Hi all,
I owe a Canon m50 with - so far - EF-M 11-22 and EF-M 55-200 and I bought an Viltrox adapter for EF and EF-S.
When I bought the m50 I didn't realize that there were so many lenses around because so many were the needs of photographers...I just thought I needed a camera and a lens, that's all.
But now, after almost 9 months, I realized I needed a bit more. Don't want to change camera though, but I want to know it better.
At the beginning I was pointing to the EF 50mm but maybe it's too narrow for my needs but because of the good second-hand price maybe I'll buy it someday...in place of the more expensive EF 35mm/EF-M 32mm (way more expensive) as I'd like a general purpose lens for my trips, something I can get bokeh or nice pics in low light conditions with. I've also considered the EF-M 22 but it's too wide I think... I'm not sure of what I'm looking for!
Then I found the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 fixed. It encloses both the 22 and the 32 with a fixed focal lenght and reviews are excellent. The only problem is the weight (900gr!!) and the dimension (attached the the m50 it's ridiculuosy huge!) but I feel like is the lens I could fill the middle-range gap between the 11-22 and the 55-200 during my trips.
Do you have any suggestions, any thoghts? I'm sure you before me have been passing through all this and you figure out some solution...
Thank you
I use that sigma on my M50 too. On crop it's IQ can only be found in primes. It beats the 22mm. The ef-m 32mm is a bit better, but it focuses slower. For shooting kids i prefer the sigma.
There will become 2 sigma prime options available (september) for the M-mount that might be as good (or a bit better) as well: the 16mm f/1.4 and and 30mm f/1.4. There will also come a very good 56mm f/1.4.
You could consider the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM for both fast focusing and image stabilization. This lens isn't as sharp as the sigma wide open, however, between f/2.2 to f/2.8 its sharpness becomes on par with the sigma zoom. The IS is great.
i don't own the sigma but i do own the EF 35F2is
I do own both.
and would be surprised if zoom is notably sharper than a modern prime that praised to be partially sharp ...
The zoom is designed for aps-c, the prime is designed for full frame. Mounted on a full frame camera center sharpness of the Canon is way better than the Sigma on crop.
For a zoom the sigma 18-35 is VERY good but it dont match the canon prime
here at 35mmF2 the prime has the edge in the corners here stopped down to
F2,8 the prime is clearly at an advantage across more of the frame ..
I really appreciate you come up with some empirical evidence here.
The problem might be: We are speaking about lenses as universals as if we where living in the days of Medieval realism (ask Alastair Norcross if you want to be educated in philosophy, he knows just as much about it as camera industry, or even more
), which would only make kind of sense if we where talking about lens designs, however, speaking about lens performance: a lens design can not perform as a lens, only a lens can perform as a lens. Therefor it would be more appropriate to see things from a more nominalistic point of view. "EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM" is just a name for lenses which are not necessarily exactly the same just because they share the same name (and/or same design). Although Plato and Aristotle lived quite long ago, quite often we are still acting like we would have still to rediscover Aristotle as if we where living in the middle ages (did they ever end?)
My experience with my (copy of "the") 35mm f/2.0 IS USM and my (copy of "the") Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 HSM Art is as i described before. Furthermore: as i remember it the (quantified (my eyes can't quantify here)) measurements of DXO-mark reflect the same, which can be checked
here (note: this is at 24Mp in stead of 18).
At the same time, seeing the test results of TDP, i don't believe Bryan used my lenses for this test.
Some argue you should use statistics using a lot of different copies of the same lens. I don't have the money to buy a lot of copies or the time to test them. Actually i rather like to deny that all we can say about lens performance of a copy of a lens without testing that specific copy can never be more than speaking about chances of how it will perform. And i might not be the only one as to stop denying this would be the end of this forum. Don't crucify Plato, please. How could nerds pretend to share one world at a forum without him? It is our only way to behave like a social being after all (although Alastair Norcross has his students of course).
also of note the zoom has a 1.5 stops more vignetting than the prime ..
It is a full frame prime on a crop sensor, so yes, the prime is better here. At the same time: the sigma is 1/3th of a stop brighter to begin with, so that might put things somewhat in perspective. Still an important difference. Granted.
and the Bokeh is better as well.
Bokeh is subjective.
I don't have a preference here. "The" (my) 50-100mm is the one i pick if i want nice bokeh.
I use the FE35 to good effect on my M50
same here
...the AF is VERY good in low light and is not to big.
Yeah, i love it. But i don't experience the sigma to perform less in this regard.
The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM is smaller and lighter and offers also IS, but it isn't super sharp at f/2.8, you will need f/4.0 for having the same sharpness as the sigma zoom.
you are correct ...but according to optical Limits ...formally Photozone they are pretty close in fact both wide open
In real world use of my copies @24mm i definitely prefer the sigma (contrast?).
the EF28 prime has the edge..
I don't own "the"(a) 28mm.
and as no one complains about the 18-35 lack of sharpness at F1.8...
....well, at 35mm it leaves me wanting a bit, one of the reasons i tried "the"(a) ef-m 32mm f/1.4, which i returned because of slow AF.
sharpness or the lack of it is no reason not to get the EF28 however the prime is much more compact ,,has image stabilization and to my eye better Bokeh and a little better vignetting
"The" (a) 28mm will be likely a good option too, maybe even better than "the"(a) 24mm, however, at f/2.8 "the"(a) 35mm will still be the best, and "the" (a) 35mm has f/2.0. I don't have "the" (a) 28mm, as i thought it would be too close to 35mm, however, sometimes (not always) i think 28mm is a better alround focal length than 35mm.
If i would decide to go with the A6600 (IBIS included), i would have sold my last dslr and i would have decided never to go full frame, i would sell the Canon EF primes, and get a sigma 30mm f/1.4 for when i don't want so much weight on the camera.
Indoors the sigma zoom is my standard lens on the M50. Outdoors i use the ef-s 15-85mm IS USM, with the sigma in the bag, changing to the sigma sometimes when i want all the sharpness i can get or when i want shallower DOF.
If weight is a problem, you can also use a peak design capture plate at the EF-EF-m adapter, so you can clip it on the shoulder belt of your camera bag. This way i use the 18-35mm more convenient outdoors, and also the ef-s 15-85mm, and the sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 as well.
--
If your facts are different we could save the peace just by calling it copy to copy variation.
