walk you back from 'fully competitive' to just 'having a viewfinder'. 

- A


----------



## BRunner (Nov 5, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> BRunner said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...


Not necessarily if they opt for 1:2 magnification and IF. Shorter register distance can make some difference too. I think, that it can be same length but thinner, even with IS.
If you look at EF-S 2.8/60 diagram, the optics isn't that bulky.







If they can make it from lightweight materials, it would be fine for universal portraiture/macro lens.


----------



## brad-man (Nov 5, 2015)

Since they didn't include IS, hopefully they will be of the pancake variety with size/performance of the wonderful 22mm. If they follow up with a quick 60, the M would have its own little trinity


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2015)

brad-man said:


> Since they didn't include IS, hopefully they will be of the pancake variety with size/performance of the wonderful 22mm. If they follow up with a quick 60, the M would have its own little trinity



It's own little plastic STM trinity you mean. 

Stubbornly, as a stills guy, I want better built, internally focusing USM lenses for this platform.

I'm glad for EOS-M folks to get these lenses -- and I'm sure they'll work well. But these announcements do not inspire me to pull my credit card out.

- A


----------



## brad-man (Nov 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Since they didn't include IS, hopefully they will be of the pancake variety with size/performance of the wonderful 22mm. If they follow up with a quick 60, the M would have its own little trinity
> ...



Patience grasshopper. I suspect that most folks that use the M are also stills shooters. If those stills don't include moving things, the M is a fine little image capturer. You want (and so do I) an enthusiast camera capable of shooting action, and I am reasonably confident that Canon will eventually oblige you. By then though, you may not need a credit card, a retinal scan should suffice


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 5, 2015)

longtallkarl said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > A 15mm EF-M = a 24mm prime in FF. Lovely, but who the hell was asking for this?
> ...



+1

If the price is affordable (like the other EF-M lenses so far) I think I'll be all over this one. Primes work well on the M because leads to such a compact system. I like it!


----------



## unfocused (Nov 6, 2015)

Would love for this to mean an EF-S 15mm f2 IS would also be released at some point.


----------



## Gnocchi (Nov 6, 2015)

How about some efs primes canon..


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2015)

Gnocchi said:


> How about some efs primes canon..



Apparently the EOS-M is for the true enthusiasts who love primes, and EF-S is for slow zooms for soccer moms and hockey dads.

I kid. 

EF-S people have every right to feel abandoned here. Other than macro or pancakes, EF-S doesn't get primes, apparently. At least not from Canon...

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 6, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> It's own little plastic STM trinity you mean.
> Stubbornly, as a stills guy, I want better built, internally focusing USM lenses for this platform.



I find, the current EF-M lenses have surprisingly good build quality. If future primes are built like the 22/2.0 - i.e. metal mount and "metallic" shell with very tight and nice build - it would be totally unwarranted to call them "plastic trinity". I am hoping for *EF-Mini Size, Mini price* prime lens set ... including a super compact EF-M 80/2.4 STM IS, optically on par with 22/2. 

STM AF drive is actually better suited to mirrorless hybrid-AF systems than USM, whereas Ring-USM AF drive is better for stills photography with mirrorslapper phase-AF and big, fat lenses with massive glass elements to be moved. 

Personally, I'd much prefer EF-M lenses with AF only - without focus ring and no manual focus gear. Savings in production cost to be applied towards full weather-sealing. 8)
In conjunction, upcoming EOS M4 should also be fully weathersealed. After all, EOS M is my ultra-lite outdoor/alpine mountaineering/backcountry skiing gear.


----------



## PhotoGuy (Nov 6, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> A 15mm EF-M = a 24mm prime in FF. Lovely, but who the hell was asking for this?



Me! Me! Me!


----------



## noncho (Nov 6, 2015)

15/2 sounds interesting, could be small and nice. I hope they will make it without big barrel distortion.

Wit 15 and 35 primes there are enough options for M <40mm, but Canon we need telephoto lens too.


