Where the 22mm f/2 lens shines and fails... (PICS)
2
casey1823 wrote:
J Peters wrote:
No 15 - Nice bit of aerial photography
I really didn't expect to be able to capture this shot handheld with the lens so slow (at that shutter speed) but there was a break in the rain clouds so I thought I might see if I could see the Milky Way ... but it was in another part of the sky at the time. The shot was still blurred slightly, even though I tried to remain still (taken at 0.4sec)
Marco, you said you "can't get shots like these with the [EF-M] 22mm" but could you elaborate as to why? Is the 22mm just not fast enough?
I've shot at night of the street with the 22mm at night and it's indeed a very decent lens for lowlight use. As soon as the sun sets I find that I struggle with slower lenses so I'll put the 22mm lens on... BUT I used to prefer the massive EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM lens on my EOSM cameras for lowlight scenes. Now I can leave that heavy and monstrous beast at home and that this lens with me instead.
.
A perfectly exposed shot taken on the street with the 22mm f/2 lens at night. Was still a little tricky but possible. I had to remove the 28mm f/3.5 Macro lens and replaced it with the 22mm lens to capture this.
.
BELOW. People ask my why I don't just use f/2 with my 22mm lens. But on an APS-C camera like the EOS M6, I'm going to need all the light I can capture if I don't want to introduce artificial illumination to the scene. I had to leave the table to try and read the menu under a light. Here's an example of the 22mm f/2 lens at a restaurant that had an extremely lowlight environment. I was hoping to do a local Google Review of the location.
.
The view from my table... exactly as it appeared to my eyes. Technically, the camera and lens are performing perfectly by representing the real (actual) scene.
Illumination in the restaurant consisted of candles and low-level lighting.
Trying to handhold a shot at - f/2 | 1/40sec | ISO 500 (auto)
Trying to see my meal in the dark. Shot at - f/2 | 1/60sec | ISO 3200
.
I would like to buy the 32mm. I don't have an issue with the price point given the quality, but it is still a lot of money for me personally (esp at UK prices) and I'll have to save up or sell some other stuff
I've been wondering whether to forget it and just make the most of what I already have, and that means using the 22mm and then cropping if necessary on shots where 32mm would have framed the shot better. But from what you say I'd be missing out on more than just a bit of zoom reach.
You can crop using the 22mm but there is a huge difference between 2.0 and 1.4. You won't regret having the 32 1.4. Combined with the close focusing distance it's a really a special type of lens. I have the 35L II and its a wonderful lens but it feel like a beast on my M5.
There's an enormous difference in the amount of light received at f/1.4 compared to f/2 (as noted here by Casey). And with a 9 inch (approx) MFD combined with a 50mm (equiv) focal length you can capture slightly more intimate shots of the subjects. Sometimes it's nice to have a wider view of things but the 11-22mm has an aperture of f/4+ so unless you have good light it's not going to work out so well. You can capture some lowlight shots with other lenses if you can hold the camera very steady and use a higher ISO setting.
Also, do you find the lack of IS on the 32mm at all troublesome (granted the 22mm doesn't have IS either but you tend to need it more as the FL gets longer)?
I really don't think you need IS with the 32. Coupled with 1.4 you can easily hand hold to /60 second. Probably a little less with good technique. Unless you're shooting something that is perfectly still you want a little more than that anyway.
Canon often don't install IS on lenses with faster lenses. I don't mind having IS on a longer lens but it's still acceptable without one in this case. The only times I've had an issue with lens movement (producing camera shake) was when I was still moving and the shutter speed had dropped to 1/60 sec. But as you can see with those images I posted, the one shot from by car of the moon in the distance (out of focus) and the sharp twigs on a nearby plant.... that was taken at 1/25 sec. Those shots of my cats were taken at 1/250 sec (much faster than necessary). The Christmas decoration shots were taken (mostly ) at 1/60sec without problems and I wasn't leaning on anything or resting the camera on anything. But I try to shoot just a little faster than this ... or I take a short burst to eliminate camera shake. I find that most of the time I set the camera to 1/80th of a second or faster. If the scene is well lit you almost have to accept much faster shutter speeds because the lens is to bright. Outdoors in daylight, if you want to use a wide aperture for shallow DOF, you'll often need to use a Neutral Density Filter or a CPL Filter to cut down the light.
I love your shots, particularly of the Christmas decorations and your cat. Brilliant.
I can't wait for Christmas to try it also.
I think we'll see a lot of interesting bokeh-ball type shots over Christmas with this lens in the hands of other users. I was tempted to set up a couple of shots to produce some pretty bokeh balls behind my cats but they wanted to eat the LEDs as I unstrung them. Those Christmas displays in the original post in this thread were each about the size of a shoe box.
.
EF-M 22mm f/2 STM - By the way, I was able to resolve some shots in that dark restaurant: Several guests at my table were kind enough to illuminate the food with their Smartphones - partly because the ceiling was painted black and wouldn't bounce my EOS M6 camera flash. This was (sadly) the nicest looking shot and it's still pretty ugly without a more ideal amount of light.
