Sittatunga wrote:
MAC wrote:
Sittatunga wrote:
MAC wrote:
Rock and Rollei wrote:
MAC wrote:
R2D2 wrote:
dan the man p wrote:
Son of Thunder wrote:
Now not even be biased why did the M-Mount not get the new sigma lens. Sony makes some great aps-c camera but none of them outsell the M50. The R mount is highly guarded I get that but canon really aren't introducing a lot of glass for the M-mount let somebody do it.
I don't know how true this is, but I've heard that Sigma does production runs in one mount before moving to the next. So they may make a bunch for Sony E-Mount and then produce some for EF-M. That's what I'm hoping anyway. I do believe that they released the Sigma trio of primes for Canon after Sony, so there is some precedence for that. However, if that does happen, it could still be a couple years before we get it.
A big +1
Don’t count out an EF-M version just yet! It’s going to be hugely useful even without stabilization (I’ve shot with that range for years). I’m buying on announcement!
R2
if they do it, it will be hard to resist
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC DN Contemporary Review - YouTube
Not for me. I really do need 15mm. The number of times I've bought standard zooms that don't cover 24mm FFE and then not used them enough to justify it isn't funny, so I think this time, I've learned my lesson. But it looks so good....
to make it small they did that I guess
I agree on the 24 mm. 24 mm is essential for me. And IS would be nice. This is why I have the RP + RF 24-105 F4 IS. So for me it would be easier to resist because my RP setup is relatively small with such great IQ at 24 mm. An M5II with IBIS might get me there. But Canon doesn't seem interested in this m mount which is further reason to pause. Unfortunate, because small is where it will be at down the road. I guess if they put a new FF sensor in the RP that is as good as the M6II sensor, but a FF version, and they gave the RP all the speed elements of the M6II, and they gave it a great e-shutter implementation, all for $850, then I'd probably use the FF more.
I don't think it's the mount that bores Canon so much as the format. EOS M has got a workable range of slow, small zooms, a smattering of fast small primes and pretty well native access to EF for fast teles and specialist lenses. Job done for Canon, they have been making it obvious from the start that they see EOS M as a small system for non-enthusiasts and for people wanting a small complement to their FF cameras.
where did they say "non-enthusiasts"? Why did they introduce the 32 f1.4, a pro lens, or the m6II with 14 fps, if it was for "non-enthusiasts".
They didn't say anything, but actions speak louder than words. There are people who want a decent camera rather than a phone, that don't have photography as their main hobby. I would class them as "non-enthusiasts" - interested enough but not their main focus.
Perhaps you missed my word and.
yes I missed it, sorry
The 32mm is a great lens by all accounts, but I already have a 50mm f/2.3 equivalent for my FF cameras and it's a quarter of the price.
I've had 5 Canon 50's (2- 50 f1.4's and 3- 50 F1.8's). I had to stop them down to F2.8 to get the sharpness of the 32 f1.4 wide open (which is the FF equivalent of F2.2)
this lens is a must for me after 20 years of disappointment from Canon with a reasonably priced 50 mm
The M6II is a fantastic camera, but I'm not prepared to pay £1150 for an APS-C camera or even £890 body only without the EVF. Lots of people are though, and Canon will no doubt accommodate them if enough people go out and buy that end of the range.
I love 1) the small size of the m6II; 2) the fps speed 3) the great focus of the spot focus 4) the touch and drag with the evf 5) the e-shutter up to ss 1/16,000 in direct sunlight and 6) the use of my 32, 100L, toki 10-17 and 55-250 stm with the m6II and DXO PL5
Something like this Sigma would be a worthy addition. 18-50mm is a nice range for me, though I'd prefer it to go to 62mm for portraits.
the 50 mm is FF equivalent of 80 mm F4.5 which is decent for subject isolation. the 18-50 would be nice combined with the m6II low light focus capability and DXO PL5
In FF I prefer 100mm to 85mm for the more relaxed working distance, but otherwise I agree.
I have used my 100L for over a decade as my portrait lens. I just added the RF 85 F2 L in the last year. I need IS at these focal lengths and these FF lenses give me that
That would probably make the lens too big though. I have difficulty with 15-45mm because I find the 35-50mm range difficult to use on APS-C and not that interesting - things only start to get interesting for me beyond 55mm. A really tiny fast 15-35mm would perhaps be fun, but it wouldn't sell that well and I'd probably stick to my 11-22mm for the IS.
I'm still on the fence about the 11-22. I would only use 11-14 since I have the RF 24-105 F4 IS on the RP. I'm waiting for the 18-45 for the RP
The 11-22mm is just about distortion free at 22mm (see OpticalLimits' review) and it's the range's masterpiece IMO. It still makes sense to have an M with that lens attached in my coat pocket while I'm out with a FF camera, it's that good and compact, and the 22mm end gets it onto the general purpose lens category.
The 18-45mm would be its FF equivalent, if effectively a little faster and longer reaching, and probably more expensive, but I'm more interested in the 16mm prime as my 16-35mm fits my DSLR too.
When the 18-45 comes out, I'll evaluate whether to get the 18-45 or the 11-22. The M6II sensor is good dynamic range at iso100 -- my RP is not. I will have to decide at that time. I'm leaning toward the 11-22. And then maybe the 16.
