brightcolours
Forum Pro
dzukela includes EF and EF-S lenses (as they work with EOS M).
There are 5 EF-M mount lenses: the 3 you mentioned above, and the Samyang 12mm f2 wide angle prime and 8mm f2.8 fisheye.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
A bit tired of hearing Sony/Nikon fanboys go on&on about sensors - their pics NEVER show it! Show!
- Thread starter JJ Rodin
- Start date
There are 5 EF-M mount lenses: the 3 you mentioned above, and the Samyang 12mm f2 wide angle prime and 8mm f2.8 fisheye.
...
Mind this only works with raw files; JPGs are roughly the same with Canon, because "regular" processing can't take advantage of the extra DR. So this is mainly important to those who like lifting shadows a bit more than what they can do with Canon raw files. It is useful for simple mild-HDR-like processing without actually having to take multiple exposure-bracketed images (which may be infeasible with moving scenes). Of course, this is not everyone's cup of tea, because HDR tonemapping involves compression of the wide scene DR into the restricted display DR, which requires compromises and kills some contrast, and this is why Canon obviously can get away without addressing this issue more seriously (current automatic HDR tonemapping algorithms such as ALO, HTP, DRO, ADL, cannot produce consistently good images at scene DR any wider than what the Canon sensors provide). Canon cameras do have a lot of other strong points, and I'm sure they could even make a better M if they wanted to, same as with the funny Nikon 1 "strategy".
I don't think the OP is going to get any samples of the kind he'd fancy with the attitude.
This image is a good example of the the dynamic range falling short. The vicinity of the sun is blown out. With a sensor capable of couple of stops more, one could expose lower to protect the highlights. The OOC JPG would look kinda dark. But the raw file can be quickly processed in LR by lifting Exposure and Shadows and sinking Highlights, so that one'd get a very similar result to this, with the exception of less blown highlights.Here are a couple of similar examples, shooting into the sun (sunrise in this case) with the M:
Mind this only works with raw files; JPGs are roughly the same with Canon, because "regular" processing can't take advantage of the extra DR. So this is mainly important to those who like lifting shadows a bit more than what they can do with Canon raw files. It is useful for simple mild-HDR-like processing without actually having to take multiple exposure-bracketed images (which may be infeasible with moving scenes). Of course, this is not everyone's cup of tea, because HDR tonemapping involves compression of the wide scene DR into the restricted display DR, which requires compromises and kills some contrast, and this is why Canon obviously can get away without addressing this issue more seriously (current automatic HDR tonemapping algorithms such as ALO, HTP, DRO, ADL, cannot produce consistently good images at scene DR any wider than what the Canon sensors provide). Canon cameras do have a lot of other strong points, and I'm sure they could even make a better M if they wanted to, same as with the funny Nikon 1 "strategy".
I don't think the OP is going to get any samples of the kind he'd fancy with the attitude.
Nikolausz
Senior Member
For the EF and EF-S lenses you need an adapter don't you??
You can put those lenses to almost any mirrorless camera. (And they will be bulky)
You are so wrong.
First of all, there are more than 3 native native lenses. Do your research better next ime.
Second, all EF / EF-S lenses work as native with adapter.
Yeah, that adapter can be easily bought as original or cheap 3rd party. Sometimes, it is in the kit box, you know ???
And unlike other adapters, this one is perfect, with autofocus and 100% compatibility. Unlike EF / EF-S to other non-canon systems.
So there are 2 types of canon EOS M lenses:
- NATIVE (ef-m)
- native (ef / ef-s)
Bro, you are so close minded.
Last edited:
Jonathan Brady
Veteran Member
And the Yasuhara Nanoha Macro Lens: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/929753-REG/yasuhara_ya24_nan5c_micro_lens_for_canon.html
Nikolausz
Senior Member
Bro, you are so fanboy.(Why this insult by the way??)
For me, a lens on an adapter is NOT a native lens. It's an adapted lens, designed for another camera type. Functionality means also balance etc. (I'm not commenting the AF performance)
I'm out. Good luck with the eos-m system!
There are also the Samyang and Rokinon 300mm f/6.3 lenses.
Those are not made by canon and are available in other mounts as well.
Come on native lenses used by adapter?!
That is just funny. The lenses may have full functionality besides AF but they don't fit in the mount without adapter do they?
The AF might work but it's never a good idea to use EF lenses in live view. However since focussing is slow on the m anyway I doubt you will notice.
crashpc
Veteran Member
I have even more different view. You guys go just oppoaite extreme. Third party lens can be native if it fits and works directl,. If you couldn't change different brand lenses on MFT, it would be very bad... Anyway here's my view:
For Canon mirrorless cam(s) only all STM lenses are native. Be it with adapter or not...