----------



## lw (Nov 6, 2015)

It would be a pity if after updating most of their EF primes to include IS, that they now revert back to offering non-IS* primes in EF-M

The M system will have a distinct disadvantage compared to other MILCs that have IBIS and hence can have small sized primes but still offer IS

*not that we know whether these have IS or not


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 6, 2015)

lw said:


> It would be a pity if after updating most of their EF primes to include IS, that they now revert back to offering non-IS* primes in EF-M
> The M system will have a distinct disadvantage compared to other MILCs that have IBIS and hence can have small sized primes but still offer IS
> *not that we know whether these have IS or not



Yes, Canon seems to be determined to not offer a fully competitive mirrorless system any time soon. 

Leaving out IS on EF-M prime lenses would [only] make sense, if EOS M4 and future Canon EOS M bodies came with Sony sensor units including "5-axis" IBIS.  

Even last gen Sony sensor tech and AF as in A6000 would already be a major upgrade to Canon's current EOS M ecosystem. Such a Canon APS-C MILC would be pretty much, what i am after: body not bigger than EOS M3 or Sony A6000. Built-in EVF in left top corner, not G5X style "humpback" please. Better AF, IBIS, Canon UI, Canon RT flash transmitter built in ... along with optically good, compact and highly affordable EF-M lenses. 

It ain't difficult, Canon!


----------



## Proscribo (Nov 6, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Even last gen Sony sensor tech and AF as in A6000 would already be a major upgrade to Canon's current EOS M ecosystem.


I wonder how does Canon's DPAF compare to, for example A6000's AF system?

IMO it should be really obvious choice to Canon use DPAF in mirrorless body. ???


----------



## Bernard (Nov 6, 2015)

lw said:


> It would be a pity if after updating most of their EF primes to include IS, that they now revert back to offering non-IS* primes in EF-M



The zooms have IS if that's a key feature for you.

I'm not sure who really needs IS in a fast wide prime on a camera that can do a clean (enough) ISO 3200. Are you shooting astro handheld or something?
It stands to reason that the vast majority of users would rather have a smaller size, lower cost, and higher optical performance of a non-IS lens.

EF lenses are different. They are already larger, so the IS mechanism isn't as much of a compromise.


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 6, 2015)

Bernard said:


> lw said:
> 
> 
> > It would be a pity if after updating most of their EF primes to include IS, that they now revert back to offering non-IS* primes in EF-M
> ...



I feel the same. I'd rather have the smaller, cheaper, one less thing to break, non IS lenses on the M. Always a compromise. And adding IS, if it doesn't make it bigger, more expensive, then something else has to go, smaller aperture possibly.

IS in the zooms is probably a good compromise. One they are already bigger lenses so the whole "I want the most compact kit" is already out. And since they are slow lenses, adding IS is probably much easier with such a small aperture.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2015)

Bernard said:


> lw said:
> 
> 
> > It would be a pity if after updating most of their EF primes to include IS, that they now revert back to offering non-IS* primes in EF-M
> ...



Short answer: IS is for reining in high ISO usage in poor light.

IS simply equals speed when you are running out of light (and the subject isn't moving). I'm shooting primes handheld at 6400 on my 5D3 all the time, and IS would let me walk that down to 800-1600. That's *huge*.

We have a bit of a cavalier attitude that sensors can handle anything from a noise perspective these days, but even on the great 5D3, despite manageable noise at high ISO, the color and DR goes to hell up there.

- A


----------



## bseitz234 (Nov 6, 2015)

Gnocchi said:


> How about some efs primes canon..



I'm in this camp, too. The weight of a 7d body doesn't bug me, so I'm unlikely to go mirrorless anytime soon, but I've grown to like the size/weight of the EF-S 24mm pancake over the 17-55... but I'd much rather have a few more options, and I think an EF-S 15 would make a nice complement to the likes of the 28 f/1.8 / 35 f/2 IS (normal on crop) and the 85 f/1.8 (135 equiv.) to give a nice trinity for EF-S...


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 6, 2015)

Gnocchi said:


> How about some efs primes canon..



they aren't going to be that dramatically different in size to the already existing 35/2 40/2.8, 28/2.8 options, 24/2.8 options that already exist.

for instance, canon's 35mm 2.0 IS USM is 77.9 x 62.6 mm the nikkor DX 35mm is 70 x 52,5 mm with no IS.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 6, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Bernard said:
> 
> 
> > lw said:
> ...



it's not that easy.

you still run into the fact that your shutter speed is simply too long.

any sort of motion you're limited to 1/focal approximately anyways to combat motion - or higher to around 1/60th of a second.

the only time IS and wide angle and low ISO come into handy is interiors such as churches museums, architecture etc .. things that don't actually move.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 6, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Bernard said:
> ...



