Hmm. Have we seen the end of EF/EF-S lenses?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18792783
I also bought the EF to EFM adapter, but then bought the speedbooster that is basically the same thing but reduces the crop from 1.6 to 1.2 and adds a stop of light to the combo. Results are very, very good....

Does the speed-booster work well with fish-eye lenses (sharpness / no extra distortion)?

Fish eye lenses aren't in my wheelhouse.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18792953
1) The speedbooster does not accept EFS lenses. It is however, thinner, than the EF to EFM converter, since there is a glass element involved to create a .71x teleconverter effect.

2) Did you know that the M50, like the EOS R, will autofocus a lens like the 100-400 II or 150-600 with the 2XIII on it at f11? Nice!

3) Here is a 5D4 vs M50 with speedbooster. Don't mind the colors, I think I caught my cycling lights different in each, and I don't think the M50 has flicker detection. I have to look.

The M50 has a 1.1 crop with this booster. I shot the 50 1.4 at f1.0 with the booster. The OOF areas in the distance are definitely different with a FF look (and actually objects are more OOF despite a 1.1 crop factor with the M50).

I really enjoy this booster, and have used it more than the EF adapter. Not a bad little tool for $150 USD, and lives up to the hype that this turns the M series cameras into little baby FF bodies, with even more OOF backgrounds than the FF equiv.

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=187​92953&i=i63530876
forum: Canon Lenses

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=187​92953&i=i116143878
forum: Canon Lenses

I think there is a mixup. There are no camera bodies attached to the lenses

It would be interesting for me to marry the M50 with the EF-S 18-200, thus getting a more versatile all around lens with an effective f4.

To marry an M50 with the EF 24-70 with an effective f2 may sound interesting, but the long end would be too short to be useful and if I have to carry the EF 70-200 MkII as well, it's not worth it...

When I travel, I usually have times I need a very small package, and sometimes I have time to really take scenic or wildlife photos, so the small camera and its lenses work for one part of the trip and the 2 EF lenses and adapter for the other, with AF at f11.

I can't do that with my 7d2 and 5div.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18793012
When I travel, I usually have times I need a very small package, and sometimes I have time to really take scenic or wildlife photos, so the small camera and its lenses work for one part of the trip and the 2 EF lenses and adapter for the other, with AF at f11.

I can't do that with my 7d2 and 5div.

i'm super intrigued by this whole thing...i see what looks like the same brand as yours on ebay, is that where you got yours at?

Yes, I bought from this seller and had it in just a few days.

https://www.ebay.com …wAAOSwF~hb7DnI:​rk:47:pf:0

Imagine any small EF, pancake sized lens on the M series with this adapter and have it a stop faster and 1.1 crop.

Also, I picked up a Rokinon 50 1.2 EFM lens, it is very fun and very small. My Sigma 50 1.4 is pretty large, this lens is 1/2 the size and doesn't require any adapter.

Just like I would spend 150.00 on a 1.4x TC, it makes sense to spend 160.00 on a .71x TC that also doubles as an EF to EFM adapter, and gives me FF-like view and DOF.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18793063
Just like I would spend 150.00 on a 1.4x TC, it makes sense to spend 160.00 on a .71x TC that also doubles as an EF to EFM adapter, and gives me FF-like view and DOF.

So, to those who always quip, "there's no free lunch!", how do you respond? I take it for granted that the APS-C sensor limits the total amount of image light at base ISO, based on size, but is there any optical weakness that you can see, introduced by the optics? If the adapter worked ideally, it would increase lines pairs per mm at a standard contrast by 1.4x, making results at the pixel level on the M50 about as sharp as the bare lens on a 29MP FF sensor.

OK, I just thought of one possible gotcha; a fast lens (f/2.8 becomes f/2) gets too fast, and more light is lost to the microlens/FSI sensor arrangement. With the M50's pixel size, I would guess that somewhere around f/2.8 (maybe at, or just below), as you get faster, more light is lost. Same with OVF AF sensors that don't see extra light when you go faster than f/2.8. This issue will disappear if Canon goes BSI with future M sensors.

The center of the frame seems quite good indeed on all the tests I have run through the booster. However the edges suffer. I have a tendency to shoot more things where I want the center sharp so that doesn't bother me as much. The tell-tale image would be a good landscape comparison between the booster+M50 and the 5D4 at 24mm to see how the edges differ, but I am sure the booster'ed photo will show worse artifacts.

I plan on using this more for portraiture with the booster though, so that bothers me little, those that shoot scenic photos probably wouldn't have a fondness for the booster.

I can try to run a quick test this weekend provided I don't freeze to death taking the shots and swapping gear around.