For Canon mirrorless cam(s) only all STM lenses are native. Be it with adapter or not...
Being close minded or fanboy isn’t insult. And yes, I’m fanboy and you are close minded.
Your problem is that you don’t own M with adapter and canon stm lenses. You don’t know how great and “native” that experience is. And you refuse to listen and learn. Good bye.
Hephaestus
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 147
Apologies for jumping in, but this is a public forum, so... my 2c: I do own and use the M (and many other cameras). I also sometimes use M with Canon adapter and various Canon lenses. I find this experience to be inconsistent and largely frustrating: some Canon lenses work reasonably good, some only so-so, some are almost useless. Far from being a "native" experience.
I also use all three M lenses on M (mainly 11-22) and find them to be excellent and rewarding tools. Given a choice (which I happen to have) I would extremely rarely go for M with a non-M lenses on adapter.
So, the mileage will vary - but why someone who does not like something I happen to like must be close minded? Beats me. I must be getting old.
I also use all three M lenses on M (mainly 11-22) and find them to be excellent and rewarding tools. Given a choice (which I happen to have) I would extremely rarely go for M with a non-M lenses on adapter.
So, the mileage will vary - but why someone who does not like something I happen to like must be close minded? Beats me. I must be getting old.
Emphasis is on the STM lenses. They work exactly as NATIVE lenses.
Abu Mahendra
Veteran Member
Come off it, man. I like my M, 22F2 and 11-22, and all, but your argument is quite strained. There are three, and only three Canon lenses "native" to the M and its EF-M mount.
crashpc
Veteran Member
Those are native for focus system, which has "greater weight" here...
And don't forget the Handevision 40mm f.85, that's right .85 which would equal to what, a f.5 on a m43 lens?
Oh and Handevision also has an 12mm f2.8 in native EF-M mount as well.
wherearemyshorts
Well-known member
they are everywhere - go look - that is what the internet if forI am so delighted that you have more knowledge of my decision making and whether I can change my mind that I do, plz tell me of this infinite wisdom you have of my mental ability.
On the subject of wisdom, why not show some by showing me pictures by the lousy Canon sensor and the PERFECT Sony/ET-al sensors and how the superiority creates a true real difference to the picture.
If there are MILLIONS, then show me 2 or 4 plz - that prove the point of course.
Of course the pictures MUST be of the exact same scene and time and very close settings, equal processing, etc.
To my very awful misfiring imperfect mind, that is the only way of real proof, no one-off picture can show this PERFECTION!
And yes I have seen lousy shot pictures, high contrast which show the AWFUL Canon sensor can not be as forgiving of lousy photographers, when processed to pull up shadows,etc, but those are NOT what I call normal pics.
But then maybe your inordinate wisdom is just too much for this itty-bitty intellect.
SHOW ME!
so if you do not know it by now you never will
wherearemyshorts
Well-known member
it you like it use itAbsolute nonsense. Posterisation is a result of JPEG compression. When I convert that image to a 16 bit TIFF, or print it using 16 bits from Lightroom, there is no posterisation. You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. You made a claim about shadow recovery. I showed that the M performs well with shadow recovery. You then changed the subject.The latter image looks like quite unattractive, surly you would agree? Just look at the posterised sky. If we are going by exposure, the first image has about 4times the amount of light as the one I posted.Since it's it's not even an example, it can't possibly be a good example. An example, good, bad, or otherwise, would involve the same shot taken with two different cameras. Unless we see that shot taken with the M (or another Canon with similar sensor), we can't possibly tell whether the DR advantages of the Sony sensor would make an actual difference. Simply saying that's it's better than the M doesn't get us anywhere. The OP's perfectly reasonable point was that we never get to see actual pictures taken with both cameras in the same conditions that are worthwhile. No-one disputes that you can come up with situations in which extreme shadow recovery on Sony sensors looks better than the same degree of shadow recovery on Canon sensors. All the examples I have seen are simply horrible pictures, that I wouldn't want to keep anyway. This picture isn't horrible, though it isn't that great either, but I have taken similar shots with my M that look good too.Good example.Nex-6 against the sun, foreground pulled a great deal with great results.
No doubt better than the M I've got now.
--
http://torbenbrenden.com
Here are a couple of similar examples, shooting into the sun (sunrise in this case) with the M:
To my eye, these look just as good, if not better, than the Nex-6 example. Of course, I don't have a Nex-6 version of these to compare. So they are also not examples of how one camera is better or worse than the other. They are examples, though, of what the M can do shooting into the sun.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
f/8, 1/60s, ISO400 vs f/8, 1/125, ISO200
--
http://torbenbrenden.com
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
if you do not like it, time to do something else
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum