EF-M 11-22mm - Canon's Sharpest APS-C lens?

Abu Mahendra said:

Pardon the crappy cell-phone image...

...yes, as I have argued before, the ergonomics of the M actually improve with a long lens for then you can grab the whole contraption by wrapping your left hand around the lens barrel. You know, with the grip that makes use of the evolutionary marvel called the opposable thumb.

Click to expand...

well that we will agree on, that's the way i always hold it by default with the 11-22 or the 18-55, with my left cupped around the bottom of the camera / lens.

Abu Mahendra said:

Pardon the crappy cell-phone image...

...yes, as I have argued before, the ergonomics of the M actually improve with a long lens for then you can grab the whole contraption by wrapping your left hand around the lens barrel. You know, with the grip that makes use of the evolutionary marvel called the opposable thumb.

On the M the focus inconsistency issues of the Sigma 18-35 are reduced to zero. You are left with the highest resolving "normal" optic (short of Leica glass) that can be mounted on Canon APS-C, focused perfectly in sharp detail every single time. Gotta love that. I'll gladly pay the weight premium.

You shoot with the Sigma 30, Marco Nero with the 24L, me with the Sigma 18-35. It's all good.

__________________________________________

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Click to expand...

How well does the AF on the Sigma work? I get widely varying results with different EF and EF-S lenses (for some strange reason the best AF is the 100mm USM macro, and the worst is the 28-135 USM, so USM can be but isn't always good. The micro-motor 18-55 kit is also good although no reason to use it.)

tomtom50 said:

Abu Mahendra said:

Pardon the crappy cell-phone image...

...yes, as I have argued before, the ergonomics of the M actually improve with a long lens for then you can grab the whole contraption by wrapping your left hand around the lens barrel. You know, with the grip that makes use of the evolutionary marvel called the opposable thumb.

On the M the focus inconsistency issues of the Sigma 18-35 are reduced to zero. You are left with the highest resolving "normal" optic (short of Leica glass) that can be mounted on Canon APS-C, focused perfectly in sharp detail every single time. Gotta love that. I'll gladly pay the weight premium.

You shoot with the Sigma 30, Marco Nero with the 24L, me with the Sigma 18-35. It's all good.

__________________________________________

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Click to expand...

How well does the AF on the Sigma work? I get widely varying results with different EF and EF-S lenses (for some strange reason the best AF is the 100mm USM macro, and the worst is the 28-135 USM, so USM can be but isn't always good. The micro-motor 18-55 kit is also good although no reason to use it.)

Click to expand...

My Sigma 30mm Art is new design lens and it works great — quick and accurate. I had older 50mm 1.4 Sigma and with EOS-M (with old firmware) it was working very awkward — slow and very noisy. My Canon 100mm L working great, but not super fast. 70-200mm f/4 L IS works great, even with extender. My guess it's all depend on the lens.

tomtom50 said:

Abu Mahendra said:

Pardon the crappy cell-phone image...

...yes, as I have argued before, the ergonomics of the M actually improve with a long lens for then you can grab the whole contraption by wrapping your left hand around the lens barrel. You know, with the grip that makes use of the evolutionary marvel called the opposable thumb.

On the M the focus inconsistency issues of the Sigma 18-35 are reduced to zero. You are left with the highest resolving "normal" optic (short of Leica glass) that can be mounted on Canon APS-C, focused perfectly in sharp detail every single time. Gotta love that. I'll gladly pay the weight premium.

You shoot with the Sigma 30, Marco Nero with the 24L, me with the Sigma 18-35. It's all good.

__________________________________________

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Click to expand...

How well does the AF on the Sigma work? I get widely varying results with different EF and EF-S lenses (for some strange reason the best AF is the 100mm USM macro, and the worst is the 28-135 USM, so USM can be but isn't always good. The micro-motor 18-55 kit is also good although no reason to use it.)

Click to expand...

I assume you mean, how does the AF work on the Sigma with the M? The best answer is: it is quicker than with the 22F2, with no back-and-forth jarring. It better than with the 35IS too.

Member said:

Abu Mahendra said:

Pardon the crappy cell-phone image...