The beauty of this though is you can get effects on the M APS-C series with this booster than you cannot with the same lenses on any other APS-C. In fact the OOF effect is greater even than using the lens natively on the FF. This is one of the reasons I moved my travel camera and gear from the SL2 to the M50.

My reasons to switch from the SL2 to the M50: smaller body yet, smaller lenses, better AF with 500+pts, peak focusing, easier use of MF lenses, speedbooster usage, f11 AF, very small light M lenses, with the same sensor, eye AF, silent shooting (limited usability though), touch screen and tilt of the SL2. The M50 is a MUCH better platform than the SL2 IMO, the booster and its effects are just icing on the cake. The booster + M50 combo removed my desire to try out the EOS R, and give Canon time to come out with their next models.

For example the last time I went to Disney, I took big gear with me. Now I can take the M50 and 15-45 and maybe the 55-200, the entire combination fits in a very tiny bag because the total bulk is just a little big bigger than just my 5D4 and grip. Then when I walk around their nature areas, I can pull out the adapter and 100-400 (and the 2xIII) to get better images of the wildlife, and even go to 800mm with AF. I can pop on the 24-70 and the CF tripod, and remote capture a nice family picture.

If I buy the 22mm EFM lens, the entire camera and lens easily fits into a pocket as well, but I am trying to hold off buying the lens. Finally, the other lens that intrigues me is their macro lens with built in dual macro LED lights around the front element, another offering that has no EF or EFS counterpart.

This is why I am sure the EF and EFS lenses will cease to exist slowly over the coming years, but I am not so sure about the EFM mount. There is a reason Canon designed the EOS R to not accept EF M. In fact they made sure the tolerances/delta between the flange distances to be so small, there would be no way to design an adapter by 3rd party companies. They could have easily added to the flange distance and shortened their EF/EFS to RF adapters and didn't. They also made sure that there was a way to use EF and EFS lenses on the EOS R bodies going forward, but completely excluded the EFM lenses. This is why I feel they want the crop consumer line to be COMPLETELY independent of the RF bodies/lenses, so that you have to buy twice the glass if you want both formats and the way to do that is to expand the M series as the Rebel line with EFM lenses, and then the 5D/7D/1D series will be RF mount.

Using the Rokinon 50 1.2 (great little MF lens, paid $250)

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18793063
Yes, I bought from this seller and had it in just a few days.

https://www.ebay.com …wAAOSwF~hb7DnI:​rk:47:pf:0

Imagine any small EF, pancake sized lens on the M series with this adapter and have it a stop faster and 1.1 crop.

Also, I picked up a Rokinon 50 1.2 EFM lens, it is very fun and very small. My Sigma 50 1.4 is pretty large, this lens is 1/2 the size and doesn't require any adapter.

Just like I would spend 150.00 on a 1.4x TC, it makes sense to spend 160.00 on a .71x TC that also doubles as an EF to EFM adapter, and gives me FF-like view and DOF.

Thanks, is it crazy that i'm imagining it on my biggest lens ߘ...i do see the travel benefits though

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18793274
The beauty of this though is you can get effects on the M APS-C series with this booster than you cannot with the same lenses on any other APS-C. In fact the OOF effect is greater even than using the lens natively on the FF. This is one of the reasons I moved my travel camera and gear from the SL2 to the M50.

That's a strange thing, as I would expect the outer aperture to have reduced transmission to the photosites at f/0.85.

Love image #1. Too bad MF scares a lot of people away from the Rokinon brand, it's good glass.

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18793518
Love image #1. Too bad MF scares a lot of people away from the Rokinon brand, it's good glass.

I just went from a 42" tv to a 58" and I still can't read on screen text without glasses. Critical focus on the camera LCD or even the OVF - not gonna happen. At least not without focus aids like the 'R' has.

YMMV of course.

Rod

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18793518
Love image #1. Too bad MF scares a lot of people away from the Rokinon brand, it's good glass.

Focus peaking makes manual focus so very easy on the M50, making such a cheap but good lens very management.

Here is the M50 with the 24-70L at f2.0 with 100% crops from a couple areas along the edges of the frame. It is at ISO 4000 and NR is killing a bit of the detail, lower ISO would render detail a bit better, but with a 6000x4000 image, this is quite good for the effect the booster brings to the table. CA would be a concern I have with it though, and will require different conditions to test.

A bit of vignette is showing at 70 wide open however.

Some sports shots with the M50, speedbooster and the 24-70 at f2

I am SOLD on the RF system after seeing the images coming out of the 50mm f/1.2. I am not sure how much of the optical improvement is from the benefits of the RF mount and closer distance to the sensor and how much is just from generalized improvements in design and manufacturing tolerances.

Once the issues with the mirrorless design such as focus tracking and digital viewfinder are improved and worked out, the EF mount bodies will slowly die off. Thankfully, the lenses will still be useful.