What part about the above was incorrect? 

There are *far* more 'things that don't actually move' than interiors, and IS helps me capture them with a far lower ISO than if I didn't have IS, plain and simple.

- A


----------



## SeppOz (Nov 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Urgently wanted: fully competitive, kick ass EOS M4.
> ...



Wanted that as well. Got sick of waiting. Managed to pick up a Fuji X-T10 with 18-55 F2.8 to 4.0 lens new in for AUD $999 after cash backs. Looks like more of my spend will be in that direction.


----------



## FunkyCamera (Nov 7, 2015)

Don't waste everyone's time with this foolish stuff Canon, mirrorless is for chumps.


----------



## bseitz234 (Nov 7, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> Gnocchi said:
> 
> 
> > How about some efs primes canon..
> ...



OK, I'll rephrase: How about now that Sigma is putting out f/1.8 and f/2 zooms, Canon stops messing around with these f/2.8 primes? I understand keeping f/1.4 the realm of the L lenses, but f/2 would be nice...


----------



## quiquae (Nov 8, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Would love for this to mean an EF-S 15mm f2 IS would also be released at some point.



Not gonna happen. At that focal length, the designs for EF-S and EF-M are going to be dramatically different due to the difference in back flange distances (EF-M will be much smaller and simpler).


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2015)

bseitz234 said:


> OK, I'll rephrase: How about now that Sigma is putting out f/1.8 and f/2 zooms, Canon stops messing around with these f/2.8 primes? I understand keeping f/1.4 the realm of the L lenses, but f/2 would be nice...



Short answer -- it depends. 

*In EF-M: Looks like yes. * Canon appears to be putting out faster primes without IS if this rumor is true: 15mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.8 are coming, and there already is a 22mm f/2.

*In EF-S: Hell no.* No EF-S primes for you unless the word pancake or macro is involved, and those will be f/2.8. If you want a fast prime here, hope an EF lens X 1.6 works for you, or get an EF-S prime from another company.

*In EF: Depends on your FL.* Review the chart. Canon has sort of staked out what max aperture it wants to offer and appears to be sticking to it. Consider: the 24/28/35 IS refreshes from a couple years ago retained their max aperture. So if you want f/2 or faster in a non-L prime, yes, you have it with the 28 (1.8) / 35 / 50 / 85 / 100 lenses. 

- A


----------



## bseitz234 (Nov 8, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, I'll rephrase: How about now that Sigma is putting out f/1.8 and f/2 zooms, Canon stops messing around with these f/2.8 primes? I understand keeping f/1.4 the realm of the L lenses, but f/2 would be nice...
> ...


...which still leaves us with nothing wider than normal (faster than f/2.8) on crop. Given the number of crop DSLRs compared to EOS Ms that are out there, it would seem to be at least an equal market. If they're putting in that effort for the M, I'd think it would be relatively easy to repackage as EF-S, given the same size sensors...


----------



## Haydn1971 (Nov 8, 2015)

Pondering this recently, although I feel that more EF-M specific glass is a good thing, personally beyond my current 22mm and 18-55mm I'm not seeing me add anything more other than perhaps the 11-22mm. What I really want are more midrange primes to compliment my lovely L zooms - I've got the 35mm IS, would like to extend to a trinity of a 50mm IS and 85mm IS and potentially replace my 16-35mm L with a wider prime 15/14mm perhaps as I hardly ever use my 16-35 at anything but 16mm. All of which, if as compact as my 35mm IS could be put to good use on my EOS-M kit - so for me, yes please, more EF-M primes, but also more EF IS primes too !


----------



## brad-man (Nov 8, 2015)

bseitz234 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > bseitz234 said:
> ...



