the exceptional EF-M 11-22 IS

kevindar wrote:

I guess we all have our own perspective, and after all each man's perspective is his reality.

The achilles Heal of 14-24 (other than size and cost I suppose) is flare, and difficulty of using filters. I never found the distoriton or CA objectionable, as both are very easy to fix in post, and CA is fixed with no penalty.

If you are comparing equivalent, then you are comparing the M lens at 11mm, and f8, to 16-35II at 18mm, f12. I will say, the 16-35II at f11 and 18mm, has excellent corners.

Now, I think the 11-22, from reading your review, and other reviews, is truly a fantastic lens, and an awesome value. I think what canon lacks in quantity in ef-m mount, it at least in part makes up in quality, as the kit lens (18-55), 22 mm f2, and now the ultrawide, all appear to be optically just excellent.

I think canon honestly has the potential to corner the mirrorless market b/c of their size, and reputation, and experience in lens production. I am guessing the next iteration of M will have a view finder, and the dual pixel autofocus. canon then needs 3 more fast and sharp and decent size primes, say 35, 50, and 85, and they are set.

This has been a good exchange, thanks!  I agree that the most important part of gear evaluation is knowing the application.  Each of us has our particular interests and requirements.  I am normally far more explicate about this aspect of my gear evaluation.  In this case, my requirements prioritize the smallest size, lowest weight and lowest cost for wide angle landscape (mostly high alpine) and urban/travel photography.

I used f/5.6 for the m4/3 sensors and probably should have used an aperture smaller than f/8 for the full frame to make the comparison even better.  Of course, that would of further hindered the full frame lenses.  I have found that most lenses have a sweet spot of f/8 where a balance is struck between center sharpness and corner sharpness/vignetting.  As far as focal lengths, I used the widest focal length that was common between the compared lenses in DXO Mark's database.  Sometimes they did not precisely match.  No doubt that zooming into 18mm on the 16-35 would improve corner sharpness and vignetting performance, but based on the 20mm results, it would not help enough to change the overall conclusion.

As far as lens flare, I have learned that shading a lens with my hand is essential anytime the sun is side or front lighting.  Having 100% coverage from the LiveView LCD is very helpful with ensuring one's hand does not show up in the image frame edge.

I once again agree, Canon has delivered the good with their EF-M lens lineup.  Canon continues to excel in the lens arena and I believe that this gets overlooked far to often by photographers and reviewers.  A great sensor coupled with a poor lens (blurry corners along with lots of distortion, vignetting and CA) does not make for good image quality, no matter how high DXO's score of extracted sensor data or how effective the built-in auto lens correction.  Of course, a missed focus from a slow autofocus system cancels out all sensor/lens quality.  Since I only capture still subjects, autofocus speed is FAR less important than autofocus accuracy and sensor/lens quality.  All of this means that the current EOS-M w/ 11-22 IS has no equal when considering size, weight, cost and image quality!  A new EOS-M with 70D sensor will seal the deal for lots of other users and photo subjects.  Whether the photographic community and reviewers embrace the M system remains uncertain.