Future transition to mirrorless

Started Aug 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Wayne Larmon Veteran Member • Posts: 9,591
Re: Future transition to mirrorless

Wayne Larmon wrote:

JoePhoto wrote:

Does shorter flange distance have effect on good wide angle lenses? Or will they be cheaper to make? Nikon already has a very good 14-24mm and Canon also has fairly good TS-E 17mm and EF 14mm.

Just adding a comment here that "zoom" UWA lenses are not a replacement for a prime unless they have as short a minimum FOCUS distance, (ala less than 6").

One of the options with a CLOSE-FOCUSING UWA is shooting very close to things like hood-ornaments and the perspective-distortion of the car behind it. (Or making someone's hand/foot look hugh.)

I used to use a (FF) 14mm in food-photography for restaurant advertisements. With close-focusing on the "key-item" (steak, prime-rib, lobster, etc.), I could "highlight" that item, but still show the other condiments on the plate behind it. But I was only 6" from that key-item.

I fear we are losing that with the new prolifiration of "zoom" UWA without <6" focusing.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm
Minimum focus distance: 9.5" (24 cm)
Dimensions: Approx: 3.3x3.5"
Weight: 13.6 oz. (386g)

Canon EF-M 11-22mm IS STM
Minimum focus distance: 5.91" (15 cm)
Dimensions: 2.29x2.4"
Weight: .49 lb (~8 oz. 220g)

Note that the mirrorless EF-M lens has image stabilization while the larger, heavier EF-S lens does not. I have the 10-22mm lens but don't have the 11-22mm lens, so I can't compare image quality. I live in the US...

I got an EOS-M + 22mm lens + EF-M to EF adapter a few days ago. The adapter works great with all the EF-S and EF lenses I've tried. My EF-S 18-55mm IS kit lens seems to AF sharper on the M then it does on my 60D. (Wonder if Canon will release firmware to add micro-AF adjusting to all the DSLR bodies that doesn't have it.)

I just popped the lens off of my M and it looks like the mount just barely supports the Canon crop sensor. So it doesn't look like EF-M will work for FF. But this is probably just as well. A mount big enough to support FF wouldn't allow bodies as small as the EOS-M body is (unless the mount was taller than the body.)

FWIW, I like the M camera but it does take a different mindset than using DSLRs do. Just as using a rangefinder or view camera takes a different mindset. Personally, I'm bullish on mirrorless and I hope that Canon releases new EOS-M models. We know that Canon has a killer sensor (70D) that should take care of any AF complaints. The only wild card is that we don't know if they also have killer EVF technology hiding in the wings.

If you look through the DPReview EOS M forum, you'll see that *most* users seem to love their Ms. And a high proportion of M users are also 5D and 7d users.


I left out some important lens specifications: the EF-M 10-22m is f/3.5-4.5 and costs $759.00 at B&H.  The EF-S 11-22mm is f/4-5.6 and would cost (I think) in the neighborhood of $400 (if it was sold in the US.)  The EF-S lens is faster, which accounts for some of the increased size and weight, so the lenses aren't strictly comparable. But I think that the EF-M's shorter flange distance must have helped the design.

But I would have chosen the EF-M 11-22mm lens if I was making the choice right now.  An UWA lens is specialized and I'd much rather have a smaller and lighter lens for something that isn't my main lens.  Even if it isn't as fast and doesn't go as wide.  I usually shoot my 10-22mm lens at f/8-f/11 anyway, so the speed difference isn't meaningful to me.  (10mm vs. 11mm is significant, but I'd probably let this go.  As the price for smallness.)


Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow