-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
EF-M Lenses
- Thread starter Gesture
- Start date
Ben Herrmann
Forum Pro
...my good fellow, presumes that the folks on this forum have tremendous insight (and knowledge) as to what Canon will do in the future.
--
Have a great day...
Bernd ("Ben") Herrmann
Fuquay Varina, North Carolina USA
--
Have a great day...
Bernd ("Ben") Herrmann
Fuquay Varina, North Carolina USA
GinaRothfels
Forum Enthusiast
There are rumours of unidentified new lenses coming soon. The thought of the type of lens you suggest is holding me back from trading my 12 year old (noisy) EF 50mm for the STM version.
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
A ef-m lens like the sigma 56mm f/1.4 might be much a threat for RP sales.
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,313
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
If you like the size of that lens and the added size of an adapter and some purple fringing as well, yes. Imagine the size of an M100 or M50 and that 56mm f/1.4, and it is clear the compactness and the compactness-performance ratio is much more appealing to a lot of customers.
Most people prefer compact and having just one camera. Of course, if you already own an R or RP, the M system could be complementary to that for a relatively small price. However, for those who own a M camera, a dedicated portrait lens available for this system at the price point of 450 or 550 euro..... that is really appealing for both price and size, MORE appealing than 1500 for the RP (included adapter) and an additional 450 euro for a used 100mm f/2.0 USM resulting in a larger combo.
Not owning anything yet it is still 1000 euro vs 1950 euro.
About other lenses:
22mm f/2.0 vs 35mm f/1.8 = 200 euro vs 600 euro
32mm f/1.4 vs 50mm f/1.2 = 480 euro vs 2500 euro
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,313
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
I love that lens on the R and prefer its size with the adapter to that of the 24-105. I shoot RAW and process in DPP or DxO PhotoLab 2 so I lose the longitudinal chromatic aberration anyway. As I said the R and the M for me are complementary systems and I love the compactness of the M100. I'd be more tempted by a fast 62mm than I am by the 32mm but the compactness-performance ratio of a non-existent lens is an academic question.
There's an EF 100mm f/2 in my local branch of Wilkinson Cameras for just under £200. The new price is about £415.
But that 35mm f/1.8 is the Canon APS-C equivalent of a 22mm f/1.1.
As far as minimum depth of field is concerned the £499 32mm f/1.4 is equivalent to a 50mm f/2.3. Granted, its image quality wide open may be better than that of the £105mm 50mm f/1.8 at f/2.3 but it's nearly four times the price.
My point was that the availability of nice lenses for the M series cameras shouldn't have any effect on sales of the EOS RP. The cameras are different tools for different jobs.
Last edited:
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
That was not the comparison here.
That is a good solution for those who are will to do these efforts.
The discussion wasn't about your preferences. I was arguing why Canon will likely not come up with an 50 to 60mm prime for the M mount. If Canon would bring something to the market there are more customers buying it than only you, so in your case you will buy an R anyway, but for the majority of customers this ain't necessarily the same.
Discussing a non-existent lens is where this topic is about. If you don't like this just don't join. Furthermore: the maximum possible compactness-performance ratio is not an academic question at all as we can safely assume there is no reason to be worse than the existing 56mm f/1.4 available for other mirrorless aps-c mounts.
For you. And likely for some others. But i think it won't be necessarily the same for the majority of customers, and that is why i think Canon doesn't come up with such a lens, as for those other customers they are hurting RP sales.
Yeah, used about 300 euro. Still the differences in total price are substantial.
That is true, it better. You get what you pay for. Not to mention the IS (although it should not be necessary....... (IBIS)).
Sorry, but the RP needs something in between the EF 50mm stm and the RF 50mm. I think the 32mm f/1.4 actually is hurting RP sales a little for this reason. A 85mm equivalent would hurt more.
I see your point. There are not only different cameras, there are also different groups of customers in the market. There is a group buying an RP or R anyway regardless a lens like the sigma 56mm f/1.4 being available for the M mount or not, and there is a group which might choose to stay entirely with M when Canon makes such a lens available while they would go RP when Canon did not. I think Canon thinks the latter group is large enough to hurt RP sales significantly. I don't say that other group of customers doesn't exist.
OzarkAggie
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,153
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 827
With glass like this why do you care about an M mount? Maybe I'm odd but I bought the original M + 22, adapter, & flash from a guy who was disappointed precisely because of the ability to adapt lenses. What I mean is, if you shoo9ting portraits then you're probably on a tripod, in good light, so AF and IS are nice but actually not necessary.
