the exceptional EF-M 11-22 IS

kevindar wrote:

I really appreciate the time and effort in the post.

However, as another poster said, I am a bit baffled by your comparison. for example you picked the nikon 14-24 to be much better, and 16-35II to be much worse in the corners. I own both lenses, they are pretty close at f8, and I wont even consider 14-24 much better in the corners at f8 than 16-35II. so not sure how you came up with your ratings. furthermore, it is really so difficult to compare lenses on a crop to those on full frame, as you need to look at the entire image, sensor resolution, microcontrast, color depth, etc. I think its fair to say, its an inexpensive optically good, small, stablized ultrawide.

All data is directly from DXO Mark, I just extracted data for my f/8 greater depth-of-field requirements, so my overall assessment may differ from DXO Mark's overall lens rating.  I have owned and used many of these lenses, and I find that DXO Mark data closely matches my experience.  I had a good copy of the 16-35/2.8L II and I was very pleased with its overall performance but super sharp corners was not its strongest attribute.  I was willing to pay the f/2.8 "L" premium at the time for its low distortion.  The EF-M 11-22 IS is superior in every way, although, the 16-35 still has a bit of an advantage in the distortion area.  Distortion is the Nikon 14-24's achilles heal.  Of course, the size, weight and bulbous front element is also a downside of the lens, as is the case with my much beloved 17 TSE.

I agree that making a direct comparison of a full frame lens to a crop sensor lens is problematic.  There are many advantages that a full frame sensor brings to the table, but at base ISO and with a stopped down lens, the advantages become very small.  Each individual can decide if those advantages are worth the expense, size and weight.  I have decided that for backpacking that the EOS-M w/ 11-22 IS more than meets my requirements and helps make my wilderness adventures much, much more enjoyable!