So... I am wedding photographer, my first camera is the R6 and the M6 mark ii is my backup camera. I love the quality of the M6mark2 and the Efm 32mm 1.4... I already have some Canon L glass like Rf 85mm 1.2L DS and Ef 35mm 1.4L ii but i need some good quality native lens for the M series. I have already two bad experience using adaptor to EF lens so right now I will sell my EF lenses and buy only Rf L lens or future good quality Efm. Anyone know if will be soon release native lenses for EFM?
EF-M Lens 2021 or future...
- Thread starter elias723
- Start date
At this point, there is no reliable information about the EF-M ecosystem's future available.
Some things point to it disappear, some to the opposite.
Just be aware that each opinion you'll get on this is speculation and currently waiting for Canon to reveal more of their mirrorless plans is the only way to learn more. Unfortunately, the pandemic seems to have slowed that down a lot.
Some things point to it disappear, some to the opposite.
Just be aware that each opinion you'll get on this is speculation and currently waiting for Canon to reveal more of their mirrorless plans is the only way to learn more. Unfortunately, the pandemic seems to have slowed that down a lot.
Upvote
0
Joules answer is pretty spot on.
There are some third party native EF-M lenses out there. I use a Tamron 18-200mm myself, but there are some primes made by other companies including a 56mm, and I sense you'd be more interested in those.
There are some third party native EF-M lenses out there. I use a Tamron 18-200mm myself, but there are some primes made by other companies including a 56mm, and I sense you'd be more interested in those.
Upvote
0
I already have the Sigma 56mm 1.4... Im not interested in any zoom without constant aperture.
Upvote
0
Well, the EF-M mount was never going to get a constant aperture zoom in any case. Although not part of any official marketing I'm aware of, they have committed to making each lens the same outer diameter. And that restricts them to only very limited lens parameters. This commitment to size does not work well for constant aperture zooms like f/4 oder f/2.8.
Upvote
0
In fact, I have difficulty seeing what they could make that they don't already make, and stay within that diameter. (Other than of course, 25mm or 30 mm or something else like that wedged in between two existing lenses.)
Oh, sure they could make a 300 mm f/8...maybe. Maybe it'd have to be f/11.
Fortunately adapters don't bother me and neither does the Tamron zoom, which is native EF-M. (I couldn't even tell you its f-stop range without going and looking.) I'm even willing to be seen in public with an EF 100-400 II L (with adapter) on the M6-II.
(Edit: f/3.5 to f/6.3)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Then you’re in the wrong ecosystem. Sony or Fuji is where you should look if you want to stay with APS-C. Personally, I went to Fuji after shooting the M system since the original M and the last was an M6 for 3 years. I even tried a EOS R for two months but it was just too bulky and heavy and I was never happy processing the images from it. All that to say there are a lot of choices out there now. The M system is one where if you aren’t happy with what they currently offer don’t hold out hope for something new as it’s anyone’s guess as to the future of the M.
Upvote
0
A zoom with a constant aperture? Really? You'd take a 4.0 over a 2.0-4.0?
Because realistically, that's the sort of choice you'd be offered. Sure, they could make the 2.0-4.0 into a constant 2.0 (by making the lens much, much larger) but then one would wonder why they couldn't make the short end a higher aperture with all that glass.
I suspect (and I'm going to put this out there, in the hopes that if I am wrong someone will correct me, because I really do want to know) that they make constant aperture zooms by crippling the short end.
Upvote
0
It depends on the lens design. The things to keep in mind are that 1) the aperture = FL/f-number is the formula for a ‘thin lens’ (a useful model to understand optics, but real lenses are complex designs), and 2) that thin lens equation applies not to the physical aperture but to the virtual aperture (aka entrance pupil, the image of the physical aperture as viewed looking through the front element).
So, for a lens like a 70-200/2.8 the physical aperture is actually ~25mm (70/2.8), with zooming optics in front of the physical aperture. A wide zoom like a 16-35/2.8 is essentially a 16/2.8 with the reverse-zooming optics behind the physical aperture. So in those cases there’s no crippling, but maybe you’re not getting as much glass as you thought...
However, for a wide-to-tele zoom like a 24-70/2.8, the physical aperture is ~25mm (70/2.8) and the iris diaphragm is connected to the zooming mechanism with a cam such that the iris is closed as the FL is shortened. So in that case the short end is ‘crippled’, without the cam you’d have a variable aperture zoom of 24-70mm f/0.96-2.8. But ‘crippled’ only in the sense of maximum aperture – the aberrations at 24mm f/0.96 would be extreme because the optics aren’t designed to correct them, possibly bad enough to render the image unusable and certainly bad enough to contravene the L designation.
Upvote
0
I think the EF-M series will die a silent slow dead. You can see it with the M50 II, which is just a firmware update.
I sold most of my native EF-M lenses now while they are still worth anything.
But will keep my M50 with EF adapter. That way I'm able to use my (Sigma) EF-S lenses since there isn't (yet) any crop R body.
I sold most of my native EF-M lenses now while they are still worth anything.
But will keep my M50 with EF adapter. That way I'm able to use my (Sigma) EF-S lenses since there isn't (yet) any crop R body.
Upvote
0
Well the good news is, none of those EF-M lenses were hugely expensive to begin with. I suppose, though, that "expensive" is in the eye of the beholder, but given that I've dropped over $2,000 (US) on other lenses, that makes the EF-M ones seem not so bad. Enough that I'm willing to own them for a few years and not be too concerned about whether I can get money back from them, I've gotten value enough just from using them.
I'm certainly very glad I can adapt my 100-400 EF mark II to EF-M cameras...that being, after all one of those $2000 lenses.
I'm not seeing any reason to dispose of any of my EF-M gear, that's for certain (if I did, it might be the two primes I have, or that 15-45 kit lens; I use them a lot less). I'm much more likely to take my M6-II on an airline trip than my R5, that's for sure. (On a road trip, I have a lot more room for things.)
Upvote
0
I'm debating what to do with my M system. I purchased the M5 and the 11-22, 18-150, 22mm f2, 32mm 1.4. I don't own much EF glass anymore, I bought a Canon R6 with many RF zoom and prime lenses. Even for a family trip, I'm thinking to bring the R6 with 24-105 F4 and maybe RF15-35 and a small lightweight prime like RF 35mm 1.8. Now I'm debating if I should sell my whole M kit, or upgrade the body from Canon M5 to M6 ii, and maybe get a wide fast prime like sigma 16mm 1.4 as a lighter weight kit to the R6. After using the R6, I can feel the M5 AF is definitely too slow for capturing my kids or fast motion. The M6ii AF looks much more similar to the R6 in terms of feature set. The weight difference of R6 + RF24-105 is not that much compared to the M5 and a few lenses, plus the 24-105 can produce much shallower DOF almost equivalent to the primes on the APS-C M5 sensor due to the full frame sensor. I'd be curious to see what others that own both R series body and M series are doing.
Upvote
0
Hanging on to both. I should add that on my M6-II I use a Tamron 18-200 (native EF-M mount), rather than the limited ranges offered by the Canon lenses. It's obviously fatter than the Canon lenses, but the camera is all around useful in a not-outrageously-huge size. That likely makes a huge difference; were I to confine myself to those Canon "long" zooms, it'd be a lot less usable.
I probably have more occasion to use it than my R5, honestly.
But when you want an R5, you really want an R5, so I won't be ditching it either.
Upvote
0
Thanks, do you feel the LCD responsiveness, shutter and AF is similar to the R5 on the M6ii? I'm thinking to sell the M5 and get the M6ii, I don't really use the viewfinder that much on the small mirrorless, when I do it's usually for pro work on the R6. I'd rather have the faster LCD and AF. The sigma 1.4 native EF-M prime lenses look very interesting for the small M6ii body. The other option is to get a Canon RP as backup for the R6 but I lose the versatility of the small kit with EF-M lenses. So I like you approach of keeping both.
Upvote
0
I really don't use the back LCD much. The autofocus is not as good, which is no surprise, but I find it adequate for the mostly-still subject shooting I do. (On the other hand I did a teeny bit of birding with the M6-II and a 100-400 lens the other day and nothing came in focus when I looked (and cropped!) later. Me or the camera? Probably me.)
To be honest I would have bought an M5-II given the choice; more controls, a viewfinder, and a full flippy screen (I like being able to protect the LCD). The detachable viewfinder lives on my M6-II; the other stuff I live with.
Upvote
0
I've been debating about what to get for my smaller APS-C kit replacement, I sold my Canon M5 because it was too outdated in terms of AF and EVF speed/experience. I still have many EF-M lenses but I feel Canon might abandon the M series line which makes me debate investing into another body. I'm sort of waiting to see if they will come up with a M5ii but losing hope. The Canon M6ii looks good besides no built-in EVF and I like Canon's wifi cloud upload feature where it uploads automatically to Lightroom CC mobile/desktop.
I see the Fuji X-T4 looks very good and has a nice lens line-up compared to the M-series and weather sealed, more pro focused. The only downside to my workflow is I don't see that Fuji has some type of automatic wifi upload, maybe besides save to computer? Will it save all the RAW images to the computer and keep track of which ones have been downloaded? Normally I just come back home and press the wifi button and just let it work it's magic, a little later everything is in Lightroom. I'd be curious what's your workflow for Fuji users.
The other alternative is to just keep my Canon R6 as single body solution and stick with smaller lightweight primes when I want a lightweight kit or get the new RP replacement soon to come in 2021. But there aren't too many lightweight RF primes yet besides RF35mm 1.8 and RF85mm F2. I'm hoping for some type of RF24mm 1.8 that would be lighter to carry than the EF24mm 1.4Lii.
My 2 priorities are having shallow depth of field ability, ease of uploading images to Lightroom CC with a good workflow, and lightweight. Anybody made the switch from EOS-M to Fuji and can describe their experience?
I see the Fuji X-T4 looks very good and has a nice lens line-up compared to the M-series and weather sealed, more pro focused. The only downside to my workflow is I don't see that Fuji has some type of automatic wifi upload, maybe besides save to computer? Will it save all the RAW images to the computer and keep track of which ones have been downloaded? Normally I just come back home and press the wifi button and just let it work it's magic, a little later everything is in Lightroom. I'd be curious what's your workflow for Fuji users.
The other alternative is to just keep my Canon R6 as single body solution and stick with smaller lightweight primes when I want a lightweight kit or get the new RP replacement soon to come in 2021. But there aren't too many lightweight RF primes yet besides RF35mm 1.8 and RF85mm F2. I'm hoping for some type of RF24mm 1.8 that would be lighter to carry than the EF24mm 1.4Lii.
My 2 priorities are having shallow depth of field ability, ease of uploading images to Lightroom CC with a good workflow, and lightweight. Anybody made the switch from EOS-M to Fuji and can describe their experience?
Upvote
0
I moved from a M50, which I loved, to the Fujifilm X-S10 and have no regrets. To your questions -
- Fuji's wifi upload is less sophisticated than Canon's, that is a downside. That said it will upload to a phone, tablet or computer and it does keep track of what has already been uploaded. The one drawback vs Canon's is that it will sort them into folders based on date, but all get dumped into a single folder with the oldest date. If you do multiple days of shooting and do an upload only at the end (say, vacation shots) you will get all into one folder with the earliest date of the new photos and have to manually move photos into other folders with other dates. It's a small annoyance that hopefully they fix.
- The phone app is not as good as Canon's either, it works but.......seriously folks. It's fine for geotagging and remote shutter but don't expect much more than that.
- On the plus side, Fuji's JPEG engine is phenomenal. It's super common now for me to do only three operations in Capture One: mild crop/rotate, auto adjust exposure, export. Often no need to do anything due to how good thier JPEG processing is. Straight out of camera is a reality with Fuji.
- You will need to get used to the AF, it is not nearly as automated as Canon's although now that I'm getting the hang of it I'd say it's not actually worse per say, it just requires more intent and learning of the different modes.
Also, quite frankly, no lens on EF-M grabbed me as much as the XF56mmF1.2 has. I find myself using it in inappropriate situations, like street photography, simply because the images it produces are so gorgeous. The closest equivalent was the EF-M 32mmF1.4 and it's not really in the same league.
I still recommend the M50 to new photographers, it's a great starting point. But when the EF-M system starts to constrain, I think Fuji is the next step for people who don't really value the full frame 'look' but instead want portability, lower prices and pro level features.
Side note: Getting Capture One for free with Fuji is a very nice benefit. It's every bit as good as Lightroom although a bit different. I wish Canon would make a deal like that with C1 or Adobe as it's enormously helpful and saves users a LOT of money.
Upvote
0
I have a bunch of Canon and third-party EF-M + EF-S lenses. Love them to bits. I have looked at other systems (including Canon's very own RF stuff). As far as price, size, weight and performance are concerned, it's difficult to replicate what I have right now. An update of the EOS M50 Mark II with the M6 Mark II sensor will be nice. Apart from that, I have no other wishes. The M50 Mark II face and eye detection AF tracking are plenty good for me.
Rokinon EF-M 8mm f/2.8 Fisheye II MF 290g
Laowa EF-M 9mm f/2.8 MF 215g
Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM 105g
Viltrox EF-M 23mm f/1.4 STM 260g
Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM 235g
Viltrox EF-M 56mm f/1.4 STM 290g
Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 IS STM Macro 190g
Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM 240g
Canon EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM 130g
Tamron EF-S 17-50mm f/2.8 AF 430g
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS STM 215g
Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM 300g
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM 375g
Rokinon EF-M 8mm f/2.8 Fisheye II MF 290g
Laowa EF-M 9mm f/2.8 MF 215g
Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM 105g
Viltrox EF-M 23mm f/1.4 STM 260g
Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM 235g
Viltrox EF-M 56mm f/1.4 STM 290g
Canon EF-S 35mm f/2.8 IS STM Macro 190g
Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM 240g
Canon EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM 130g
Tamron EF-S 17-50mm f/2.8 AF 430g
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS STM 215g
Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM 300g
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM 375g
Upvote
0
