# Five new EF-M lenses for the EOS M lineup coming? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 20, 2020)

> A report today suggests we may see five new EF-M lenses in the next 24 months. I have not heard anything that would corroborate this information at this time.
> *Rumored EF-M lenses:*
> 
> EF-M 15mm f/2 STM
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## IcyBergs (Mar 20, 2020)

Does this mean an APS-C EOS R just got a lot less likely?


----------



## SteveC (Mar 20, 2020)

Well if that last lens comes to pass, then perhaps Canon will finally have kissed goodbye to that silly 61 millimeter outside diameter nonsense.

On the other hand at 300 mm it's f/8 which means the actual front lens's theoretical lower size limit is a mere 37.5mm.


----------



## GadgetDave (Mar 20, 2020)

62mm Macro = 100mm equivalent, not bad


----------



## docsmith (Mar 20, 2020)

I could see myself buying several of those if IQ is superior to most of the current EFm lineup.


----------



## Arod820 (Mar 20, 2020)

docsmith said:


> I could see myself buying several of those if IQ is superior to most of the current EFm lineup.


That 18-45 sounds promising


----------



## Canfan (Mar 20, 2020)

It's about time the eos m line got some love. Hope they don't take as long as the firmware up date for the M6 MKII that never came.


----------



## SFPhotos (Mar 20, 2020)

Oh please please let them put IS in that 15mm prime, would be pretty much my perfect video lens! It's what I've been hoping for for ages, but with no IS it's no good to me


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Mar 20, 2020)

100-300 F8? Ridiculous! Cmon, Canon! What's wrong having 5.6 at 300mm, it's not that big.


----------



## Mark3794 (Mar 20, 2020)

Arod820 said:


> That 18-45 sounds promising


Finally a real fast zoom for the eos-m


----------



## slclick (Mar 20, 2020)

Spreading the love around


----------



## Mark3794 (Mar 20, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> 100-300 F8? Ridiculous! Cmon, Canon! What's wrong having 5.6 at 300mm, it's not that big.


It will be as big as the EF one so no real reason to develop it, just adapt the EF one.
EF-M is first of all a compact system


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 20, 2020)

Hmmm, I was planning on buying the sigma 16mm, that Canon 15mm version needs to compare favourably to that for me to buy it. I already have the sigma 56mm, so I'll skip the Canon 52mm. The 62mm macro is an insta-buy, I'm not even going wait for reviews


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 20, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Does this mean an APS-C EOS R just got a lot less likely?



Yes


----------



## docsmith (Mar 20, 2020)

Arod820 said:


> That 18-45 sounds promising


Agreed regarding the aperture and that it likely means higher quality. But the focal length range, basically a 29-72 mm FF equivalent. It is on my list that I will probably get to replace my current 18--55, but would have preferred something with more range than 18-45.

Honestly, Sigma, Tamron, Canon, etc...whoever makes a high quality standard zoom EFm lens first gets my money.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 20, 2020)

Arod820 said:


> That 18-45 sounds promising


An earlier report had it as an f/2-4. I would really like a 15-45, even if it is f/2.8-4. I really hope that Canon has gotten over the obsession with 60.9mm overall lens diameter. I have both the Sigma 16 f/1.4 and 30 f1.4 lenses. Both are over 60.9mm in diameter, with the 16 being well over. Both work well on my M5 with a 270EX flash but would probably block the internal flash of an M6-2 or M200, especially if their lens hoods are installed.


----------



## flip314 (Mar 20, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Does this mean an APS-C EOS R just got a lot less likely?



I think it got a lot less likely when the RP was released.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 20, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Well if that last lens comes to pass, then perhaps Canon will finally have kissed goodbye to that silly 61 millimeter outside diameter nonsense.
> 
> On the other hand at 300 mm it's f/8 which means the actual front lens's theoretical lower size limit is a mere 37.5mm.


Canon has had several lenses with upper limits of 300mm, f/5.6 and 58mm filters. They could have used 55mm filters, but that would have been pushing it.


----------



## David_E (Mar 20, 2020)

I’d be all over that 62mm macro as an alternative to lugging my 5D IV in the field!


----------



## IcyBergs (Mar 20, 2020)

I like the prospects of an f/2 prime trinity that you can have for under $1000 USD.

15mm f/2
22mm f/2
52mm f/2


----------



## mpb001 (Mar 20, 2020)

I wonder if IBIS will make its way to M series bodies or at least the top end models. That would really be nice to have paired with the M series primes that do not have IS.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 20, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Canon has had several lenses with upper limits of 300mm, f/5.6 and 58mm filters. They could have used 55mm filters, but that would have been pushing it.



That's filter size, though, not outside lens diameter.


----------



## Gino_FOTO (Mar 20, 2020)

Canon 15mm STM just doesn't have enough space to be reasonably priced, when excellent sigma cost 400€, maybe somewhere near 250€ I guess.


----------



## dcm (Mar 20, 2020)

These tick most of my boxes. Looking forward to seeing some or all of these roll out.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Mar 20, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> It will be as big as the EF one so no real reason to develop it, just adapt the EF one.
> EF-M is first of all a compact system



But there is. The EF adapter adds extra 100g and considerable bulk to the setup. Or make it 6.3 at least. F8 is just too dark.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 20, 2020)

I'll have a #1 and a #3 please...


----------



## BillB (Mar 20, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Does this mean an APS-C EOS R just got a lot less likely?


