CANON EOS M series images - POST YOUR PICS !!!

jboyer wrote:

Using a Manfrotto mini-tripod just to allow a more comfortable grip for carrying.

The size difference between two fairly similar lenses (bright and moderately wide) on the EOS M cameras.  The tiny EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens (right) has great image quality and is quite bright at night.  The much larger EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II lens (left) is considerably brighter but the results are still similar.  At the sacrifice of just a little more aperture (costing a bit of bokeh and brightness) the smaller EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens is a much easier, smaller, lighter and affordable package.

It's an absolutely magnificent lens on the EOSM cameras... but the size and cost difference is quite noticeable.  The bokeh at f/1.4 and f/1.6 really does make for a slightly 'punchier' image.

Every time I put an EF lens on the M50, I am mildly frustrated by the size and weight compared to the M lenses.

The size difference is considerable and the weight difference is enough to make me reconsider the use of EF lenses on my M-cameras these days.  I had to make use of a type of Manfrotto mini-tripod (see above) to enable more convenient carry of my lens combo.  When I bought the first EOSM camera, I wanted to use it with EF lenses.  I ignored the EF-M lenses for a few years. 
.
The three EF-M lenses I now own are:
* EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
* EF-M 11-22mm f/4- 5.6 IS STM
* EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS Macro STM
.
I'm just waiting for the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens to be released right now.
.
When it was released back in 2012, I bought three good EF lenses that I thought would be good to use with the EOS M (24mmL, 100mmL Macro, 135mmL) and have always been extremely happy with the results. More recently, Canon released an EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS MACRO STM lens and I even spent several days shooting with both the 100mmL (on a FF camera) and the 28mm Macro on the EOSM and EOS M6.  I found the result of these lenses to be both different (focal length) and very similar with Closeup Macro photography.  Since then I've been using the 28mm native Macro lens instead of the EF 100mmL Macro.  It's quite a surprise to find how effective Canon's new EF-M lenses are compared to established EF L-series lenses.  Of course, no native lens can offer me the extreme zoom of an EF 100-400mmL II lens (640mm equiv) plus the advantages of using Extenders (giving me up to 1800mm equiv) for extreme telephoto photography.  But for conventional photography I feel most of my needs are met with the existing lenses that Canon have produced for the EF-M platform.  The upcoming EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens ought to bring some life to the set with some faster glass.  It's a shame it's not out because I have need of it today.  Having access to any EF and EF-S lens for our EOSM gives us the freedom to buy or use any lens on hand... and gives us a lot of freedom.

The image quality, though, especially when fully opened, tilts towards the EF most of the time. Something to do with colors, too. Are the FE lenses more saturated/contrasty?

I think the EF lenses that I've been using have a benefit in that they're L-series which means the optical elements, coatings and construction are at Canon's highest available standards.  The EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II lens that I was using has the SWC coating (Sub Wavelength Coating) which is very effective for eliminating ghosting.  The filters I use tend to be the Hoya Pro1D versions that are nano-coated and offer very high light transmission.  The colors from the lens ought to be fairly natural (close to what you see with the eye).  I find that the EF-M lenses offer similar results although i really haven't spent any time comparing color hues between lenses.  It may be that I'm increasing the vibrancy slightly during post processing although I shoot in JPEG rather than RAW so that tends to apply the in-camera personal color, sharpness and contrast User-settings that are pre-selected.  I tend to open the JPEGs in Lightroom and then adjust the color slider (slightly), the noise slider (slightly) and (if necessary) lift any shadows (slightly).  Then I export the image to Photoshop and resize it before saving.  i don't bother to alter sharpening or contrast when editing... the camera seems to do that job well enough.
.
The thing that made me rethink using the EF lenses on my EOS M cameras is when I wanted to shoot shots of the Milky Way at night and I knew that f/2 ought to allow me to capture decent results.  The cheapness of this lens and the tiny primary lens element on this pancake lens were off-putting but the results I saw from members here made me look closer.  I ended up replacing my EF 24mmL lens with the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens and haven't seen much need for f/1.4 since.  But it wasn't until I did some comparisons using the 22mm lens against a Full Frame DSLR with the 24mmL lens that I realized just how good this little EF-M lens was.
.
I think that it's fantastic that Canon's cheapest lens (EF-M 22mm f/2 STM) is also one of the best lenses available to us for the EOS-M.  It's on my EOS M6 right now on my desk as I'm writing this reply.  It certainly gives the EF 24mmL lens a run for it's money and that was one of the most expensive lenses I've bought.  But the EF 135mm f/2L USM  lens is also a very strong performer on the EOS M cameras.  it's captured some very rich colors and I can't quite explain why.  I tend to shoot in JPEG and I usually have my EV-bias turned down to about -0.33 (-1) on all my cameras to deter overexposure.  That may be a contributing factor to color saturation.  I also think that I set up my original EOSM with slightly more saturation in the settings.  Perhaps this influenced the results.