Canon wants crop shooters to "upgrade" to FF, so they starve the crop prime market. They don't appear to have the same goal with mirrorless. That's good for their fledgling mirrorless system users, not so good for SLR crop shooters. The marketing department rules.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Nov 12, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> A 15mm EF-M = a 24mm prime in FF. Lovely, but who the hell was asking for this?
> 
> EOS-M has an ultrawide zoom and an adjacent wide prime with the 22mm f/2. Surely a native sized portrait lens or macro lens was a bigger need for the platform, right?
> 
> ...



You keep talking about wanting a portrait lens for the M - do you really intend to do serious portraiture with the M? Do you think a lot of other people would? I'm genuinely curious; it seems like a purpose for which the size advantage of the M wouldn't help at all. Why not use any Canon DSLR instead?


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 12, 2015)

I also want a compact, light, moderate tele lens in EF-M mount. For "unserious" quick portraits on the fly (not in studio), for street use, for concerts/events [where DSLRs are either "forbidden" or simply too bulky], for urbexing when I think it is not advisable to take really expensive cameras and lenses along to a specific location] and for general walk-around tele use. 

Beyond 55mm focal length @ f/5.6 on the EF-M kit lens the only currently available native EF-M lens is the EF-M 55-200/4.5-6.3. I'd like a EF-M short tele prime - around 85mm - a few stops faster [anything between f/2.0 and f/2.8], smaller size and with IS. Adapted EF 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 is already a bit on the large side on an M and they have no IS.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Nov 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I also want a compact, light, moderate tele lens in EF-M mount. For "unserious" quick portraits on the fly (not in studio), for street use, for concerts/events [where DSLRs are either "forbidden" or simply too bulky], for urbexing when I think it is not advisable to take really expensive cameras and lenses along to a specific location] and for general walk-around tele use.
> 
> Beyond 55mm focal length @ f/5.6 on the EF-M kit lens the only currently available native EF-M lens is the EF-M 55-200/4.5-6.3. I'd like a EF-M short tele prime - around 85mm - a few stops faster [anything between f/2.0 and f/2.8], smaller size and with IS. Adapted EF 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 is already a bit on the large side on an M and they have no IS.



The walkaround I get... but especially for concerts and events, is the autofocus on the M (even M3) really good enough for the typical lighting at those? And would an SL1 not work better (and probably even get past a "no SLR" rule)? I'd even rather have the SL1 (and do!) for the walkaround purpose.

In fairness, I've never really understood the appeal of the M in the first place, but the given reasons for the "portrait" prime just underscore its limitations. The WA/ UWA primes make more sense to me.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 12, 2015)

http://bit.ly/1PEBsqs

I don't cover Taylor Swift or Rolling Stones concerts. I'm usually not accredited. DSLRs - even an SL1 with kitzoom - are considered "professional gear" by security. EOS-M plus small lens look inconspicuos. However, even a compact tele like EF 100/2.0 with adapter looks way "too professional" - i usually put it into an extra coat pocket or small bag. I need some reach, because i am not next to the stage, but in the audience. I need faster than f/5.6 because light is always low. EOS M (1) one-shot AF is good enough with careful timing to get me some keepers. Bands/acts usually like the images. Had no complaints so far because of my candid bootleg captures. Most of the time we have a nice exchange of emails, sometimes I get a free ticket to a show, sometomes they use some of my images on their homepage. 

So, i'd like to get an EOS-M4 (or even better a very compact FF MILC) with EVF and a compact, native 80/2.0 or f/2.8 short tele to go with it. I have no interest in macro (lenses) or more wide-angle primes. 22/2 is all i need (plus sometimes the 11-22) - the 22/2 is good enough, small enough and inconspicuous enough to not be considere "professional gear" by even the most ignorant security staff.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> http://bit.ly/1PEBsqs
> 
> I don't cover Taylor Swift or Rolling Stones concerts. I'm usually not accredited. DSLRs - even an SL1 with kitzoom - are considered "professional gear" by security. EOS-M plus small lens look inconspicuos. However, even a compact tele like EF 100/2.0 with adapter looks way "too professional" - i usually put it into an extra coat pocket or small bag. I need some reach, because i am not next to the stage, but in the audience. I need faster than f/5.6 because light is always low. EOS M (1) one-shot AF is good enough with careful timing to get me some keepers. Bands/acts usually like the images. Had no complaints so far because of my candid bootleg captures. Most of the time we have a nice exchange of emails, sometimes I get a free ticket to a show, sometomes they use some of my images on their homepage.
> 
> So, i'd like to get an EOS-M4 (or even better a very compact FF MILC) with EVF and a compact, native 80/2.0 or f/2.8 short tele to go with it. I have no interest in macro (lenses) or more wide-angle primes. 22/2 is all i need (plus sometimes the 11-22) - the 22/2 is good enough, small enough and inconspicuous enough to not be considere "professional gear" by even the most ignorant security staff.