Well, the rumor is only CR1, so a lot less likely might be pushing it.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Mar 20, 2020)

As many have said the EF-M 18-45mm f/2.8-4 IS STM would be the pick of the bunch for me, so long as Canon can keep the lens compact


----------



## brad-man (Mar 20, 2020)

And I'd like to substitute an EF-M 17-50 f/4 IS for the 18-45 f/2.8-4 IS...


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Mar 20, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Does this mean an APS-C EOS R just got a lot less likely?



No. Even the M6 II lacks features you might see in a theoretical R7.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 20, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Does this mean an APS-C EOS R just got a lot less likely?


Less likely than what?

It wasn't particularly likely before.


----------



## IcyBergs (Mar 20, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Less likely than what?
> 
> It wasn't particularly likely before.



I'm with you, I don't see it. But it seems to be a hope/wish that many have.


----------



## Ditboy (Mar 20, 2020)

Too little too late, and too slow (f2). The Sigma 56mm 1.4 is my next purchase and the 14mm 1.4 next. Might get them both at once if I get enough on my trades. The macro might be nice, but I have the EF-S 60 and it would have to be better than that, and it's one of my favorite lenses. If the 64 had 2X, that might close the deal. The Venus Optics 65mm 2.8 is a lens I've been considering. I would trade 2X for AF any day. The 18-45 2.8-4 would be nice to have for a lot of my environmental portraits with strobes. But I bet Sigma or Tamron can beat Canon to market.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Mar 20, 2020)

In 2016, I left EF full-frame behind for the EOS M5 and its native lenses. I would be overjoyed to get several of these lenses, primarily the 52mm prime and the 100-300mm zoom (with a 55mm filter diameter, the perfect third lens for a landscape kit with the 11-22 and 18-150). I’d likely pick up the macro as well. That said, I have a hard time crediting this rumor. The Canon Watch source said that Canon was inspired by M50 sales. To me, there’s a disconnect between that inspiration and these relatively niche lenses for what is essentially the future of the Rebel line. I think someone took the rumored 100-300mm (150-400?) and 52mm and built out a wishlist. I’d love for it to be true, but I’m skeptical that more than two or three of these are coming in the next 21 months.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 20, 2020)

The M6-II tells me Canon is taking the M series a lot more seriously than they used to (in terms of the "level" of use), and perhaps these lenses are a sign they're expanding the intended market for the M system. I have no idea if I'd ever buy any of them (I don't seem to use primes much and the others overlap what I already have) but I am glad to see the choice will be there!

(All assuming that in the fullness of time, the CR-1 graduates to a CR-3, of course.)


----------



## slclick (Mar 20, 2020)

If the M series keeps getting glass and it's at a very good level I think all the 7D3 hopeful holdouts need to accept it will most likely come in the form of a FF R series body with a built in crop factor, dual slots, 1DX3 level AF and great weather sealing. The one thing that I think will be the enigma is the noise/iso ceiling level. Will an R body overcome the classic & achilles heel?


----------



## snegri45 (Mar 21, 2020)

I feel Canon is a day late and a dollar short as well as a stop too slow. My M5 is with me pretty much anytime I leave the house. As with my Rebel SLs I have the three (more or less) kit zooms; 11-18, 18-55, and 55-200. When I bought the M5 I also picked up the 22mm f/2, but for some reason I never warmed to it, probably because I am an optical snob and the 7 element formula didn't impress me, even though I lived happily for many years with the 7 element EF 35mm f/2. Go figure.

With the introduction of the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 I started to believe that Canon was giving some love to the M system; they had never introduced anything that serious in the EF-S lineup. My feeling is that there must have been a dozen and a half to two dozen zooms over the 17 years of EF-S lenses while it took them 9 years to introduce the first (rather pedestrian) prime, the EF-S 24mm f/2.8. Griping aside, the 32mm is a lovely lens and it is optically quite ambitious (two more elements than the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4!) And then nothing more happened... Then Sigma struck with their 1.4 lens trio. While I had hoped for an EF-M 53mm f/1.4 there was never even a rumor of such a lens, so when Sigma made their trio available in M mount I scooped up the 56mm as soon as it became available. At a Focus Camera, Sony, Sigma, and Profoto event in Brooklyn November 7, 2019 (two days after receiving the lens) I shot pretty much everything, all at f/1.4, and I was quite impressed. Impressed enough that a few days later I picked up the 16mm f/1.4. With a 67mm filter thread it doesn't quite fit the M form factor, but it certainly expands the utility of the M5 in a very nice way.

And now I am hoping for an 85mm lens, a 135mm FF equivalent. Shooting for the stars I would obviously like an f/1.4 aperture, which of course necessitates a 67mm filter and probably size similar to the Sigma 16mm f/1.4. But that is a compromise I would be willing to live with. In the meantime I am carrying around my trusty EF 85mm f/1.8 with the adapter. Heavy and bulky, but it gives me the reach. A fast EF-M 85mm would give the M system primes from 15.6mm (FF equivalent) to 135mm, all at f/1.4. With the M5 Mk. II that would be one heck of a little outfit! Let us also remember that Viltrox is working on a 23mm f/1.4. I handled a non-working prototype at PPE 2019, and the size was right. Quality remains to be seen. Until the virus hit the plan was to launch the lens late this month. And if someone made a lens similar to the Vario-Tessar 16-70mm f/4 for Sony APS-C, I would prefer that to the rumored EF-M 18-45mm f/2.8-4.




I have enclosed a few images. The interior at B&H is shot with the Sigma 16/1.4, wide open, focused on the eyeglasses of the salesman. The Sigma tech rep (Mark Farb) was caught with the 56/1.4, again at f/1.4. The woman in the restaurant was done with the EF-M 32mm, again at f/1.4. A speed light was bounced off a wall, camera right. All in all, a batch of sharp lenses. Give us more!


