Reading mode: Light Dark

What lenses are available for EOS M mount?

Go to last post
R

Robgo2

Veteran Member
Messages
5,560
Solutions
7
Reaction score
1,073
Location
NM, US
I have never owned any Canon gear, but I am very keen on the new EOS M50. It looks to be a great camera at a great price. My interest is in converting it for infrared use, and I really want a camera with an EVF, but I am having trouble finding a listing of available lenses in the native mount. Could someone please point me in the right direction? Also, specific lens recommendation would be appreciated.

Finally, how does the M50 compare to the M5?

Thanks, Rob
 
There are specific M mount lenses from Canon (11-22, 15-45, 18-55, 22, 28, 18-150, 55-200), there are third party ones from various people and via a small adapter, there all all the EF and EF-S mounted lenses available from Canon, Sigma and Tamron (and others).

So, loads and loads that fit and work.

The M50 is a little more modern than the M5, not worth an upgrade (IMO), but if you are starting out, would probably be the one to consider unless you want an M5 specific feature.

Does that help?

Alan
 
Last edited:
There are two discussions about the native lenses available from the EOS-M mount cameras. And one 3rd party lens was just announced last week too.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Loading…

www.canonwatch.com

One thing to be aware of... some lenses may not be suitable for IR work. Most are ok but not all. There has been some talk about people having problems with "hotpots" on IR converted cameras using some Canon M lenses. I don't use my M5 for IR so I can't say I know this to be fact. You should read here: http://dpanswers.com/content/irphoto_lenses.php
 
Alan Sh said:
The M50 is a little more modern than the M5, not worth an upgrade (IMO), but if you are starting out, would probably be the one to consider unless you want an M5 specific feature.

Does that help?

Alan
Click to expand...
The M50 uses CR3 files, which most raw converters (including mine) cannot decompress. The M5 uses CR2 files that are universally accessible.

Rob
 
Robgo2 said:
Alan Sh said:
The M50 is a little more modern than the M5, not worth an upgrade (IMO), but if you are starting out, would probably be the one to consider unless you want an M5 specific feature.

Does that help?

Alan
Click to expand...
The M50 uses CR3 files, which most raw converters (including mine) cannot decompress. The M5 uses CR2 files that are universally accessible.

Rob
Click to expand...
CR3 decompression will come in time. But if you buy the older camera, you are forever stuck with it. Plus you can always use DPP to convert the files to Tiff.

Alan
 
Alan Sh said:
Robgo2 said:
Alan Sh said:
The M50 is a little more modern than the M5, not worth an upgrade (IMO), but if you are starting out, would probably be the one to consider unless you want an M5 specific feature.

Does that help?

Alan
Click to expand...
The M50 uses CR3 files, which most raw converters (including mine) cannot decompress. The M5 uses CR2 files that are universally accessible.

Rob
Click to expand...
CR3 decompression will come in time. But if you buy the older camera, you are forever stuck with it. Plus you can always use DPP to convert the files to Tiff.

Alan
Click to expand...
The Adobe programs like LR also work with the .cr3 files, so for many this new format is a non issue.
 
dave_bass5 said:
Alan Sh said:
Robgo2 said:
Alan Sh said:
The M50 is a little more modern than the M5, not worth an upgrade (IMO), but if you are starting out, would probably be the one to consider unless you want an M5 specific feature.

Does that help?

Alan
Click to expand...
The M50 uses CR3 files, which most raw converters (including mine) cannot decompress. The M5 uses CR2 files that are universally accessible.

Rob
Click to expand...
CR3 decompression will come in time. But if you buy the older camera, you are forever stuck with it. Plus you can always use DPP to convert the files to Tiff.

Alan
Click to expand...
The Adobe programs like LR also work with the .cr3 files, so for many this new format is a non issue.
Click to expand...
 
Alan Sh said:
Robgo2 said:
Alan Sh said:
The M50 is a little more modern than the M5, not worth an upgrade (IMO), but if you are starting out, would probably be the one to consider unless you want an M5 specific feature.

Does that help?

Alan
Click to expand...
The M50 uses CR3 files, which most raw converters (including mine) cannot decompress. The M5 uses CR2 files that are universally accessible.

Rob
Click to expand...
CR3 decompression will come in time. But if you buy the older camera, you are forever stuck with it. Plus you can always use DPP to convert the files to Tiff.

Alan
Click to expand...
Really, do you see a huge difference between the M5 and the M50? My intent is to have the camera undergo conversion for IR photography. I cannot see any differences that will affect the images that I will get.

Rob
 
Last edited:
Robgo2 said:
Alan Sh said:
Robgo2 said:
Alan Sh said:
The M50 is a little more modern than the M5, not worth an upgrade (IMO), but if you are starting out, would probably be the one to consider unless you want an M5 specific feature.

Does that help?

Alan
Click to expand...
The M50 uses CR3 files, which most raw converters (including mine) cannot decompress. The M5 uses CR2 files that are universally accessible.

Rob
Click to expand...
CR3 decompression will come in time. But if you buy the older camera, you are forever stuck with it. Plus you can always use DPP to convert the files to Tiff.

Alan
Click to expand...
Really, do you see a huge difference between the M5 and the M50? My intent is to have the camera undergo conversion for IR photography. I cannot see any differences that will affect the images that I will get.

