how good is the 22mm?

Simion1 said:

Richard Murdey said:

mikegyver said:

Is it better than many of the kit lenses these days?

Click to expand...

Sure. That's a pretty low bar though. Though, okay, maybe I'll qualify that: lets say the Nikkor AFS 18-55 GII, for example, is quite excellent around 22-24 mm and would give the 22mm EF-M a serious run for its money from f/4.5 and up.

But, realistically since its the only option for this camera if you want a small lens, there is little point in further analysis/comparison. And it is F2, which seals the deal.

As a 22 mm SLR lens its almost unbelievably fantastic. In the grand scheme of things, perhaps, it is merely ok. I find it nice and sharp stopped down to about f/5+, with good contrast and minimal distortion. At wider apertures however there is serious vignetting (correctable) and moderate CA (correctable, but probably not worth it), and sharpness and contrast degrade sharply (that, there is nothing you can do about!)

I would recommend the 22mm for the handling alone. It just makes the M a nice camera to use, properly proportioned and with no zoom ring to fool around with.

Click to expand...

^^^^ What this poster said, especially the bit about it being the only option for this camera if you want a small lens for this camera.

As for the lens itself, I know a lot of people are happy with it and I'm glad they're happy, however I think it's just 'OK' image wise. The main reason is the bokeh is only mediocre and resembles the bokeh typically found on cheap prime lenses, such as the 50mm f/1.8. Sure it's blurry, just not as aesthetically pleasing as other prime lenses. The defocused areas are too smooth/don't hold good 'shape' and out-of-focus highlights are not round. Compared to say the FUJINON 23mm f/2 lens that comes with the Fuji X100s, the bokeh on Fuji lens it so much nicer and personally I think it's a shame Canon went down the cheap route with this lens, rather than going down the quality route like Fuji did. I guess that's yet again the problem with Canon just not putting any effort into their mirrorless side of things and only really caring about their bulky DSLR range.

So going back to the first line, you don't have much choice really, so I would get one for the EOS M as it's affordable. But if you're after a mirrorless camera with an excellent lens of similar focal length and aperture, the other option would be to get the (quite a bit more expensive) Fuji X100s/t. Bear in mind though, the EOS M is cheap now, but it wasn't when they first released it.

Click to expand...

Judgments of bokeh are highly subjective. For me, a defocused area can't be "too smooth". I want them as smooth as possible! As for shape, I've just looked through some of my shots taken wide open, or very nearly. Circular specular highlights appear perfectly round to me. As for sharpness, this lens is very sharp wide open. Are there sharper lenses wide open? Probably, but the difference in sharpness would make no difference for my purposes. When I shoot this lens wide open, it's almost always people shots indoors or outdoors in low light. Often, in these circumstances, the lens is even too sharp (but that's easy enough to fix). When I want edge to edge sharpness, it's for landscape or cityscape shots. Usually, I use the 11-22 for that, but if I use the pancake, it's stopped down at least a little, by which point it's extremely sharp across the frame. I also own the 35L, 35 F2IS, 85 F1.8, 100L macro, 200 F2.8L, so I know what a fast prime looks like. I'm extremely impressed with the 22 pancake. Perhaps there's copy variation, and I have a really good copy, but I would say this lens isn't merely good, but outstanding. Although I paid next to nothing for it (got it in a kit with the M and 18-55 for about $400), I would have been very happy paying several hundred dollars for it. Nothing I've seen from the Fuji 23 F2 make me think that's a better lens. But, as I said, if your preference is based on bokeh, that's just a matter of individual taste.

Alastair Norcross said:

Judgments of bokeh are highly subjective. For me, a defocused area can't be "too smooth". I want them as smooth as possible! As for shape, I've just looked through some of my shots taken wide open, or very nearly. Circular specular highlights appear perfectly round to me. As for sharpness, this lens is very sharp wide open. Are there sharper lenses wide open? Probably, but the difference in sharpness would make no difference for my purposes.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the one site I trust for lens reviews, photozone, hasn't done the 22/2. The DxO findings would appear to back you up. re. sharpness, and further indicates that there is very little change in performance stopping down.

So I appear to be mistaken, yet still, my results with this lens remind me of what I got from the Tokina 12-24 wide zoom I had a while back: that lens also measured better than it rendered. Basically sharp, basically well controlled distortion ... but the images just felt a bit dull, a bit grey. No wow factor. No snap. Vaguely soft-looking even while they were demonstrably sharp.

There's probably a good scientific reason at work here, but since I don't know what it is I'll have to leave it in the realm of subjective impression.

Speaking of subjective impressions, the bokeh on the 22/2 isn't good. And its not just a matter of round highlights, or if you can contrive a shot to get smooth backgrounds. Busy backgrounds are not rendered attractively, especially when stopped down a little. Thinking about it, it renders bokeh like the Tokina 12-24. That's not a compliment... but, frankly, there's not a lens under 24 mm which I would rate as excellent, so its nothing I would hold against this lens per se.

Richard Murdey said:

Alastair Norcross said:

Judgments of bokeh are highly subjective. For me, a defocused area can't be "too smooth". I want them as smooth as possible! As for shape, I've just looked through some of my shots taken wide open, or very nearly. Circular specular highlights appear perfectly round to me. As for sharpness, this lens is very sharp wide open. Are there sharper lenses wide open? Probably, but the difference in sharpness would make no difference for my purposes.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the one site I trust for lens reviews, photozone, hasn't done the 22/2. The DxO findings would appear to back you up. re. sharpness, and further indicates that there is very little change in performance stopping down.

So I appear to be mistaken, yet still, my results with this lens remind me of what I got from the Tokina 12-24 wide zoom I had a while back: that lens also measured better than it rendered. Basically sharp, basically well controlled distortion ... but the images just felt a bit dull, a bit grey. No wow factor. No snap. Vaguely soft-looking even while they were demonstrably sharp.

There's probably a good scientific reason at work here, but since I don't know what it is I'll have to leave it in the realm of subjective impression.

Speaking of subjective impressions, the bokeh on the 22/2 isn't good. And its not just a matter of round highlights, or if you can contrive a shot to get smooth backgrounds. Busy backgrounds are not rendered attractively, especially when stopped down a little. Thinking about it, it renders bokeh like the Tokina 12-24. That's not a compliment... but, frankly, there's not a lens under 24 mm which I would rate as excellent, so its nothing I would hold against this lens per se.

Click to expand...

I agree that you're not going to get the most pleasing bokeh from lenses under 24mm, but taking that into account, I think the 22 gives very nice smooth backgrounds, so long as there's enough separation between the subject and the background (of course), and, of course, you have to shoot pretty close to wide open. That's the point of a fast prime, at least for me. Almost all my 22 shots are between F2 and F2.8. The only time I stop down more than that is when I want a landscape shot, and I don't have my 11-22 with me (or I'm in too much of a hurry to change lenses). I've never found the results to be dull or grey, but, again, that's a very subjective judgment. Luckily, modern software makes it very easy to add snap to pictures. Judicious use of the clarity and vibrance sliders in Lightroom can work wonders.

Richard Murdey said:

So I appear to be mistaken, yet still, my results with this lens remind me of what I got from the Tokina 12-24 wide zoom I had a while back: that lens also measured better than it rendered. Basically sharp, basically well controlled distortion ... but the images just felt a bit dull, a bit grey. No wow factor. No snap. Vaguely soft-looking even while they were demonstrably sharp.

Click to expand...

Richard Murdey said:

There's probably a good scientific reason at work here, but since I don't know what it is I'll have to leave it in the realm of subjective impression.

Click to expand...

I think I know what you mean. I sometimes find this lens really shines and other times I'm not as wowed by it. But overall, I really like it when considering all factors. The M is my first Canon and I do wonder about the sensor. My NEX 5N with Sigma 30mm 2.8 can be blisteringly sharp and clear. I think some of that's down to a better sensor.

Richard Murdey said:

Speaking of subjective impressions, the bokeh on the 22/2 isn't good. And its not just a matter of round highlights, or if you can contrive a shot to get smooth backgrounds. Busy backgrounds are not rendered attractively, especially when stopped down a little. Thinking about it, it renders bokeh like the Tokina 12-24. That's not a compliment... but, frankly, there's not a lens under 24 mm which I would rate as excellent, so its nothing I would hold against this lens per se.

Click to expand...

I find the bokeh good for a lens with this field of view. I have no complaints about it and wouldn't expect better, TBH, even if the lens was more expensive.

Some more dull and grey output from this truly mediocre, diasppointing lens. Shame on Canon for off-loading bum lenses like these for an insulting $120. The gall!





--
>> I love the Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens! <<

PaddyC said:

Richard Murdey said:

There's probably a good scientific reason at work here, but since I don't know what it is I'll have to leave it in the realm of subjective impression.

Click to expand...

I think I know what you mean. I sometimes find this lens really shines and other times I'm not as wowed by it. But overall, I really like it when considering all factors. The M is my first Canon and I do wonder about the sensor. My NEX 5N with Sigma 30mm 2.8 can be blisteringly sharp and clear. I think some of that's down to a better sensor.

Click to expand...

