22mm f2 or 24mm f2.8

I have both the EOS m and the sl1. Do a lot of hiking with my kids and want something portable . opinions on these two lens?

The 22 m is an excellent lens, and the entire lens is about the size of the adapter you will need to use with the 24. With the stupidly cheap (<$100) EF-M 22, your M will actually be a pocketable camera with most jackets.

I have each of the cameras and lenses you listed.

Both setups weigh almost exactly the same and both are compact enough for easy carry.

The Eos M has a slightly smaller footprint than the SL1 with the lenses attached.

The SL1 has the VF, which can be useful for framing/taking shots quickly on sunny days, and the built in flash for flash fill.

Either setup will take great photos, and it's doubtful you'll see any difference in image quality.

Thanks for the feedback. Out of curiosity which camera do you find yourself using more often? I find myself reaching for the m most of the time but that might just be the newness factor as I haven't had it very long.

I would just get both, they are pretty inexpensive. You can compare them on the-digital-picture.com. But, the EF-S 24 and the 40 2.8 would be a very nice kit for the SL1.

--
> Bill.

I have both the M and Sl1. If I had to choose now, I wouldn't bother with the m at all. The 22/2 and 11-22 are great, but the sl1 is an amazing camera as well. Get the 10-18, 24/2.8 and 40 2.8 and keep the M with the kit lens as a P/S camera. You can also get the 55-250 Stm at some point.

idtx2 said:

I have both the EOS m and the sl1. Do a lot of hiking with my kids and want something portable . opinions on these two lens?

Click to expand...

If you are implying that the EOS-M and kit lens is too big for you to take on hikes, then definately go for the 22mm.

I'd buy it anyway for the M, it's a fantastic lens. Buy s/h or from HK on ebay. You won't lose.

idtx2 said:

Thanks for the feedback. Out of curiosity which camera do you find yourself using more often? I find myself reaching for the m most of the time but that might just be the newness factor as I haven't had it very long.

Click to expand...

Basically, it's a push.

For the first couple of weeks I used only the M with the 2 kit lenses and the adapter with my EF/-s lenses, mainly to get comfortable with framing/composing in live view, and to test out the speed and image quality.

Although live view shooting on the M is very good and more than capable of capturing most shots - using the OVF of the SL1 feels more comfortable/natural to me. It also allows for a more stable grip when taking shots of the kids and/or wildlife.

And having the on-board flash means one less thing to have to worry about for impromptu shots that may require it.

The sheer compact size of the M, with the 22 or 18-55, is hard to beat for a walk-about in good light where I don't anticipate needing more zoom or flash - basically using it as a point and shoot that has much better image quality.

So I'll grab whichever depending on where I'm going or what I'm planning to shoot.

I purchased my m body only with the adapter. With the adapter and the nifty 50 or kit lens from my sl1 it is not pocketable at least to me.

idtx2 said:

I purchased my m body only with the adapter. With the adapter and the nifty 50 or kit lens from my sl1 it is not pocketable at least to me.

Click to expand...

Well then you really must buy the 22 (or the 18-55).

Without native lenses, it rather defeats the object of buying the M. It's biggest benefit is APS-C sensor quality in the smallest possible package. If you are only going to use EF/EF-S lenses you may as well sell the M and buy another DSLR.

Being able to use my SLR lenses on the M is an added advantage, but I primarily chose it because of the compact size of the body and EF-M lenses.

22mm is under $100 in the US which is a bargain. I think you need to buy it whether you buy the other one or not.

idtx2 said:

I have both the EOS m and the sl1. Do a lot of hiking with my kids and want something portable . opinions on these two lens?

Click to expand...

I am on my third M and I have had one SL1. To me, the SL1 is pointless. If your buying a DSLR for the viewfinder, you might as well buy one that isn't a tiny toy, which the SL1 is.

With the M and the 22, you get the best possible IQ in a package that fits into a large pants pocket or jacket pocket. The SL1 cannot do that, period. The only other camera that I know of that can equal that capability is the Coolpix A or Ricoh GR and both those amazing cameras are limited to one focal length.

The M can use any lens the SL1 can plus the EF-M lenses that the SL1 cannot.

I liked the SL1, great camera but, why not just get the T5i and all it encompasses? Cost? Size? Really?