Reading mode: Light Dark

Does building an EOS-M system with adapted EF-S lenses make sense?

Go to last post
thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:
and, EF-M options don't exist for this reach.
Click to expand...
Why? I think the AF of new M6mkII can handle quite some reach, and i would love to see an M5mkII doing the same!
Click to expand...
EF-M 55-200 is as far as she goes. Want 250 or 300? EF-S or EF (adapter needed). The nature of the question here was building on adapted lenses. You need to adapt to hit those focals.
thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:
But normal zooms, primes, macro, ultrawide and superzoom options make more sense in native EF-M for a litany of reasons over their EF-S brothers to include better IS, sharper, smaller and lighter, better operational specs (EF-M 22mm f/2 is a full stop faster than it's EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM brother
Click to expand...
Definitely not a full T-stop. The 22mm vignettes so heavy at f/2.0 you can hardly call it f/2.0. It isn't that useful for getting lower ISO noise. You will have a little less noise in the very center, but everywhere else you will have f/2.8-like noise anyway due to the need of lens corrections for vignetting.
Click to expand...
You're talking just light transmission, and you're right. But bokeh? Is f/2 not f/2? I get you riled up every time on this one :) Not intentionally btw.

You're also ignoring the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM, which, there is no EF-S lens that's f/1.4 (from Canon anyways; actually is there even a third party f/1.4 EF-S lens? I can't think of one off the top of my head)
 
RLight said:
thunder storm said:
RLight said:
and, EF-M options don't exist for this reach.
Click to expand...
Why? I think the AF of new M6mkII can handle quite some reach, and i would love to see an M5mkII doing the same!
Click to expand...
EF-M 55-200 is as far as she goes. Want 250 or 300? EF-S or EF (adapter needed). The nature of the question here was building on adapted lenses. You need to adapt to hit those focals.
RLight said:
RLight said:
But normal zooms, primes, macro, ultrawide and superzoom options make more sense in native EF-M for a litany of reasons over their EF-S brothers to include better IS, sharper, smaller and lighter, better operational specs (EF-M 22mm f/2 is a full stop faster than it's EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM brother
Click to expand...
Definitely not a full T-stop. The 22mm vignettes so heavy at f/2.0 you can hardly call it f/2.0. It isn't that useful for getting lower ISO noise. You will have a little less noise in the very center, but everywhere else you will have f/2.8-like noise anyway due to the need of lens corrections for vignetting.
Click to expand...
You're talking just light transmission, and you're right. But bokeh? Is f/2 not f/2?
Click to expand...
I think so.
RLight said:
I get you riled up every time on this one :) Not intentionally btw.
Click to expand...
Because a lot of people are thinking they get a full stop advantage for light gathering when speaking of full stop advantages.
RLight said:
You're also ignoring
Click to expand...
Am I?
RLight said:
the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM, which, there is no EF-S lens that's f/1.4
Click to expand...
I use the 50mm stm only at f/2.8 and narrower, so for me f/2.8 is the brightest a Canon ef-s lens gets. ;)
RLight said:
(from Canon anyways; actually is there even a third party f/1.4 EF-S lens? I can't think of one off the top of my head)
Click to expand...
I think you are correct. You will have to adapt EF-glass. From the f/1.4 options this could make sense with the Canon and Yongnuo 50mm f/1.4, while personally i won't hesitate to slap a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 art, although that will be likely a bit to large for most M users.
 
thunder storm said:
RLight said:
thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:
and, EF-M options don't exist for this reach.
Click to expand...
Why? I think the AF of new M6mkII can handle quite some reach, and i would love to see an M5mkII doing the same!
Click to expand...
EF-M 55-200 is as far as she goes. Want 250 or 300? EF-S or EF (adapter needed). The nature of the question here was building on adapted lenses. You need to adapt to hit those focals.
thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:
But normal zooms, primes, macro, ultrawide and superzoom options make more sense in native EF-M for a litany of reasons over their EF-S brothers to include better IS, sharper, smaller and lighter, better operational specs (EF-M 22mm f/2 is a full stop faster than it's EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM brother
Click to expand...
Definitely not a full T-stop. The 22mm vignettes so heavy at f/2.0 you can hardly call it f/2.0. It isn't that useful for getting lower ISO noise. You will have a little less noise in the very center, but everywhere else you will have f/2.8-like noise anyway due to the need of lens corrections for vignetting.
Click to expand...
You're talking just light transmission, and you're right. But bokeh? Is f/2 not f/2?
Click to expand...
I think so.
thunder storm said:
I get you riled up every time on this one :) Not intentionally btw.
Click to expand...
Because a lot of people are thinking they get a full stop advantage for light gathering when speaking of full stop advantages.
thunder storm said:
You're also ignoring
Click to expand...
Am I?
thunder storm said:
the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM, which, there is no EF-S lens that's f/1.4
Click to expand...
I use the 50mm stm only at f/2.8 and narrower, so for me f/2.8 is the brightest a Canon ef-s lens gets. ;)
thunder storm said:
(from Canon anyways; actually is there even a third party f/1.4 EF-S lens? I can't think of one off the top of my head)
Click to expand...
I think you are correct. You will have to adapt EF-glass. From the f/1.4 options this could make sense with the Canon and Yongnuo 50mm f/1.4, while personally i won't hesitate to slap a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 art, although that will be likely a bit to large for most M users.
Click to expand...
Btw, those new Sigma lenses are worth a mention. A trio of f/1.4 lenses for EF-M (not EF-S).

I'm not convinced Canon is killing off the M anytime soon. They may give it low priority though, true.
 
RLight said:
Btw, those new Sigma lenses are worth a mention. A trio of f/1.4 lenses for EF-M (not EF-S).
Click to expand...
I am still concerned Canon will mess up compatibility with a newer DPAF generation.

I am also a bit concerned about focusing speed (not an issue for everyone). Especially with the 30mm i hope it is a bit faster than the ef-m 32mm.
 
JRET said:
Francis A said:
Alexis said:
The EF 85/1.8 is an absolute gem and I have no idea why it was never classified as an "L" lens .. unless of course I have a particularly good copy.

As for EF-M, look at the 55-200 before getting the heavier, bulkier EF-S equivalent - I think you will be surprised as I was coming from a Canon 70-200 f/4L IS.
Click to expand...
How is the 55-200 M's image quality compared to the 70-200 f4L IS? Have you tried the said L lens on any M camera?
Click to expand...
I prefer the size of the 55-200 on my M50 (also M2 & M1) but still prefer the IQ of the 70-200 f/4L IS. When the light is good the 55-200 does compare favorably to the 70-200.
Click to expand...
When you say you prefer the IQ of the L, do you mean it being adapted to an M camera? Is there even any change in IQ when you adapt it VS being mounted to its native body?
 
thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:
But normal zooms, primes, macro, ultrawide and superzoom options make more sense in native EF-M for a litany of reasons over their EF-S brothers to include better IS, sharper, smaller and lighter, better operational specs (EF-M 22mm f/2 is a full stop faster than it's EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM brother
Click to expand...
Definitely not a full T-stop. The 22mm vignettes so heavy at f/2.0 you can hardly call it f/2.0. It isn't that useful for getting lower ISO noise. You will have a little less noise in the very center, but everywhere else you will have f/2.8-like noise anyway due to the need of lens corrections for vignetting.
Click to expand...
Interesting to hear this. How does it compare to the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM? The EF-M 22mm f/2 is a full stop faster, but perhaps the difference is not so much on paper?
thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:
and the EF-M 28 Macro does 1.2x which it's EF-S 35mm brother does not)
Click to expand...
The latter is brighter, and better suitable for portraits due to both the larger aperture and the longer focal length.
Click to expand...
What I would love is a wider stabilised fast prime for my video work. Both the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 and EF-M 28mm f/3.5 are a bit long (and f/3.5 too slow), and the EF-M 22mm f/2 and EF-S 24mm f/2.8 are unstabilised.

It's not a problem unique to Canon - same issue on Sony and Fuji. IBIS on Micro Four Thirds is really my only option so stabilise fast wide primes. But dynamic range and ISO performance is pretty poor on M43, so I'd be giving up a lot in my stills photography.
 
2eyesee said:
thunder storm said:
2eyesee said:
But normal zooms, primes, macro, ultrawide and superzoom options make more sense in native EF-M for a litany of reasons over their EF-S brothers to include better IS, sharper, smaller and lighter, better operational specs (EF-M 22mm f/2 is a full stop faster than it's EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM brother
Click to expand...
Definitely not a full T-stop. The 22mm vignettes so heavy at f/2.0 you can hardly call it f/2.0. It isn't that useful for getting lower ISO noise. You will have a little less noise in the very center, but everywhere else you will have f/2.8-like noise anyway due to the need of lens corrections for vignetting.
Click to expand...
Interesting to hear this. How does it compare to the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM? The EF-M 22mm f/2 is a full stop faster, but perhaps the difference is not so much on paper?
2eyesee said:
2eyesee said:
and the EF-M 28 Macro does 1.2x which it's EF-S 35mm brother does not)
Click to expand...
The latter is brighter, and better suitable for portraits due to both the larger aperture and the longer focal length.
Click to expand...
What I would love is a wider stabilised fast prime for my video work. Both the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 and EF-M 28mm f/3.5 are a bit long (and f/3.5 too slow), and the EF-M 22mm f/2 and EF-S 24mm f/2.8 are unstabilised.

It's not a problem unique to Canon - same issue on Sony and Fuji. IBIS on Micro Four Thirds is really my only option so stabilise fast wide primes. But dynamic range and ISO performance is pretty poor on M43, so I'd be giving up a lot in my stills photography.
Click to expand...
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM could be an option. Make sure you have an external microphone for audio to get rid of the focusing sound. You can add the Viltrox speedbooster to get 15 or 16mm stabilized. Theoretically you would gain one f stop, however, in my experience it needed stopping down that stop to get rid of heavy vignetting. Still, an extra 16mm f/2.8 IS lens might add value.
 
RLight said:
You can certainly build a M system off EF-S glass, but, I'm going to split from Jared of a popular YouTube channel (who suggests making an M system based off adapted glass) and say EF-M glass makes more sense. EF-M glass capitalizes on the benefits of the M platform. If not, why not go SL3 instead?
Click to expand...
As I indicated in my original post, I do a lot of video, and you can't use the viewfinder for video on a DSLR. Also, the SL3 only uses a 9 point AF system through the viewfinder, so I would probably never use it.

The M50 also seems to have more detail in 1080p video - see my original post.

The M50 also has faster burst speed (9fps vs 5fps). This is important to me photographing my son's cricket, as it will mean having a better chance of getting the perfect shot.

I had seriously considered the SL3, but these factors lead me to favouring the M50. I can also purchase the M50 cheaper than the SL3.
 
OptimisticCynic said:
FYI, Canon's official stance is that you should remove the lens + adapter from the camera first (after turning the camera off), and only then remove the EF/EF-M adapter from the lens.
Click to expand...
Do people actually do this though when simply swapping an EF-S lens? It seems a pretty finicky procedure to have to remove adapter + lens from camera, remove adapter from lens, put adapter on other lens, than attach adapter + lens to camera.

I can't believe anyone would do this.
 
ruley74 said:
I've pretty much done this be it EF lenses (except the 11-22). I originally bought the M50 for the size and features it packs not so much for a compact system. About the only thing I feel now I'd like the body to be a touch bigger for my hands wrt button control, it doesn't bother me hanging the EF lenses of it.

For $760 here in Oz nothing else came close for the performance dollar in a body kit.
Click to expand...
Same here in New Zealand. And not just the body ... it's the affordable lenses that make is so much cheaper to build a system compared to other manufacturers.
 
Alexis said:
In a word "yes" it's reasonable but here are some thoughts.

Firstly here are the lenses I own so you can get a feel of where I am coming from:

1) Canon EF 70-200 f/4L IS
2) Sigma EF-S mount 18-50 f/2.8 macro
3) Canon EF 85/f1.8
4) Canon EF-M 22mm f/2
5) Canon EF-M 15-45 f/3.5-6.3
6) Canon EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3

For my M50 I went ahead and bought the 3 EF-M lenses thinking that my EF and EF-S lenses will probably end up on e-bay. I have now owned the M50 for 3 months and last weekend I have even shot a destination wedding in Greece using the above set of lenses with the exception of 1) and 2) above.

My thoughts:

a) EF 70-200 f/4LIS vs EF-M 55-200 vs EF-S 55-250
The big surprise here is that the EF-M lens weighs nothing yet the performance is surprisingly good and in the right light, almost as good as the EF 70-200L so before you rush to buy the EF-S 55-250 give the EF-M a try. I seldom use my beloved "L" lens nowadays as for most situations I'm covered by the EF-M

b) EF 85:
This is my FAVOURITE lens and will always go with me for weddings, portraits etc - nothing comes close in EF-M and EF-S format and nothing more to add

c) EF-M 15-45 and EF-M 22:
The 15-45 is a great little lens and as a walkabout lens very capable. The 22/2 is also a great lens especially to cover those low-light situations where the f/3.5-6.3 of the 15-45 runs out of steam. However, I am kicking myself for not taking my Sigma EF-S 18-50 f/2.8 with me to the wedding as this would have ended covering 80% of my needs that day at the wedding (replacing both the EF-Ms 22mm and 15-45). Big mistake!!!!!

In conclusion, yes you can almost by-pass the EF-M camp with EF-S lenses although I would try the surprisingly good EF-M55-200 and the 2 primes (20/f2 and 32/f1.4)

Have fun deciding!
Click to expand...
Thanks for your comments on the various lenses you use. I'm going to tend to stay away from the unstabilised lenses because I shoot video.

