In praise of the 22

Back2M wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Back2M wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Back2M wrote:

csxfan wrote:

i prefer the 40 f2.8 stm over the 501.8. i feel it has better af and sharper than the 50. little smaller with the adapter also. stays on my m5 now 90 percent of the time.

The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM is the same way; sharp wide open.

The 50mm f/1.8 (any of em) need to be stopped down for best performance. With the 50mm, you at least have the option of firing it at f/1.8 with less contrast/sharpness, vs 40mm f/2.8, you don't and costs more generally.

The 40mm is less tight framing though, and delivers roughly what the 50mm f/1.8 would at f/2.8, which is what I usually fire it at so I can understand the pros of both.

Truth told, I didn't use the 50mm f/1.8 wide open except in emergencies begging the question, is the EF 40mm f/2.8 a better deal at less size? Maybe.

Your AF has always f/1.8 with the 50mm. A big advantage in my opinion.

If you go down the rabbit hole of more cost and weight, the EF 50mm f/1.4 when stopped down to f/2, outdoes em both.

I had a different experience.

But that AF motor on it, *sigh*, the copy I borrowed had the same issue as what most folks complain about. And fire it into bright light, the flare is awful, very low-contrast rendering... Hmph. At least the coating on the 50mm f/1.8 STM fixed that.

The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM needs a newer motor and coatings, badly. But, probably will never see it, this side of the mount anyhow (I suspect the RF will get one though, next year IE 2020).

It won't happen. Canon wants you to buy a full frame + 85mm. If Canon brings out a good 50mm for aps-c Canon is really scared upgraders will move to another brand while upgrading. Let's hope competition will force a change here.

Yeah, I thought twice about it, especially after looking at what I'm getting off the 32mm f/1.4, which is to say consistent wonderful results vs the Rokinon 50mm f/1.2, although truly magnificent results, inconsistent. If I had no kids and all the time in the world? I'd own it again. Then again I might own an R if that were so.

Indeed, Canon will never produce it for fear of "Canon-balism"... The worst enemy as a consumer owning a Canon product is not a competitor, it's Canon themselves protecting it's own interests.

Those sigma's working fine with latest firmware updates are always a bit of a gamble as you will never know if it will work with Canons next AF generation.

OTOH, a monopolist in manufacturing sensors isn't an appealing perspective either.

It's competition that spurs Canon to do things like the EF-M 32mm f/1.4, M50 and EOS R... If it were up to Canon? We'd all be shooting an SL2, which I returned. Don't get me wrong, wonderful camera, but mirrorless is the future: you can make better optics and smaller, lighter systems with it.

To rant further for a minute,

(i like it )

the only reason we'll get 4K or IBIS is because everyone else, particularly Nikon, has it now. Now that Nikon has it, Canon has to have it. *rolls eyes*

It'd be nice if Canon took the lead for once this decade, what's left of it. Doubtful. They're still riding the wave of the last decade, which don't get me wrong, is arguably why we have what we do and choose we have, because Canon's infrastructure from the last ILC boom lead to what we have today.

Which Sigma are you hinting at (they make so many) would be appropriate?

I have the aps-c f/1.8 zooms (18-35mm&50-100mm). Working flawless on the M50,  i can only hope it will on an eventually (more) appealing future aps-c mirrorless Canon body.

My bigger concern is actually the color; I personally haven't been a fan of Sigma's color rendition. Unless, you can correct me here that I'm off base and perhaps it's been due to the predominance of samples I've seen have not come off a Canon?

I am not so picky on this aspect. For me the colors of these lenses are fine, but i highly recommend you to ask someone who is more critical on this IQ aspect.