FD 55mm f/1.2
In the 90's CAD really improved the quality of zoom lenses, but primes have been good since before WWII. And both of these lenses have SSC - special coatings that improve color rendition and contrast.
Save $200
BTW, I do understand the advantages of an M mount. No question that would be the best solution but surely it would cost at least as much as the 32. Probably more.
Anyway, here's some pros and cons regarding the FD lenses and the SSC coatings. I have a 100mm with the coatings and I take exception to the negatives, but we're talking about gear that's 40-50 years old.
FD SSC 55mm
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
I agree, We are seeing this pattern for years now. Not giving a nice portrait lens for the M system on purpose fits perfectly in that pattern. That's why my prediction is: it won't come ever. I hope i am wrong of course.
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
Depends on if the model is able to stand still enough to keep the eye within the DOF.
That isn't necessarily also the case on a crop sensor. If manual focus is o.k., a Samyang 50mm f/1.2 could be a better choice, although at a higher price.
You come up with some interesting options here, but they might be best suited for RP users.
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,313
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
We don't know the size, quality or price of this hypothetical lens, which make the question academical. I think the reason that Canon haven't produced the lens we both would like is because they don't think it would sell well enough. It's also why just about the only third party lenses for the M series are manual ones with no electrical contacts. There is a pretty good native manual Samyang 50mm f/1.2 for the EOS M but it's bigger than the EF 50mm f/1.8 on the adapter and much more expensive. I have one but it's not a big seller.
I don't think many people choose between camera systems on the basis of the portrait lens in the system. As you say, the 32mm and the 11-22mm are more of a challenge to the RP.
More like used €221.79 at today's rate.
It certainly should be a higher priority for Canon than a 62mm EF-M lens. The potential sales are probably an order of magnitude higher.
Last edited:
HaroldC3
Senior Member
Because it's answer is about as good of a guess as anyone else's.
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
It seams to me the sigma 56mm f/1.4 is selling like hot cakes. The only reason Canon won't sell so much is because the don't sell so much M cameras. Adding a portrait lens might help M camera sales.
But the sales of those will be only a fraction of the sales of lenses with autofocus, especially for portraits.
That will be mainly due to the lack of autofocus.
O.k., it is clear we have different opinions on this. As it is one assumption against the other i don't think it is useful to discuss it further. One of the functions of a discussion is to discover the assumptions of your discussion partner, and your own assumptions as well. We did.
I agree.
Take into account the total sales of RF cameras compared to M cameras. I think there are more M cameras in this world.
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,313
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
I've not actually seen one anywhere. It's 6mm shorter than the EF 50mm f/1.8 on its adapter, otherwise it's much the same size & weight and twice the price of the Canon lens including its adapter. Sigma have had seven years to work out how to fool the EOS M series cameras that their mirrorless lenses are ordinary EF lenses on the adapter but they haven't bothered to yet. That suggests to me that they don't think there's enough of a market at profitable prices.
That's possible. It would have to be really special to beat the EF 50mm f/1.8 on its adapter at its current price.
The 100mm f/2 on the R series cameras gives the same depth of field control as a 62mm f/1.2 on the M series for just over £400 new. The 85mm f/1.8 for slightly less gives the same control as a 52mm f/1.1. Either of those two lenses is a good argument for the R series over the M series for portrait photographers, just as in the film days they preferred 120 roll film over 35mm. It's just so much easier to make pleasing portraits under controlled conditions using a larger format.
They are, but the investment in producing a slightly different bayonet is only a small fraction of the investment in producing lenses with autofocus and electronically controlled diaphragms.
And the price. I think that EOS M buyers are a lot more price sensitive than Sony or Fuji or micro four-thirds buyers.
At the moment Canon should be preoccupied with filling out the RF lens range and producing something special for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. There are currently more M cameras than R cameras but the R camera owners are more likely to buy extra lenses and the RF lenses will almost certainly have a high profit margin. Whether we get a nice portrait lens will depend a lot on how well the 32mm lens sells.
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,656
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
The EF 50mm f/1.8 is a totally different lens. It is the kit prime or the kit portrait lens trying to appeal starting moderate enthusiasts to get ever that 100 euro kit zoom lens from their camera hoping they will discover advantages of changing lenses. It is damn good for the price, but only for the price.
And as such it is small for an f/1.8 lens, however, functional it is only a f/2.8 lens because sharpness is unusable at larger apertures, and the extra light of f/1.8 is only useful for the auto focus system (which is great of course). The Sigma 56mm f/1.4 isn't only brighter, it has also usable sharpness at f/1.4, and as such there is a 2 stops functional difference between those lenses.