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 21, 2020)

GadgetDave said:


> 62mm Macro = 100mm equivalent, not bad


Venus Laowa is already offering 60mm ultra macro for Ef-m


----------



## unfocused (Mar 21, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> I like the prospects of an f/2 prime trinity that you can have for under $1000 USD.
> 
> 15mm f/2
> 22mm f/2
> 52mm f/2



Each? Certainly not for all three and probably not individually.

Sorry, but I'm not buying this rumor. Not f/2 lenses. F/2.8 might be possible but I'll believe it when I see it. 

As for the 7D replacement. Wide angle and even standard focal lengths aren't what sells the 7D. A 100-500 f/8 is more attractive, but the RF mount doesn't work on EF-M.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 21, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Venus Laowa is already offering 60mm ultra macro for Ef-m


It doesn't appear to have either autofocus or IS, so not really in the same class.


----------



## Tom W (Mar 21, 2020)

Interesting - that 15 might be pretty cool. The 52, maybe, too.


----------



## PiezoSwitch (Mar 21, 2020)

Canfan said:


> It's about time the eos m line got some love. Hope they don't take as long as the firmware up date for the M6 MKII that never came.



The M6 never received any love either, not a single firmware update. But maybe the camera was perfect. Hmmmm.


----------



## PiezoSwitch (Mar 21, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> An earlier report had it as an f/2-4. I would really like a 15-45, even if it is f/2.8-4. I really hope that Canon has gotten over the obsession with 60.9mm overall lens diameter. I have both the Sigma 16 f/1.4 and 30 f1.4 lenses. Both are over 60.9mm in diameter, with the 16 being well over. Both work well on my M5 with a 270EX flash but would probably block the internal flash of an M6-2 or M200, especially if their lens hoods are installed.



Are you happy with your Sigma lenses, I was thinking of getting one or both.


----------



## Juangrande (Mar 21, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Does this mean an APS-C EOS R just got a lot less likely?


I thought it’s been said all along there would be no aps-c R bodies.


----------



## IcyBergs (Mar 21, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Each? Certainly not for all three and probably not individually.
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not buying this rumor. Not f/2 lenses. F/2.8 might be possible but I'll believe it when I see it.
> 
> As for the 7D replacement. Wide angle and even standard focal lengths aren't what sells the 7D. A 100-500 f/8 is more attractive, but the RF mount doesn't work on EF-M.



I do believe there is a chance that's the price of all 3.

The 22 f/2 is $249.

So that gives you $750 for the other 2 combined. I can see a 15 f/2 being similarly priced to the 32 f/1.4 and the 52 f/2 priced somewhere between the 22 and 32 and coming in close to that $750 combined.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 21, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> I do believe there is a chance that's the price of all 3.
> 
> The 22 f/2 is $249.
> 
> So that gives you $750 for the other 2 combined. I can see a 15 f/2 being similarly priced to the 32 f/1.4 and the 52 f/2 priced somewhere between the 22 and 32 and coming in close to that $750 combined.


The 22 was an exceptional deal being introduced as a kit lens with a simple design. The 32 goes for $480 and there is no reason to believe that the rumored 16, 52 or 62 would cost any less. It's good to be optimistic though...


----------



## trounds (Mar 21, 2020)

I wish there was the letter "L" in there somewhere.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 21, 2020)

Juangrande said:


> I thought it’s been said all along there would be no aps-c R bodies.


Canon has said that they have not decided yet. That means it could happen in the future if sales of mirrorless go well.


----------



## Joaquim (Mar 21, 2020)

docsmith said:


> I could see myself buying several of those if IQ is superior to most of the current EFm lineup.


They had better be, considering the 32 megapixels.


----------



## Joaquim (Mar 21, 2020)

Absolutely


IcyBergs said:


> I like the prospects of an f/2 prime trinity that you can have for under $1000 USD.
> 
> 15mm f/2
> 22mm f/2
> 52mm f/2


Absolutely agree! Great for a lightweight video/gimbal setup. Although I'd probably use the Sigma 56 for portraiture. I do love my f/2 Fujicrons. Great alongside a flash for events and so light on the body.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 21, 2020)

unfocused said:


> It doesn't appear to have either autofocus or IS, so not really in the same class.



It also lacks electronic aperture, which the EF Laowo 100mm *does* have.


----------



## [email protected] canon rumors (Mar 21, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Does this mean an APS-C EOS R just got a lot less likely?


As we are going to have 12 - 20fps FF cameras ,would aps-c on Rf system be a worth option?


----------



## sulla (Mar 21, 2020)

[email protected] canon rumors said:


> As we are going to have 12 - 20fps FF cameras ,would aps-c on Rf system be a worth option?


For telephotography and for macro-photography *probably* yes. They might benefit from greater magnification (longer reach for telephoto and greater magnification for macro). But even then, a higher pixel density FF will provide the same (albeit at a higher price point).
For general photography: certainly no.


----------



## Ale_F (Mar 21, 2020)

Why F2 on these lenses?
One answer: Video.
No one has mentioned this point, but this is important for the future.


----------



## IcyBergs (Mar 21, 2020)

brad-man said:


> The 22 was an exceptional deal being introduced as a kit lens with a simple design. The 32 goes for $480 and there is no reason to believe that the rumored 16, 52 or 62 would cost any less. It's good to be optimistic though...


I can think of one good reason why the 52 would cost less than the 32 - it's rumored to be f/2 not f/1.4.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 21, 2020)

[email protected] canon rumors said:


> As we are going to have 12 - 20fps FF cameras ,would aps-c on Rf system be a worth option?