Rob
Click to expand...
I don;t know about IR, but for cost/performance, the M50 wins hands down. All I am saying is that if you don’t hav an M5 (and I do), then the M50 is a better buy unless you need a specific feature that is only available on an M5.

alan
 
Alan Sh said:
Robgo2 said:
Alan Sh said:
Robgo2 said:
Alan Sh said:
The M50 is a little more modern than the M5, not worth an upgrade (IMO), but if you are starting out, would probably be the one to consider unless you want an M5 specific feature.

Does that help?

Alan
Click to expand...
The M50 uses CR3 files, which most raw converters (including mine) cannot decompress. The M5 uses CR2 files that are universally accessible.

Rob
Click to expand...
CR3 decompression will come in time. But if you buy the older camera, you are forever stuck with it. Plus you can always use DPP to convert the files to Tiff.

Alan
Click to expand...
Really, do you see a huge difference between the M5 and the M50? My intent is to have the camera undergo conversion for IR photography. I cannot see any differences that will affect the images that I will get.

Rob
Click to expand...
I don;t know about IR, but for cost/performance, the M50 wins hands down. All I am saying is that if you don’t hav an M5 (and I do), then the M50 is a better buy unless you need a specific feature that is only available on an M5.

alan
Click to expand...
You may be right about that, but I just received the M5 today, and already I am having problems with adapted Leica lenses. I am using a Kipon Leica M to EOS M adapter. Both the adapter and the lens click snugly into place. However, when I press the shutter button, nothing happens, i.e. the shutter does not release. When I place a native EOS M lens on the camera and focus manually, the shutter releases as it should.

What am I missing?

Rob
 
Last edited:
In Custom function menu: C.Fn-7 Release shutter without lense: on
 
It works fine for me. Did you try using the focus peaking feature? It outlines the plane of focus on your subject in a contrasting color that you set. Makes it very easy to focus on the points in the subject that you want. Mind you, it gets a little tough to manually focus a fisheye or ultra wide angle lens, but depth of field is so high on those you have quite a bit of leeway.

You can read about the focus peak feature for manual focus on page 82 of the English manual.
 
What would be the benefit to Canon of not sharing? I can't think of any. I am sure that they shared with Adobe (and everyone else).
 
Robgo2 said:
Alan Sh said:
The M50 is a little more modern than the M5, not worth an upgrade (IMO), but if you are starting out, would probably be the one to consider unless you want an M5 specific feature.

Does that help?

Alan
Click to expand...
The M50 uses CR3 files, which most raw converters (including mine) cannot decompress. The M5 uses CR2 files that are universally accessible.

Rob
Click to expand...
What raw converter are you using?
 
RyanBoston said:
Robgo2 said:
Alan Sh said:
The M50 is a little more modern than the M5, not worth an upgrade (IMO), but if you are starting out, would probably be the one to consider unless you want an M5 specific feature.

Does that help?

Alan
Click to expand...
The M50 uses CR3 files, which most raw converters (including mine) cannot decompress. The M5 uses CR2 files that are universally accessible.

Rob
Click to expand...
What raw converter are you using?
Click to expand...
Photo Ninja. Works great with CR2 files but not CR3. Other raw converters that I have that are unable to open CR3 files include On1 Photo RAW, DxO Photolab, Iridient and Luminar. I do not own Lightroom or Capture One.
 
Last edited:
kbdkbd said:
It works fine for me. Did you try using the focus peaking feature? It outlines the plane of focus on your subject in a contrasting color that you set. Makes it very easy to focus on the points in the subject that you want. Mind you, it gets a little tough to manually focus a fisheye or ultra wide angle lens, but depth of field is so high on those you have quite a bit of leeway.

You can read about the focus peak feature for manual focus on page 82 of the English manual.
Click to expand...
 
Robgo2 said:
kbdkbd said:
It works fine for me. Did you try using the focus peaking feature? It outlines the plane of focus on your subject in a contrasting color that you set. Makes it very easy to focus on the points in the subject that you want. Mind you, it gets a little tough to manually focus a fisheye or ultra wide angle lens, but depth of field is so high on those you have quite a bit of leeway.

You can read about the focus peak feature for manual focus on page 82 of the English manual.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Robgo2 said:
RyanBoston said:
Robgo2 said:
Alan Sh said:
The M50 is a little more modern than the M5, not worth an upgrade (IMO), but if you are starting out, would probably be the one to consider unless you want an M5 specific feature.

Does that help?

Alan
Click to expand...
The M50 uses CR3 files, which most raw converters (including mine) cannot decompress. The M5 uses CR2 files that are universally accessible.

Rob
Click to expand...
What raw converter are you using?
Click to expand...
Photo Ninja. Works great with CR2 files but not CR3. Other raw converters that I have that are unable to open CR3 files include On1 Photo RAW, DxO Photolab, Iridient and Luminar. I do not own Lightroom or Capture One.
Click to expand...
Ive tried them all with different cameras every year I keep revisiting them too. I always keep going back to LR CC/PS. The workflow with Adobe is awesome. Between the catalog setup and the ability to go back on edit steps and duplicate raws with different edits is too easy. It’s also a fast program too.

I still love playing with different ones though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top