Sorry that it would not have IS.
Too bad no short telephoto lens 50-75 f2.8 IS. There is already 22/2 and 35/3.5
If this is anything like the 22 F2, i.e. small and light, it will be worth getting. I have the 35 F2 IS, which works really well on the M, but I could see myself using this one more, just for the form factor. Most of my use of the 35 is for people, so I have to set the shutter speed to at least 1/100, just to cut down on subject movement (even when someone thinks they aren't moving, they really are). So the IS is not so important (it's still good to have, though). As for the 35 F3.5, that's a macro lens, and considerably larger than the 22. If the 32 is around the same size as the 22, or just a bit larger, the size factor and the extra 2 stops of light will easily distinguish it from the 35 F3.5.
Hey, guys. not 35/3.5, but 28/3.5
If it doesn't have IS, it doesn't need to be as big as those two. The 50 F1.8STM is pretty small, almost a pancake, and that's a full frame lens. I don't see why a 32 F1.8 STM in EF-M mount couldn't be almost as small.Hey, guys. not 35/3.5, but 28/3.5
Sony E 35mm 1.8 OSS vs Canon EF-M 28mm 3.5 IS
Thinking that Sony has 35mm 1.8 OSS, I expected Canon to release the similar thing.
Do you think that Canon's 32mm 1.8 (I do not think it's aperture is 1.4) is as small as 22mm 2.0? I expect it looks like EFM 28mm 3.5 IS or Sony E 35 1.8 OSS.
anorcross.smugmug.com
I am thinking that the point of M cameras is being casual and lightweight.
Actually, no you don't. I've had the EF 85 F1.8 for over ten years, and used it with the 20D, 50D, 7D, 7DII, M, and M6. Never had any problems getting the eye I wanted in focus, even wide open. The superb AF of the 7DII, with its 65 cross-type points, certainly makes that even easier than previous DSLR systems, but they coped perfectly well too, even the 9 points of the 20D. The M and M6 also work really well with that lens. I'm sure eye detect focusing is a fine feature, but it's hilarious how some people immediately assume that cameras that don't have it can't reliably achieve focus on eyes.
Dear Sir. The number of DSLR's you owned is not relevant here. The forum and this discussion is about M
Agree, in family events situations I tried the 22 and the 40. I felt like the sweet spot was something in between.
Like Alastair, I find the EF 85 1.8 accurate and very useful on my M5. It is one of my favorite combinations and I would welcome a newer and/or smaller version. IS and shorter minimum focus distance would be welcome too, f2 or f2.8 would be acceptable as a size compromise.
Canon's 28mm f/1.8 was introduced in 1985 and according to the reviews isn't significantly better than the older Sigma EX 30mm f/1.4 though it's slightly smaller and two thirds the weight. A better bet would be the smaller 28mm f/2.8 IS dating from 2012. While the f/1.8 is probably long overdue for an update, I can't see an EF-S version coming as it wouldn't be significantly smaller than the current IS lens. An EF-M version would be tasty but it would have some stiff competition from the existing macro lens.
I cannot agree on this statement. The focus point showed on the DSLR viewfinder is actually larger than the dot. When I was doing some very precise (AF precision demanding) shooting, I found many DSLR cameras utterly useless for my needs and intentions. On the other hand, the old M worked "lightyears" better.
You do. it´s hard to focus on eye with most cameras, but I don´t see M cameras to be worse. Not at all. I found it significantly better than many DSLRs though.
That´s how I go at it too, and only because I haven´t find reliable focusing system, which wouldn´t have any other massive flaws (Sony is no-go for me).