...yes, as I have argued before, the ergonomics of the M actually improve with a long lens for then you can grab the whole contraption by wrapping your left hand around the lens barrel. You know, with the grip that makes use of the evolutionary marvel called the opposable thumb.

Click to expand...

well that we will agree on, that's the way i always hold it by default with the 11-22 or the 18-55, with my left cupped around the bottom of the camera / lens.

Click to expand...

Yes, except that with a lens as long as the sigma, the whole hand, from heel to fingertips make contact and craddle the lens. The other hand is now left free to punch the touch shutter on the screen or depress the shutter button.

Abu Mahendra said:

Yes, but you dialed in the 70D and the 7D, not the 700D.

As I suspected, by Canon the 60Macro and the 22F2 better the 11-22. But the Sigma 18-35 reigns supreme over all. Now, let's hope the one day, soon, Sigma decides to release the Sigma 18-35 for the M with the same sterling optics. I'd get the 60Macro were it not for the fact that I already own the 100L (and the 135L is in the pipeline).

...but yes, I have a lot of love for the 11-22 too.

Click to expand...

You can already get it for the M, just use the adapter. If Sigma made it with the same optics for the M, natively, they'd just have the adapter built in to the lens. That's the only difference.
--
QUOTE: "Another conclusion: After having read a few hundred instances of “fanboy” references during research for this article, it’s clear to me that the word has lost whatever potency it might once have had as an insult. It’s too much of a cliché, too inappropriately dismissive, too likely to be tossed in as an ad hominem attack by someone who shows signs of extreme fanboyism himself."

In other words - takes one to know one. And you lack creativity.

Check out my post from about 9 hours ago. Therein I posted an image of my Sigma 18-35 on M rig.

Abu Mahendra said:

Well, here it is. The highest resolving lens for Canon APS-C on the smallest and lightest Canon APS-C camera, making the most of its resolution with the most consistent and accurate focusing system.

--
__________________________________________
No, I don't take your word for it. Post replicable, transparently-reported images to support your allegations. Otherwise they remain just that, allegations. If you are assert something, the burden of the evidence is on you to prove your point. The burden of the evidence is not on others to disprove you. Evidence is the basis of rational debate. Testing thereof is the path to advancing knowledge.

Click to expand...

HOLY HELL that thing is big! LOL

For me, the M was all about portability but I could see how this would be appealing! The size and weight of the lens would be great for balancing in the left hand. My only problem would be zooming. For me personally, I found adapted primes to work best with the M as I found the zooms to be too unwieldy, especially if trying to capture something quickly.

I have to imagine the IQ out of that combo is just AWESOME!

I intend to migrate up the chain to FF soon (as soon as we have essentially a 70D FF - 19-ish cross type f/2.8 sensitive AF points plus DPAF and hopefully an articulating LCD) so I just can't see me buying an APS-C only lens. But if it weren't for that, I'd probably snag one of those in a heartbeat even though I didn't have the greatest experience with the 35 Art.

Thanks for posting that image!

--
QUOTE: "Another conclusion: After having read a few hundred instances of “fanboy” references during research for this article, it’s clear to me that the word has lost whatever potency it might once have had as an insult. It’s too much of a cliché, too inappropriately dismissive, too likely to be tossed in as an ad hominem attack by someone who shows signs of extreme fanboyism himself."
In other words - takes one to know one. And you lack creativity.

Here's a slightly better pic...




Jr.'s Ixus on the bottom



Re. focus consistency issues, those wholly disappear on the M due to the on-sensor focusing.

--
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
The onus of the evidence is on the one making the claim, not on the one questioning the claim.

"I have to imagine the IQ out of that combo is just AWESOME!"


100% view at f/2





--
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
The onus of the evidence is on the one making the claim, not on the one questioning the claim.

Here's a better one...

[ATTACH alt="100% view, f/2.5 and at the "weak" end of the lens at 35mm."]666887[/ATTACH]
100% view, f/2.5 and at the "weak" end of the lens at 35mm.

The 22F2 is good, but not this good. A thing about the Sigma is that it is already very sharp at f/1.8, but the sharpness keeps on piling on stopping down even just a bit. Imagine the lens mounted on a future 24MP APS-C sensor. It's probably got the resolution on tap to meet that challenge...So the thing looks a bit funny and is a bit heavy, but the IQ is top of the line for Canon APS-C.

--
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
The onus of the evidence is on the one making the claim, not on the one questioning the claim.

That's just NUTTY man! Unreal! Thanks for sharing it!

...and no DLO, bro'.

No need to put anything down, but I don´t see anything special here. Especially not with DPP. it´s sharpening engine is in one word AWFUL. I shoot Canons, and I used DPP for some time. Will propably never go back with DPP. Even with DLO. I´d be happy to see DLO compatiility with Adobe products. That would be killer combo.

In terms of resolution, my experience born out of owning and shooting with both the Sigma 18-35 and the Canon 22F2 is that the former has the edge. This is corroborated by the findings at DXO and SLR-Gear. In another thread ("Shootout at the 35mm corral!") I demonstrated that the Sigma on APS-C at 22mm is every bit as good as the 35IS on the 6D both at f/2. But I am always looking for better optics, so if you know of better glass in the same range that I can mount on the M I'd be happy to hear it. This is precisely the right thread for it.

As for DPP, not bad for "awful" 2 of 7 sharpening, don't you think? Seriously, my philosophy is to do no more PP that what DPP allows for images are "made" in and by camera, not by and in PP. DPP is able to sharpen more than I care to do. Sharpening is something that I predetermine in camera, and then forget. If the image is not sharp, it's cuz of my own fault exposing the image or because the lens does not resolve all that well, not because DPP cannot sharpen. Less is more.

--
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
The onus of the evidence is on the one making the claim, not on the one questioning the claim.

Abu Mahendra said:

In terms of resolution, my experience born out of owning and shooting with both the Sigma 18-35 and the Canon 22F2 is that the former has the edge. This is corroborated by the findings at DXO and SLR-Gear. In another thread ("Shootout at the 35mm corral!") I demonstrated that the Sigma on APS-C at 22mm is every bit as good as the 35IS on the 6D both at f/2. But I am always looking for better optics, so if you know of better glass in the same range that I can mount on the M I'd be happy to hear it. This is precisely the right thread for it.

Click to expand...

I have no problem to swallow that Sigma is the sharpest one. Not an issue. I believe it is, and I have nothing better to show or even say. Maybe, that the lens is not really Canon´s if I nitpick.

Abu Mahendra said:

As for DPP, not bad for "awful" 2 of 7 sharpening, don't you think?

Click to expand...

It is not awfull nor stellar. If you ran it trough LR or PS, it would be simply much better. Even 1/7 with no masking is mess compared to LR/PS results.

Abu Mahendra said:

Seriously, my philosophy is to do no more PP that what DPP allows for images are "made" in and by camera, not by and in PP. DPP is able to sharpen more than I care to do. Sharpening is something that I predetermine in camera, and then forget.

Click to expand...

This is not about amount, but about quality. There are still things to improve in Adobe, but it´s really basic and bad in DPP.

Abu Mahendra said:

If the image is not sharp, it's cuz of my own fault exposing the image or because the lens does not resolve all that well, not because DPP cannot sharpen. Less is more.

Click to expand...

There is more to it. Bayer sensor and demosaicing, low pass filter and more stuff. I agree that best sharpening is shart image right from start. This is not possible with current product line and as you see, even Sigma must be sharpened. Sharpening is omnipresent aspect of photography.

crashpc said:

padmasana said:

Abu Mahendra said:

I've tested--and posted the results here--the 22f2 against the Sigma 18-35 wide open, and the Sigma zoom is at least the equal of the prime.

Click to expand...

That Sigma is such a remarkable lens.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/padmasana1/

Click to expand...

All those lenses are remarkable piece of glass, but each on its own. 22mm f/2 is small and I have it new for $166. Sigma 18-35 is for $928 in my country, so it better be darn good glass

--
Why does he do it?

Click to expand...

It sells here for under $800. I got it in Bangkok back when it was backordered everywhere in August 2013 for $735.









--
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
The onus of the evidence is on the one making the claim, not on the one questioning the claim.