Most important: with the good sharpness at f/2.8 with the 50mm stm the bokeh is often harsh and unpleasing. The sigma 56mm f/1.4 solves all this.
Why would Sigma help Canon selling M cameras after all the problems with EF Sigma lenses with dslr-AF caused by Canons closed AF protocol? Canon fooled Sigma. Sigma is fooling Canon. Same story with the MC-11: you can mount Sigma EF aps-c lenses, but you can't mount Canon EF-s lenses without a hack. I think Sigma thinks it is pay back time.
I agree with that, that is another factor.
Totally different lenses and a totally different performance level.
But the extra money (the difference is substantial) for the camera still makes a good performing M lens a threat, especially because these EF 85&100mm need some stopping down even at full frame to get good sharpness.
That is a good point. Granted.
That is a good point, granted. They will also be price sensitive when considering their options for portraits, and as such rejecting the RP for its 1000 euro higher price.
Granted.
We will see. They will certainly come in at a high price. Question is if Canon can maintain this high price on the long term for selling enough of them. When the RF 70-200 f/2.8 would come in at 2800 euro i will keep shooting with my sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 on my M50, which i also can use on a Sony a6400 with the MC11.
I bought one, trying to convince Canon
. It is sharp, it is light and small, the bokeh is good enough for me, but i hate the slow auto focus, especially when the AF has trouble with tracking a face or other subject which if more often the case with the M50 than it should be. Those weaknesses combined are more than the sum of the two. Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,313
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
'Up to a point, Lord Copper.' The Sigma 56mm may well be a sharper lens wide open on APS-C than the Canon 50mm f/1.8 but it won't fit any Canon camera so it's not a solution to any problems of Canon lenses. It's nearly four times the price but probably not four times as good, which is probably why Sigma haven't judged it profitable to produce a Canon version.
Because they are in the business of selling lenses to fit other people's cameras. They also have a policy, dating back over more than forty years, of reverse engineering lens mounts rather than licensing them. The simplest reason I can think of for Sigma not producing EF-M lenses is because they don't think there would be a big enough market to be worth the effort.
I don't think either Canon or Sigma are that petty.
Totally different price league. I would also need to buy another brand of camera to use the Sigma so that definitely puts it outside my price range. Things would be different for a Canon lens; I know you would spend the extra money for the improved performance but we're neither of us typical EOS M owners.
Even on an M series, I need a tripod for the 100mm to show a noticeable benefit to sharpness from stopping down, apart from the increased depth of field. I've not tried the 85mm but lensrentals found the average wide open sharpness of the 85mm to be slightly better.
So a good EOS M portrait lens will have little effect on RP sales, which was my original point.
That Sigma lens had me quite excited until I realised it was heavier than the EF 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 lenses combined and wouldn't cover full-frame over it's whole range.
I bought one, trying to convince Canon
--
If your facts are different we could save the peace just by calling it copy to copy variation.
Last edited:
OzarkAggie
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,153
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 827
This thread is too convoluted for me, but I am looking to start doing portraits or head shots so I have an interest. Setting aside my affection for legacy glass I have looked at two lenses for this type of work. For AF the Tamron 60 mm f/2 seems right. 1:1 macro and pretty reasonable @ $300 new. Now that I have focus peaking with the M50 I feel better about manual focus, and the Samyang 85 mm f/1.4 is everywhere for under $250.
No they're not EF-M mounts but they're both exceptional considering the price. Canon would want double $$ I'm sure.
I'm definitely not a purist. The 22 is the only EF-M mount that I own. Frankly I was unwilling to sell the EF-S 10-18 to buy the 11-22 despite some advantages because right off I'd have add $200+ to make the trade. And no advantage for the 55-200 over the EF-S 55-250 except size. But I guess some people don't like a mixed bag.
So I don't want to get into this argument but there's two lenses that cost less money ($100+) than the Sigma which can't even adapt to a EF mount.
No they're not EF-M mounts but they're both exceptional considering the price. Canon would want double $$ I'm sure.
I'm definitely not a purist. The 22 is the only EF-M mount that I own. Frankly I was unwilling to sell the EF-S 10-18 to buy the 11-22 despite some advantages because right off I'd have add $200+ to make the trade. And no advantage for the 55-200 over the EF-S 55-250 except size. But I guess some people don't like a mixed bag.
So I don't want to get into this argument but there's two lenses that cost less money ($100+) than the Sigma which can't even adapt to a EF mount.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum