We know that Canon is investing a lot of money in R-series lenses. We also know that this year it is not expected to launch any lens for the EF series unless the market demands it. But what do we know for the M series in this year 2020? I have seen patents of the Fisheye lens, I also saw several zoom lenses (which really do not look attractive since they do not have a constant aperture zoom), but these are lenses that despite being patented are still kept in mystery. We know that this year they are going to launch two new cameras of the M series, and yes, we need a super camera with good iso, good battery, viewfinder, ibis ... but even more what we need are lenses for our system. Using an adapter adds weight to the camera.
I'd like to see this as well but I question whether we will. From my perspective the M6 Mark II changed the game in the M line, and there need to be more lenses to support it. The 11-22, and the 22/32 primes do well. Outside of that I haven't been impressed. The Sigma EF-M mounts perform well however. I have the 56mm and the 30mm and use them frequently.
Upvote
0
I have the 28mm macro, 32mm 1.4, Sigma 56mm 1.4 and Ef s 17-55mm 2.8
I love the 32mm and the 56mm but we need some zoom with constant aperture zoom. I love my M50 because i can use the viewfinder and the godox on camera flash at the same time... you cant do that with m6ii
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 378664
Guest
In your first post you complain about the added weight caused by an adapter. But constant aperture zooms do the same. They add weight that only a few people would accept. Such zoom lenses do need a greater barrel diameter due to bigger lenses than the current standard EF-M barrel diameter. And glass is probably heavier than an adapter.I have the 28mm macro, 32mm 1.4, Sigma 56mm 1.4 and Ef s 17-55mm 2.8
I love the 32mm and the 56mm but we need some zoom with constant aperture zoom. I love my M50 because i can use the viewfinder and the godox on camera flash at the same time... you cant do that with m6ii
Imagine the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 for EF-M mount. I think this will be too heavy for most EF-M target users. So there is no business case for such a lens.
Would you be satisfied with a 17-55 f/4? This probably could be build light enough but than on the other hand it won't be fast enough for the more enthusiast M users.
Frank
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Canon's road map for the development of the M system is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. The IQ from the cameras has always been excellent from a size perspective and been continually evolving in performance with each new body's release. Lenses are a different matter. My desirables:
53 f/1.8 IS
63 f/2.8 IS macro
17-50 f/4 IS
53 f/1.8 IS
63 f/2.8 IS macro
17-50 f/4 IS
Upvote
0
I'm pretty happy with the EF-M lenses already out there, the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 fills the gap that I had. But like you, I do wish for a 60-ish mm IS macro lens, f/3.5 would be fine.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 378664
Guest
I sometimes use the EF-S 60 Macro on the adapter with my M5. I find it usable with regard to the weight. When used on a tripod the weight is less an issue.
Frank
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 378664
Guest
Recently I bought the Tamron 17-35 F/2.8-4 for my 6DMII. It is a Lens designed for fullformat. But it also is quit reasonable usable on the M5. Not too heavy. This in f/1.8 or f/2 would be, at least in my opinion, too bulky even when it is only designed for APS-C.
Frank
Upvote
0
I started with the original M and now use the M6II/M5 for everyday, hiking, and travel with the complete set of EF-M lenses. I like the small form factor of both the bodies and the lenses. I use a 1DXII and L's for more serious photography.
Always mounted or in my bag in order of use: 32, 11-22, 70-300L, 18-150, 28macro, 22. Lesser used 15-45, 55-200 (when I'm ultralight hiking), 18-55 (on an M3 in my office for white board captures and random photos).
The only real shortcomings for me are longer primes with large apertures and telephotos. I occasionally mount EF prime lenses like 85 f/1.4 IS to shoot indoors (candlelight church service at Christmas recently along with the 32 - the 1DXII shutter is too loud). I found the 100-400L hard to hand hold with the M's, but the lighter 70-300L has been great and fits in my camera bag for the Ms. Sometimes I wish I had kept the EF-S 55-250, but gave it away with my T2i a while back to someone just getting into photography. It would be my other choice for a telephoto zoom on the M series, as it's sharper and even cheaper than the EF-M.
Always mounted or in my bag in order of use: 32, 11-22, 70-300L, 18-150, 28macro, 22. Lesser used 15-45, 55-200 (when I'm ultralight hiking), 18-55 (on an M3 in my office for white board captures and random photos).
The only real shortcomings for me are longer primes with large apertures and telephotos. I occasionally mount EF prime lenses like 85 f/1.4 IS to shoot indoors (candlelight church service at Christmas recently along with the 32 - the 1DXII shutter is too loud). I found the 100-400L hard to hand hold with the M's, but the lighter 70-300L has been great and fits in my camera bag for the Ms. Sometimes I wish I had kept the EF-S 55-250, but gave it away with my T2i a while back to someone just getting into photography. It would be my other choice for a telephoto zoom on the M series, as it's sharper and even cheaper than the EF-M.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
A short FL macro might be interesting but the bigger hole for me is a telephoto zoom. I haven’t tried the 55-200 but the 18-150 doesn’t impress me. I’m considering giving the efs 55-250 a look to see how it performs.
I would love to have the 11-22, 30, and 55-200 or 250 as a travel kit.
I have used the 180mm 3.5 macro on the M6 II and quite like it
I would love to have the 11-22, 30, and 55-200 or 250 as a travel kit.
I have used the 180mm 3.5 macro on the M6 II and quite like it
Upvote
0
*looks at the great adapter to EF glass*
*shrugs*
Honestly, I personallly could hardly care less and I suspect with the number of adapters they sell, most M6 II buyers I think are the same. Discusions that "small" is what the M line is supposed to have dont seem to wash that well esp when you have a number of M6 II owners here putting on big L glass teles and not caring for one second.
*shrugs*
Honestly, I personallly could hardly care less and I suspect with the number of adapters they sell, most M6 II buyers I think are the same. Discusions that "small" is what the M line is supposed to have dont seem to wash that well esp when you have a number of M6 II owners here putting on big L glass teles and not caring for one second.
Upvote
0
F4 is like F4 equivalent on crop sensor cameras from the light gathering ability perspective
Your exposure will be identical regardless crop sensor or full frame.
The only difference is a bokeh quality and DOF.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