I should re-state that indeed I do not think the 22/2 is a bad lens. Considering its size and focal length is it amazing really. Like you this is my first Canon and like you I look at the results compared with my other, non-Canon APSC cameras and often come up (slightly) disappointed. That's all I am really trying to articulate here.

PaddyC said:

PaddyC said:

Speaking of subjective impressions, the bokeh on the 22/2 isn't good.

Click to expand...

I find the bokeh good for a lens with this field of view. I have no complaints about it and wouldn't expect better, TBH, even if the lens was more expensive.

Click to expand...

I had another quick test this morning. It's pretty variable. As Alastair wrote above, if you can just put enough distance between the subject and background you can get some really exceptional (for a 22mm!) results. At other times its pretty yucky. Go figure, but again, agreed, I would not expect better.

Hmmm....I see what you mean, Abu. I'm putting mine on the EBay block tomorrow. I'll offer $20 to anyone taking it off my hands for free.

I know you are proud of your photos Abu, but nevertheless they do indeed show exactly what I was talking about. At any rate what I find disagreeable about the M/22 combo. They are sharp and saturated, sure, but at the same time I can't help but see them as slightly dull/faded/flat - in comparison to what I'm used to seeing from an APSC sensor and a good lens at any rate.

You are welcome to have a different opinion. And by the way I do think highly of this lens, especially on technical merit. It's just a little disappointing as far as the subjective evaluation of the output is concerned.

You know me. I am a stickler for evidence. Post images to prove your point. Otherwise the reasonable conclusion in the face of the evidence presented here and open to scrutinity by all is that your conclusions are wholly in the subjective domain and in your head.



To be fair, though, images can be quite grey sometimes...











--
>> I love the Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens! <<

If there is one absolute truth I have learnt from spending time on dpreview forums, its that no debate is ever resolved by someone posting an image to "prove the point".

Richard Murdey said:

I know you are proud of your photos Abu, but nevertheless they do indeed show exactly what I was talking about. At any rate what I find disagreeable about the M/22 combo. They are sharp and saturated, sure, but at the same time I can't help but see them as slightly dull/faded/flat - in comparison to what I'm used to seeing from an APSC sensor and a good lens at any rate.

Click to expand...

Its contrast impression and colour tone (more cool perhaps), that is what you find disagreeable. You can easily PP it to get what you are after, though. Or set a different picture style. Still, the bokeh will not be exactly as smooth as with the fixed to the camera 23mm f2 from that Fuji X100s, but is quite agreeable for a 22mm lens anyway.

Richard Murdey said:

You are welcome to have a different opinion. And by the way I do think highly of this lens, especially on technical merit. It's just a little disappointing as far as the subjective evaluation of the output is concerned.

Click to expand...

That'ts odd because, by your own admission, the images that I posted settled the issue.

I have three Canon bodies. I bought the M at fire sale prices so I could go to parties and other social events with a small camera. I think I also get the benefits of larger cameras and lenses on some M pictures right out of the M. You all are talking like this is a serious professional camera and lens combination. I certainly can get professional quality pictures with the M and 22mm in the right light but that's not what I bought it for. It's really a great lens when I don't want to lug around some heavy stuff. The lens serves my purposes just fine. I paid about 90 dollars for it. Your expectations are too high for it. Incidentally I used to charge real money for portraits and weddings. I could use this as Abu did. If you want real bokeh go buy an L lens and a 5dIII.

Richard Murdey said:

I should re-state that indeed I do not think the 22/2 is a bad lens. Considering its size and focal length is it amazing really. Like you this is my first Canon and like you I look at the results compared with my other, non-Canon APSC cameras and often come up (slightly) disappointed. That's all I am really trying to articulate here.

Click to expand...

What do you use for PP? I find DPP best, and use the neutral profile almost exclusively. For best results I convert RAWs to tiffs and then do the final touches in lightroom.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mirkocvjetko/

Richard Murdey said:

If there is one absolute truth I have learnt from spending time on dpreview forums, its that no debate is ever resolved by someone posting an image to "prove the point".

Click to expand...

Agree 100%! I usually try not to comment after a "well how 'bout this shot then" post but I'm sometimes saying to myself "yeah......, thats not really all that great". That said, I do think the 22 is a good lens on the M but its not the best I've seen or the best in my bag. Hard to beat the M/22 combo for the price and size though.

Agree. It is very small, very good, very fun lens, I have very high quality output, but somehow I still have some reservations about that lens. But so what. I still have it, because it´s worth to have it.

Just played on the garden with "bare" M + 22 and I must say NOT BAD! :





















--
Why does he do it?

I like it too and snapped some of this sunflower today. This one's my favourite with 'incoming' bees!





Some more bees in detail (cropped photo):