I go to a fair number of shows here in southern California. Even in the smaller venues, detachable lens rigs are a certain way to have to schlep back to your car and put your rig away. You might be able to sneak in a Nikon 1 mirrorless rig, but no bigger. To security, they're trained to see a lens bolted on a camera and say "No."

I think this is the rare case where the non-heavily-protruding fixed lens camera is the only play. Larger sensored fixed lens rigs -- Fuji X100, Ricoh GR, Nikon Coolpix A, etc. -- would sneak right past security as a point and shoot to them. 

This is also the rare case where a phone lens module style camera like the Sony Q or DXO One _might_ make sense. I still think they are poor products, but hey -- for concerts, they'd work.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 12, 2015)

Where i live, i could get into any venue so far with EF-M plus kit lens mounted. And a very compact EF-M 80/2.4 IS STM would also work. They typically cannot spot the lens is removable. But they know a DSLR. Advantage of EOS-M (especially M, M2 and M10) or a Sony A6000 or a Fuji XE2 etc. is the rangefinder/p&s style form factor without central "pseudo prism hump" on top. Fuji XT-1 or Sony A7 already are on the large side and look too much like a DSLR with that central (EVF) hump. That's one of the reasons why I'd prefer an EOS M4 in the Sony A6000 form factor - and with EF-M mount, of course. To mount a nice supercompact EF-M short tele lens with IS onto ...


----------



## LonelyBoy (Nov 14, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> http://bit.ly/1PEBsqs
> 
> I don't cover Taylor Swift or Rolling Stones concerts. I'm usually not accredited. DSLRs - even an SL1 with kitzoom - are considered "professional gear" by security. EOS-M plus small lens look inconspicuos. However, even a compact tele like EF 100/2.0 with adapter looks way "too professional" - i usually put it into an extra coat pocket or small bag. I need some reach, because i am not next to the stage, but in the audience. I need faster than f/5.6 because light is always low. EOS M (1) one-shot AF is good enough with careful timing to get me some keepers. Bands/acts usually like the images. Had no complaints so far because of my candid bootleg captures. Most of the time we have a nice exchange of emails, sometimes I get a free ticket to a show, sometomes they use some of my images on their homepage.
> 
> So, i'd like to get an EOS-M4 (or even better a very compact FF MILC) with EVF and a compact, native 80/2.0 or f/2.8 short tele to go with it. I have no interest in macro (lenses) or more wide-angle primes. 22/2 is all i need (plus sometimes the 11-22) - the 22/2 is good enough, small enough and inconspicuous enough to not be considere "professional gear" by even the most ignorant security staff.



What does security think of, say, the SX60? It has a protruding lens...


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 14, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> What does security think of, say, the SX60? It has a protruding lens...



well, it's more, what does the SX60 say in very low light ... @ ISO 6400 ?  

In terms of size: it needs to be as small, inconspicuous and point'n-shooty-looking in "parking position" to get through. If the lens does not extend all the way immediately upon switching the camera on, it may even pass notorious camera checks with Frankfurt or Munich airport security ... "switch it on!"... "now take a picture!" .. "no, not of me! Do you want to go to jail, stupid terrorist?"  ;D


----------



## anehili (Feb 1, 2018)

for me i would like to have EF-M 15-50 2.8.
more prime lenses is what needed to let canon stay on the mirorless game


----------



## bholliman (Feb 1, 2018)

anehili said:


> for me i would like to have EF-M 15-50 2.8.
> more prime lenses is what needed to let canon stay on the mirorless game



I would like this also, but constant f/2.8 zoom would be fairly large and heavy. I use my 24-70 f/2.8 II on my M5 occasionally, but its doesn't balance well. a 15-50 would be smaller and no EF-M adapter, also a more useful focal range.


----------