I'm also on a tight budget, so I'm trying to go cheap as possible - that's why I created this thread :-)

I'm a bit nervous about the 15-45mm kit lens. It seems like a nice, versatile lens to have in your kit, but there just seems to be a lot of copy variation out there. Great if you get a good copy, but I'm afraid of ending up with a dud! At least I have plenty of affordable EF-S options with the adapter.

I hear what you say about the EF-M 55-200mm vs EF-S 55-250mm, but I really need to go as long as I can. Even the 250mm (400mm equivalent) isn't really long enough, but it's a decent lens and on 24MP should give me scope to crop.
 
Francis A said:
Alexis said:
The EF 85/1.8 is an absolute gem and I have no idea why it was never classified as an "L" lens .. unless of course I have a particularly good copy.

As for EF-M, look at the 55-200 before getting the heavier, bulkier EF-S equivalent - I think you will be surprised as I was coming from a Canon 70-200 f/4L IS.
Click to expand...
How is the 55-200 M's image quality compared to the 70-200 f4L IS? Have you tried the said L lens on any M camera?
Click to expand...
I have both and lug the L lens around with me. The 55-200mm is very good, but the L has a little bit of extra pizazz that the other hasn't. It is also has a faster constant aperture. Many people love the lighter weight and smaller size of the 55-200mm. It is a very fine optic. But my attitude is that if I'm going to travel somewhere far off and make an effort to take photos, then I don't want to later regret not getting the best result possible due to equipment. There's no wrong, or right approach to this, just individual choice. YMMV - big time.
 
Last edited:
2eyesee said:
RLight said:
You can certainly build a M system off EF-S glass, but, I'm going to split from Jared of a popular YouTube channel (who suggests making an M system based off adapted glass) and say EF-M glass makes more sense. EF-M glass capitalizes on the benefits of the M platform. If not, why not go SL3 instead?
Click to expand...
As I indicated in my original post, I do a lot of video, and you can't use the viewfinder for video on a DSLR. Also, the SL3 only uses a 9 point AF system through the viewfinder, so I would probably never use it.

The M50 also seems to have more detail in 1080p video - see my original post.

The M50 also has faster burst speed (9fps vs 5fps). This is important to me photographing my son's cricket, as it will mean having a better chance of getting the perfect shot.

I had seriously considered the SL3, but these factors lead me to favouring the M50. I can also purchase the M50 cheaper than the SL3.
Click to expand...
The M50 is a no brainer vs the SL3. You're spot on.
 
Thanks to everyone for all the feedback - I haven't been able to respond directly to all posts.

One thing that that has happened since I made this post is the announcement of the Fuji X-A7. It looks a possible option for me - great specs on paper at a very affordable price.

Seems very tempting - especially with full sensor width 4K - but a few obvious issues that might still make the M50 a better option:
  • The X-A7 has no viewfinder.
  • Fuji primes are expensive, so on my budget I'd pretty much be restricted to the 2 budget-oriented XC lenses - the 15-45mm and 50-230mm.
  • The X-A7 has slower burst speed (important for me trying to get the perfect shot of my son batting playing cricket)
  • X-A7 base ISO 200 - M50 is 100. Easier to shoot wide open in bright light with ISO 100.
I don't know if anyone has anything else I should consider...
 
2eyesee said:
Thanks to everyone for all the feedback - I haven't been able to respond directly to all posts.

One thing that that has happened since I made this post is the announcement of the Fuji X-A7. It looks a possible option for me - great specs on paper at a very affordable price.

Seems very tempting - especially with full sensor width 4K - but a few obvious issues that might still make the M50 a better option:
  • The X-A7 has no viewfinder.
  • Fuji primes are expensive, so on my budget I'd pretty much be restricted to the 2 budget-oriented XC lenses - the 15-45mm and 50-230mm.
  • The X-A7 has slower burst speed (important for me trying to get the perfect shot of my son batting playing cricket)
  • X-A7 base ISO 200 - M50 is 100. Easier to shoot wide open in bright light with ISO 100.
I don't know if anyone has anything else I should consider..
Click to expand...
See if you are happy with the autofocus performance.
 
Microprism said:
Francis A said:
Alexis said:
The EF 85/1.8 is an absolute gem and I have no idea why it was never classified as an "L" lens .. unless of course I have a particularly good copy.