If the R5 is as rumored and has 1.3X and 1.6X crops, I plan to use it as a replacement for my 7D. It would also give me a FF camera with twice the pixel count of my 5D3, not that I would use it FF very often. I'm one of those who thinks that, most of the time, 20-24MP are "enough". I may not order the R5 until after the R6 specs are fully revealed.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 21, 2020)

Ale_F said:


> Why F2 on these lenses?
> One answer: Video.
> No one has mentioned this point, but this is important for the future.


Why is it important?


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 21, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> If the R5 is as rumored and has 1.3X and 1.6X crops, I plan to use it as a replacement for my 7D. It would also give me a FF camera with twice the pixel count of my 5D3, not that I would use it FF very often. I may not order the R5 until after the R6 specs are fully revealed. I'm one of those who thinks that, most of the time, 20-24MP are "enough"


X1.3, x1.6 crop mode in R5. i would love to learn about this feature. i am presently shopping for a low mileage Canon 400/2.8 lens. This piece of information is important to me. Thank you.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 21, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> X1.3, x1.6 crop mode in R5. i would love to learn about this feature. i am presently shopping for a low mileage Canon 400/2.8 lens. This piece of information is important to me. Thank you.


The crops were my guess, not "information", based on the fact that the 5Ds has both crop modes.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 21, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> The crops were my guess, not "information", based on the fact that the 5Ds has both crop modes.


++++ If the R5 is as rumored and has 1.3X and 1.6X crops, I plan to use it as a replacement for my 7D.

A.M: so.. it has not been rumoured but is a your understanding. Ok.

I have never heard of x1.3, x1.6 crops in 5DS either. Pardon my ignorance. Please enlighten me. Thank you.


----------



## Architect1776 (Mar 21, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Wow, now we need a M5 MII with great specs and that might get my money, along with the incredible R5.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 21, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> ++++ If the R5 is as rumored and has 1.3X and 1.6X crops, I plan to use it as a replacement for my 7D.
> 
> A.M: so.. it has not been rumoured but is a your understanding. Ok.
> 
> I have never heard of x1.3, x1.6 crops in 5DS either. Pardon my ignorance. Please enlighten me. Thank you.







__





5DS and crop mode - explain: Canon EOS-1D / 5D / 6D Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## brad-man (Mar 21, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> I can think of one good reason why the 52 would cost less than the 32 - it's rumored to be f/2 not f/1.4.


True. That in itself is odd. Why would it be f/2 and not 1.4 or at least 1.8? Price? Size? I would love to see some sales data indicating the "success" of the 32.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 21, 2020)

15mm sounds interesting because I find 24mm very wide. If it gets close and has IQ comparable to the EF-S 32 some 400 EUR are ok. - If it has IS I will add another EUR because it is a good vlogging lens.


----------



## Ale_F (Mar 21, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Why is it important?


In video there are no solution for the exposure time. 
High iso or large aperture.


----------



## IcyBergs (Mar 21, 2020)

brad-man said:


> True. That in itself is odd. Why would it be f/2 and not 1.4 or at least 1.8? Price? Size? I would love to see some sales data indicating the "success" of the 32.



With the M line Canon has seemed to prioritize the compact design in their product releases. The 32 f/1.4 is still pretty light at 225g, a 52mm equivalent would probably come in close to what the Sigma 56 1.4 weighs, which is closer to 300g. Even though thats not that heavy in the scheme of things, its still about 30% heavier which isn't insignificant. There are other factors as well like the fact that all the M lenses have the same (exact or very similar) barrel diameter throughout the body of the lens.

The fastest lens prior to the 32 was the 22 f/2, so I think that the 32 is really the exception and at that normal focal length (45-65 35mm equivalent) lends itself to being the smallest/lightest for a fast aperture design. As you go wider and longer from there the lenses get bigger and heavier to maintain the same aperture since they'll require larger elements which will change the aesthetic that seems to be a priority with the M lens designs. So I'm not surprised by the f/2 rumors.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 21, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> With the M line Canon has seemed to prioritize the compact design in their product releases. The 32 f/1.4 is still pretty light at 225g, a 52mm equivalent would probably come in close to what the Sigma 56 1.4 weighs, which is closer to 300g. Even though thats not that heavy in the scheme of things, its still about 30% heavier which isn't insignificant. There are other factors as well like the fact that all the M lenses have the same (exact or very similar) barrel diameter throughout the body of the lens.
> 
> The fastest lens prior to the 32 was the 22 f/2, so I think that the 32 is really the exception and at that normal focal length (45-65 35mm equivalent) lends itself to being the smallest/lightest for a fast aperture design. As you go wider and longer from there the lenses get bigger and heavier to maintain the same aperture since they'll require larger elements which will change the aesthetic that seems to be a priority with the M lens designs. So I'm not surprised by the f/2 rumors.


Let's assume that's the case. If Canon is prioritizing size and weight, why didn't they make the 32 at f/2 so it could be smaller and lighter, like the 28? What would be the rationale for making the 32 an outlier? By the way, I'm glad they did as it is a wonderful lens. Would have been perfect if they included a little weather-sealing and IS.


----------



## IcyBergs (Mar 21, 2020)

brad-man said:


> Let's assume that's the case. If Canon is prioritizing size and weight, why didn't they make the 32 at f/2 so it could be smaller and lighter, like the 28? What would be the rationale for making the 32 an outlier? By the way, I'm glad they did as it is a wonderful lens. Would have been perfect if they included a little weather-sealing and IS.



I think they did it for possibly 2 reasons:

1) They could
-As I stated the normal focal length range is the most ideal range to be able to deliver a light compact fast aperture design. Meaning technical requirements to design such a lens were within the bounds of the design (aesthetic) requirements.

2) There was strong demand
-I think plenty of M owners were buying up fast 3rd party glass (rokinon etc) and it made good business sense


----------



## jazzytune (Mar 21, 2020)

Arod820 said:


> That 18-45 sounds promising


Yes, although a constant 2.8 aperture would have been nice to have. But I understand that it's a compromise made to have a lens that's not too bulky.


----------



## neonlight (Mar 21, 2020)

But no news about 600 DO etc.? 
But unlikely to be able to afford it I suspect.
Was hoping for a 150-600 f/6.3 within reach, but have to see what the RF 100-500 looks like (image wise) before going R.


----------



## dcm (Mar 21, 2020)

jazzytune said:


> Yes, although a constant 2.8 aperture would have been nice to have. But I understand that it's a compromise made to have a lens that's not too bulky.



I was expecting a constant f/4 aperture in the small form factor - the 2.8 is a bonus.

I was quite happy with the constant f/4 zoom trio (17-40L, 24-105L and 70-200L) that I used with the APS-C EOS 550D/T2i and later a 6D. I think I could live with the same on EF-M.


----------



## Ruiloba (Mar 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> ++++ If the R5 is as rumored and has 1.3X and 1.6X crops, I plan to use it as a replacement for my 7D.
> 
> A.M: so.. it has not been rumoured but is a your understanding. Ok.
> 
> I have never heard of x1.3, x1.6 crops in 5DS either. Pardon my ignorance. Please enlighten me. Thank you.



My EosR has 1.6x crop mode so the R5 should have it


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 22, 2020)

Ruiloba said:


> My EosR has 1.6x crop mode so the R5 should have it


alright. If R5 is a 45 MP camera, in x1.6 crop mode it becomes a 17.6MP aps-c rig which is at 12 FPS mechanical shutter is, arguably, a reasonable substitute for a 7 series rig unless a heavy cropping was involved.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 22, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> I think they did it for possibly 2 reasons:
> 
> 1) They could
> -As I stated the normal focal length range is the most ideal range to be able to deliver a light compact fast aperture design. Meaning technical requirements to design such a lens were within the bounds of the design (aesthetic) requirements.
> ...



You wrote about the reasons of the existence of the EF-M 32mm - and yes, both are true IMO. I would like to add two further reasons:

3) A statement that Canon takes the EF-M system serious to keep those non-professionals in the Canon ecosystem who have professional "requirements" in terms of IQ ... maybe until a FF mirrorless solution is available (which is the case).

4) Maybe it is a side product of the RF 50mm in terms of general lens design. Both seem to be "full of glass" to get optimum IQ so development cost has been comparably low.

For me the EF-M 32 is "THE" single lens solution I like most - not only because its IQ - but also because of the 1:4 max. reproduction ratio. This is strong advantage compared to other solutions like Sigma and I hope the other lenses have similar capabilties.


----------



## Danglin52 (Mar 22, 2020)

PiezoSwitch said:


> Are you happy with your Sigma lenses, I was thinking of getting one or both.



I have never bought anything but Canon EF or EF-M lenses until I purchased the Sigma 56mm f1.4 as my first 3rd party lens. Very good build and IQ. Seems reasonably fast at AF.


----------



## Danglin52 (Mar 22, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Wow, now we need a M5 MII with great specs and that might get my money, along with the incredible R5.



I am hopeful the lens rumor is true because it seems to be an indication that Canon is putting more resources on M AND we might see a beefed up M5II. Not sure it would happen, but I would buy a M5 II with similar spect so th Fuiji X-T4 without even waiting for the reviews. My only challenge is that I would like to shift to R5 & RF lenses if the specs hold and that would mean I might still have to deal with the multiple lens mount issue. The m5 II could be a backup (7d II style camera?) to my 1dx II, but wouldn't work in that mode with the R5. At the end of the day I could stick with my EF lenses + adaptor for the R5 and m5 II if necessary. I really like the M6 II with the exception of the external EVF / durability and would really like a higher Quilty / faster refresh m5 II internal EVF + rugged body with weather sealing. And yes, I am willing to accept a little bigger/heavier body.


----------



## canonnews (Mar 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> alright. If R5 is a 45 MP camera, in x1.6 crop mode it becomes a 17.6MP aps-c rig which is at 12 FPS mechanical shutter is, arguably, a reasonable substitute for a 7 series rig unless a heavy cropping was involved.



add bird AF and it toasts the 7D series camera bodies for birders,etc.


----------



## canonnews (Mar 22, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


As i mentioned on my post about this .. it seems like a fantasy wish list to me.

It'd be nice, but I really doubt it. I can't see Canon taking critical resources off the RF mount - it's full on RF mount until they get done the ecosystem. There's just no people left to design and roll out EOS-M (or EF) lenses. Every one of those lenses takes a designer off RF lenses. 

The EOS-M system ticks along just fine without those lenses.

Now the counter to that is...

I guess if Canon feels they want to sell a M6II or a M5II .. then they may feel lenses are holding the system back from those cameras (rightly so).

So that's the only reason I could even think of that would make Canon decide to develop these lenses.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 22, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Does this mean an APS-C EOS R just got a lot less likely?



I expect the 7D replacement to come in EOS R mount, as

1. The EOS-M line is made of small, light, consumer cameras & lenses, while a large portion of 7D owners use white super telephotos.

2. The EOS-R line is the pro line, and the 7D is definitely one.

3. The advantage of the 7D over the 1DX is reach, so I don't see Canon dropping the 7D line altogether.

4. Canon could release a twofer 50MP FF camera that would function as both a 5DS replacement when shooting with the full sensor, and a 7D replacement by shooting high fps from a 20MP crop. It can see some sense in it, just don't think its the probable scenario.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 22, 2020)

canonnews said:


> As i mentioned on my post about this .. it seems like a fantasy wish list to me.
> 
> It'd be nice, but I really doubt it. I can't see Canon taking critical resources off the RF mount - it's full on RF mount until they get done the ecosystem. There's just no people left to design and roll out EOS-M (or EF) lenses. Every one of those lenses takes a designer off RF lenses. [..]



It could also be the case that Canon has already done the design work on all these EF-M lenses ages ago and is just waiting for the right moment to schedule a production run.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Mar 22, 2020)

I would think that with the current Corona crisis it is easier to sell more affordable EF-M lenses than expensive RF lenses.

Frank


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 22, 2020)

Photorex said:


> I would think that with the current Corona crisis it is easier to sell more affordable EF-M lenses than expensive RF lenses.
> 
> Frank


There are things that we want and things that we need. Things that we want do not sell well in times likes now. From my angle: new capital (CAPEX) expenditure and investments in enterprise markets already in doll drums since late Jan. Services hold up as they are typically either OPEX or been already pre-approved by finance. This points out to some serious economic headwinds. Which is in return, will filter down to all pockets of global markets. Read: people will be seriously holding up to their wallets. Sentiment is in already.
My take on it: NixxN is not going to make it though to the end. Not diversified enough. Cactus.


----------



## canonnews (Mar 22, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> It could also be the case that Canon has already done the design work on all these EF-M lenses ages ago and is just waiting for the right moment to schedule a production run.


they still have to set up manufacturing,etc .. that's still alot of work.

and we haven't seen any patents. if they did it and put things on hold, the patents would have been visible.


----------



## canonnews (Mar 22, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> I expect the 7D replacement to come in EOS R mount, as
> 
> 1. The EOS-M line is made of small, light, consumer cameras & lenses, while a large portion of 7D owners use white super telephotos.
> 
> ...


IMO. you're not going to see a 7D. holding out hopes for it is just holding out hopes.

The R5 shoots up to 20 fps at ~18MP 1.6x crop with bird AF. Canon adding in bird AF should tell you right away what they think the body will be used for. The fact that Canon thinks it will do bird eye AF immediately in Canon's mind probably removes any immediate need for a 7D styled camera. 

there is no real reach benefit when the pixel densities of full frame increase.


----------



## BillB (Mar 22, 2020)

canonnews said:


> I guess if Canon feels they want to sell a M6II or a M5II .. then they may feel lenses are holding the system back from those cameras (rightly so).
> 
> So that's the only reason I could even think of that would make Canon decide to develop these lenses.



A better native normal zoom would seem to be the key lens for upgrading the EF-M system. A 65ish macro might add to the system too.


----------



## PeterT (Mar 22, 2020)

BillB said:


> A better native normal zoom would seem to be the key lens for upgrading the EF-M system. A 65ish macro might add to the system too.



Yes, exactly what I was going to write.

In about a year from now I will be considering EOS-M vs. FujiFilm which APS-C camera with IBIS (hopefully the M5II will have IBIS) fits better to my needs ie. which one to buy. And the key point for me will be a "better normal zoom".

Currently I use the EF-S 15-85 IS. Fuji's 16-80 is "close enough" (even if I will miss the 16 "equivalent mm" at the long end 85*1.6-80*1.5 = 16). But EF-M has no good choice.
Of course, I could adapt the 15-85, but look at this (link to a camerasize comparison):
https://j.mp/2vKiCy2
For me an EF-M 15-80 4-5.6 non-IS would be the "better normal zoom", which I am missing in the EF-M system.

Maybe for others the "better native normal zoom" would be a 15-50 2.8-4 (18-45 is ridiculously small range for the apertures) or a 15-45 2.8. Well, those are also missing in the lineup and will be most probably missing also in a year from now...

Unfortunately, the list of rumored lenses suggests that Canon still wants to limit themselves to the ridiculous idea that all EF-M lenses must fit to the 61mm diameter. Without breaking out of this self-imposed prison, there is no chance for any of the lenses I mentioned.


----------



## BillB (Mar 22, 2020)

PeterT said:


> Unfortunately, the list of rumored lenses suggests that Canon still wants to limit themselves to the ridiculous idea that all EF-M lenses must fit to the 61mm diameter. Without breaking out of this self-imposed prison, there is no chance for any of the lenses I mentioned.


I don't think Canon had anything to do with the list of lenses in the rumor. It is a CR1


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 22, 2020)

PiezoSwitch said:


> Are you happy with your Sigma lenses, I was thinking of getting one or both.


I'm very happy with them. My only complaint is that, after 20 years of using f/2.8 trinity zooms, returning to fixed focal length lenses is annoying. Incidentally, I thought about buying the 56mm Sigma, but after trying my already-paid-for EF50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 lenses on both Canon and Vello mount adapters, I decided that I could use them instead. Amazingly, the Canon 135 f/2 also works (and balances) well with an adapter.


----------



## melgross (Mar 22, 2020)

I hope this is true for this popular camera line. And we can all understand that this is a popular camera line from the CIPA numbers, and others. Having more, and better lenses will help to keep it popular.


