dpreviewTV: EF-M 22mm F2 not "ideal" for the M6 Mk II?

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Still..... i think i gonna choose the A6600 over the A6400. Not decided yet.

large investments in crop if you ever go FF

I think the Fro has some good points

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_vdsaKGa7k&t=64s

In his vision i already made my mistakes buying lenses being not full frame compatible. In his 50-100mm review the Fro said f/1.8 compared to f/2.8 isn't a big deal. In my opinion it is a big deal.

Still, i payed 1700 euro for my sigma f/1.8 zooms.

The SONY FE 70-200MM F/2.8 GM OSS = 2600 euro. And next to that i need a f/2.8 24-70-ish zoom. You can pick the Tamron 28-75 for that, however, the bokeh of this lens isn't great. And still both lenses are 3400 euro combined. With a G-master 24-70 its 4800 combined.

You can compare to full frame bodies, but as soon as you take the glass prices into account it becomes clear there's no free lunch here.

Furthermore: my low light pics often need some DOF, as often it is about more than one person. Often it is about family being together. As soon as you have to stop down to compensate for the thinner dof full frame gives you, the light gathering advantage of full frame is gone. And even with single person portraits there is a limit - at least for me - for how thin the dof should be. One eye in a soup of blur isn't a portrait to me (o.k., i am exaggerating here, but you get my point). My 50-100mm already teaches me i have to stop down more often. (For 18-35mm its still: larger aperture is always better though.)

Full frame is sharper. The sigma's f/1.8 zooms can't rival full frame glass. When a thin DOF is preferred it gathers more light with lower noise levels. For the bodies the value proposition is better. Not going to argue with that.

However, when taking the prices of full frame glass into account it is a whole lot of money for..... a small percentage of my pictures.