As for EF-M, look at the 55-200 before getting the heavier, bulkier EF-S equivalent - I think you will be surprised as I was coming from a Canon 70-200 f/4L IS.
Click to expand...
How is the 55-200 M's image quality compared to the 70-200 f4L IS? Have you tried the said L lens on any M camera?
Click to expand...
I have both and lug the L lens around with me. The 55-200mm is very good, but the L has a little bit of extra pizazz that the other hasn't. It is also has a faster constant aperture. Many people love the lighter weight and smaller size of the 55-200mm. It is a very fine optic. But my attitude is that if I'm going to travel somewhere far off and make an effort to take photos, then I don't want to later regret not getting the best result possible due to equipment. There's no wrong, or right approach to this, just individual choice. YMMV - big time.
Click to expand...
We definitely have the same mindset. Especially going overseas. I am quite new to photography and I am at the point where I feel like I may get a full frame sometime in the future and I want to future proof my gears especially lenses. I'm also looking at the used market and where I'm from, a lot are into sony and fuji and canon DSLR so I may have a hard time selling EOS M gears.
 
Francis A said:
Alexis said:
The EF 85/1.8 is an absolute gem and I have no idea why it was never classified as an "L" lens .. unless of course I have a particularly good copy.

As for EF-M, look at the 55-200 before getting the heavier, bulkier EF-S equivalent - I think you will be surprised as I was coming from a Canon 70-200 f/4L IS.
Click to expand...
How is the 55-200 M's image quality compared to the 70-200 f4L IS? Have you tried the said L lens on any M camera?
Click to expand...
Yes I have tried my 70-200 f/4L IS on my M50 and it produces lovely images just as it does on my 5D3, 50D and my daughter's 6D so I know it's a good copy (been shooting weddings with it for the last 8 years!).

I didn't run laboratory tests or pixel pick - just that the EF-M 55-200 produces nice images and if you get the chance try it before you get the EF_S. Your decision at the end of the day.
 
I've gone back and had a look at a comparison I made between EF-M and EF-S lenses when I was looking at the EF-M system about 2 years ago, and thought it might be of interest to others in this thread. This was obviously when I had a lot more time on my hands than I do these days!

Firstly there's the chart, then the data I collected after finding apertures at different focal lengths from various reviews of the lenses in question.





My immediate takeaway is that for my purposes, a mix of EF-M and EF-S lenses is going to give me the best results.

For a long zoom the EF-S 55-250mm is longer, brighter (and cheaper). It comes with added bulk of course, but I'm only going to be taking such a lens to my son's sport - it's not going to be a general walkabout lens.

For the wide angle though, the EF-M 11-22mm looks a better bet than the EF-S 10-18mm. It's brighter across the range, has more range, and much more compact as a walkabout. I could imagine vlogging with the 11-22mm - not so much with the larger 10-18mm + adapter.

Here is the size comparison:


M50 + adapter + EF-S 55-250mm vs M50 + EF-M 55-200mm


M50 + adapter + EF-S 10-18mm vs M50 + EF-M 11-22mm
 

Attachments

  • 3974136.jpg
    3974136.jpg
    128.3 KB · Views: 0
  • 3974137.jpg
    3974137.jpg
    171.3 KB · Views: 0
  • 3974141.jpg
    3974141.jpg
    85.8 KB · Views: 0
  • 3974142.jpg
    3974142.jpg
    79.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Alexis said:
Francis A said:
Alexis said:
The EF 85/1.8 is an absolute gem and I have no idea why it was never classified as an "L" lens .. unless of course I have a particularly good copy.

As for EF-M, look at the 55-200 before getting the heavier, bulkier EF-S equivalent - I think you will be surprised as I was coming from a Canon 70-200 f/4L IS.
Click to expand...
How is the 55-200 M's image quality compared to the 70-200 f4L IS? Have you tried the said L lens on any M camera?
Click to expand...
Yes I have tried my 70-200 f/4L IS on my M50 and it produces lovely images just as it does on my 5D3, 50D and my daughter's 6D so I know it's a good copy (been shooting weddings with it for the last 8 years!).

I didn't run laboratory tests or pixel pick - just that the EF-M 55-200 produces nice images and if you get the chance try it before you get the EF_S. Your decision at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Copy that. Thank you for the advice. Much appreciated.

Cheers!
 
Nice graphics and information! Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Canon refurb Sale: EF-M 15-45 $69, EF-S 55-250 $139, M200 kit $360
Replies
2
Views
68
JKotva
J
2
Does it make sense to start a system with used EF lenses?
Replies
5
Views
67
Tom Caldwell
T
2
Does it make sense to start a system with used EF lenses?
Replies
16
Views
186
Off The Mark
O
thetoolman
Refurbished by Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens $99.00
Replies
18
Views
134
palombian
P
L
Summary of lenses used with the M system
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Maxmolly7
Maxmolly7

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