----------



## Danglin52 (Mar 22, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> I'm very happy with them. My only complaint is that, after 20 years of using f/2.8 trinity zooms, returning to fixed focal length lenses is annoying. Incidentally, I thought about buying the 56mm Sigma, but after trying my already-paid-for EF50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 lenses on both Canon and Vello mount adapters, I decided that I could use them instead. Amazingly, the Canon 135 f/2 also works (and balances) well with an adapter.


If you can live with f4, the 70-200 f4 L IS II balances surprisingly well on the m6 II and has great IQ. I have been on a weight reduction mission with EF lenses and swapped the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II for the f4 II version. Worked out well on both EF & EF-M bodies.


----------



## PiezoSwitch (Mar 22, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> I'm very happy with them. My only complaint is that, after 20 years of using f/2.8 trinity zooms, returning to fixed focal length lenses is annoying. Incidentally, I thought about buying the 56mm Sigma, but after trying my already-paid-for EF50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 lenses on both Canon and Vello mount adapters, I decided that I could use them instead. Amazingly, the Canon 135 f/2 also works (and balances) well with an adapter.


Yes, zooms are definitely very convenient. Although I don't mind so much with my M6 because of the weight savings. I love using my 100/2 on my M6 as well, big enough to hold on to comfortably and not overly massive relative to the M6. I can definitely see the appeal of your 135/2L on the M6 given its sharpness and reach (like having a 200/2L on a fullframe although with more DOF).


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 22, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> If you can live with f4, the 70-200 f4 L IS II balances surprisingly well on the m6 II and has great IQ. I have been on a weight reduction mission with EF lenses and swapped the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II for the f4 II version. Worked out well on both EF & EF-M bodies.


I'm on the same mission and that lens is certainly a possibility. I noticed that the RP and R are significantly lighter than my 5D3 and hope that the R5 and R6 will also be.

I notice that you have the 18-150 M lens. Do you find that when the lens is set to 18mm and you are using the M6-2 onboard flash, the front of the lens blocks the flash causing a dark area in the lower right corner of the image? I encountered that with a friend's M100 and that lens.


----------



## [email protected] canon rumors (Mar 22, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> If the R5 is as rumored and has 1.3X and 1.6X crops, I plan to use it as a replacement for my 7D. It would also give me a FF camera with twice the pixel count of my 5D3, not that I would use it FF very often. I'm one of those who thinks that, most of the time, 20-24MP are "enough". I may not order the R5 until after the R6 specs are fully revealed.


Yes I agree, same thing for me. 
I'm working using a 5d3 and an R , if the R6 will have the R body quality I'm going to change my R and keep my 5d3 as a spare. Working with 1sd card is too risky...almost scarry


----------



## chong67 (Mar 23, 2020)

These are all for crop sensor. So for my M50, you have to 1.6x on all the numbers.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 23, 2020)

chong67 said:


> These are all for crop sensor. So for my M50, you have to 1.6x on all the numbers.



To get the "equivalents," yes. But if what you mean by this is a claim that the focal lengths are misleading because these were made for the EF-M mount, then: no, they're not. The 52 mm will behave the same as any "full frame" 52mm adapted to your camera (there is no such beast, but it will be almost the same as the EF 50mm adapted to your camera.) Canon won't quote the number differently to somehow account for the crop sensor; a 50mm is a 50mm is a 50mm.

If you already understood that, and I misunderstood YOU, I apologize for bothering you with the explanation.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 23, 2020)

Yeah, I just wish they upped high ISO IQ by providing an image stacking / automatic double exposure mode. How good is that would be. Take two images consequently with a pre-defined shutter speed. Combine either in camera as a jpg or a couple of RAW files as an output. Would probably
Improve high ISO by a stop or so. It so obvious, I do not understand why it has not been implemented yet..


----------



## SteveC (Mar 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Yeah, I just wish they upped high ISO IQ by providing an image stacking / automatic double exposure mode. How good is that would be. Take two images consequently with a pre-defined shutter speed. Combine either in camera as a jpg or a couple of RAW files as an output. Would probably
> Improve high ISO by a stop or so. It so obvious, I do not understand why it has not been implemented yet..



*scratching head* how would that be different from simply lengthening the exposure and reducing the ISO to match? 

If you can't lengthen the exposure because the subject is moving--well, that would be even WORSE with two exposures stacked (which would presumably have some time gap between the exposures).


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 23, 2020)

SteveC said:


> *scratching head* how would that be different from simply lengthening the exposure and reducing the ISO to match?
> 
> If you can't lengthen the exposure because the subject is moving--well, that would be even WORSE with two exposures stacked (which would presumably have some time gap between the exposures).


Hi Steve,

I will provide a short explanation and a link for you to delve in.
In a few words: definitely useful in situation with a static or slow moving subject. With shutter speed running up to 1/8000s these days, I see these being possible.
“...
The stacking technique makes use of the random nature of noise. By making a series of images without moving the camera, every single image will have a slightly different noise pattern. When combining these images in a smart way, it is possible to cancel out the noise, without loss of detail. Because we make use of the random noise in a series of images, it may be clear this technique does not work with a series of copied images.

The downside of this method is the limited use of the technique. It needs a stationary scenery, without (a lot) of movement, and you need to shoot on tripod – although it might be possible to shoot without it in high speed mode and aligning the images afterwards. It all depends on the situation...”








How to Remove Noise by Stacking Multiple Photos


As a photographer you are probably confronted every now and then with unacceptably high noise levels. This may occur when using extremely high ISO levels, or perhaps when lifting shadows too much in post processing. You can try to reduce noise by one or two sliders in Photoshop, Lightroom, or...




fstoppers.com


----------



## ozturert (Mar 23, 2020)

All are great, except from 100-300mm. Canon really exaggarates "light, smaller and affordable lenses" concept. What is the next step? f8-11 lenses? It is fine as long as we have f4-f5.6 or f4.5-5.6 lenses as well. 1 stop really matters in dark and also AF struggles quite a bit.
Other lenses look quite good though (at least specs).


----------



## davidespinosa (Mar 24, 2020)

I'd buy the Sigma 16mm f/1.4, but I've heard the lens might need calibration.
I've also heard of Sigma lenses so far out of adjustment that they can't be calibrated.
If I had a tech who I trusted to calibrate it, it would fine, but I don't...

Sorry to spread rumors. Google for "sigma calibration" if you want sources.

So it would be great if Canon made a 15mm !
Do Canon lenses ever require calibration straight out of the box ?


----------



## ozturert (Mar 24, 2020)

davidespinosa said:


> I'd buy the Sigma 16mm f/1.4, but I've heard the lens might need calibration.
> I've also heard of Sigma lenses so far out of adjustment that they can't be calibrated.
> If I had a tech who I trusted to calibrate it, it would fine, but I don't...
> 
> ...


Calibration for what? I think you refer to DSLR lenses because mirrorless lenses don't need AF adjustment or calibration.


----------



## davidespinosa (Mar 24, 2020)

ozturert said:


> mirrorless lenses don't need AF adjustment or calibration.



Fantastic, thank you !
Now I've read about calibration, and I see you're right.


----------



## koketso (Mar 24, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Does this mean an APS-C EOS R just got a lot less likely?


There was never any real prospects of an APS-C EOS R. Canon could but won't make one.
It's something the internet keeps talking about, but Canon representatives explicitly said at the launch of the RF mount that it is designed for Full Frame glass and will replace EF going forward.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (May 29, 2020)

Canon really needs to look at making some more serious lenses for the EF-M system. Currently the only lenses that do the M6 Mark II's 32MP sensor justice are the 11-22mm, 32mm, 22mm, and 28mm macro lenses. We need a much sharper "18-55mm" kit lens, sharper 18-150mm lens, and a sharper 55-250mm lens. Heck, maybe even make an L grade lens or two for the rumored M5 Mark II (the 32mm is pretty close to L grade already). It's great that Canon is still committing to the EF-M system, but they need to take it to the next level with lenses. Adapting L grade EF lenses is always an option, but those lenses will not be available forever now that RF lenses are replacing them and there's no real sign that there will ever be an optical RF to EF-M adapter.


----------



## koketso (May 29, 2020)

Sibir Lupus said:


> Canon really needs to look at making some more serious lenses for the EF-M system. Currently the only lenses that do the M6 Mark II's 32MP sensor justice are the 11-22mm, 32mm, 22mm, and 28mm macro lenses. We need a much sharper "18-55mm" kit lens, sharper 18-150mm lens, and a sharper 55-250mm lens. Heck, maybe even make an L grade lens or two for the rumored M5 Mark II (the 32mm is pretty close to L grade already). It's great that Canon is still committing to the EF-M system, but they need to take it to the next level with lenses. Adapting L grade EF lenses is always an option, but those lenses will not be available forever now that RF lenses are replacing them and there's no real sign that there will ever be an optical RF to EF-M adapter.


Agreed.
And I also believe new lenses are on the way, starting with a 55mm f/2.0-ish prime to serve as a portrait lens and an 82mm-ish f/2.8 Macro. An EF-M 18-55mm II would be nice since the first one was designed for fewer megapixels.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 3, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> Does this mean an APS-C EOS R just got a lot less likely?


No, there was never any chance of an APS-C EOS R, so the likely hood hasn't changed with this rumor...


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 3, 2020)

canonnews said:


> add bird AF and it toasts the 7D series camera bodies for birders,etc.



Sure it does. Except for the monstrous price difference between the R5 and 7D.


----------



## Linteria (Nov 24, 2020)

Impatiently waiting for any of these lenses to come out. Personally, I have been thinking of replacing my 7artisans 55mm portrait lens with a Sigma 56mm for the AF and overall quality upgrade, but I'd much rather stick to first party glass and that 52mm f2 sounds right up my alley. Also interested in that 100-300mm super tele as my 55-200mm gets a lot of play. 

Sadly, it's been 8 months since this rumor popped up and no updates have surfaced in that time... Shame.


----------



## HAWKS61 (Nov 25, 2020)

Linteria said:


> Impatiently waiting for any of these lenses to come out. Personally, I have been thinking of replacing my 7artisans 55mm portrait lens with a Sigma 56mm for the AF and overall quality upgrade, but I'd much rather stick to first party glass and that 52mm f2 sounds right up my alley. Also interested in that 100-300mm super tele as my 55-200mm gets a lot of play.
> 
> Sadly, it's been 8 months since this rumor popped up and no updates have surfaced in that time... Shame.



I’m afraid Canon has ceased development of EF-m lenses and I’m pretty sure there will be no new major updates on the M line of cameras, we might see a couple of minor camera releases which will basically be software updates like the M50 mk2 but will have to rely on third party manufacturers to build lenses. Real shame the M6 mk2 is such a great camera and the camera and lens combo small and light weight.


----------



## slclick (Nov 25, 2020)

HAWKS61 said:


> I’m afraid Canon has ceased development of EF-m lenses and I’m pretty sure there will be no new major updates on the M line of cameras, we might see a couple of minor camera releases which will basically be software updates like the M50 mk2 but will have to rely on third party manufacturers to build lenses. Real shame the M6 mk2 is such a great camera and the camera and lens combo small and light weight.



Source?


----------

