Excellent, but...

nnowak wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

nnowak wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Michael Leek wrote:

Camera was bought specifically for travel. It has all the customisable features I require, including resolution, but is seriously let down by the poor quality of lenses by Canon, particularly the zoom range.

11-22 is fine, sigma 16mm is excellent, 22mm is fine, 32mm is excellent, sigma 30mm is very good, sigma 56mm is excellent.

So, that is quite i nice lens selection, however, to your point, an as good as the M6mkII standard zoom (that is: better than the 15-45 and 18-150mm) is missing. And there are reasons it's missing:

- a good standard zoom is going to be bigger than the typical ef-m size

There is a significant difference between bigger and huge. The Panasonic 12-60mm f/3.5-6.6 and Fuji 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 are two examples of standard kit lenses that are far better optically

Yeah better. But that doesn't necessarily mean good enough.

Compared to the 15-45mm, most people would be utterly thrilled with the image quality from the lenses I mentioned. Especially for a travel zoom like the OP is considering

I would argue the RP + 24-105 f/4.0 you are recommending over the M6mkII + sigma 18-35 is also a better option compared to a fuji body + that 18-55 f/2.8-4.0. And the 18-35mm still beats that fuji as it comes to IQ.

The Fuji and Panasonic lenses are absolutely minuscule compared to the RF 24-105mm or Sigma 18-35mm. That Sigma lens is massive and not at all what one would consider a travel zoom. While the image quality may be better with the Sigma, the gap in image quality between the Sigma and Fuji/Panasonic is not as great as the gap in image quality between the Fuji/Panasonic and 15-45mm

than than the EF-M alternatives while still being relatively compact.

- if it's going to be big anyway, what not adapt ef or ef-s glass

The problem is there are not really good alternatives for adapting either. The closest option is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, but that lens has problems too.

That's why i recommend the 18-35mm f/1.8. It has no IS, but it's at least sharp wide open, and letting in more light.

If you want great zooms IQ on your M6mkII you should accept the weight and go with the adapted sigma f/1.8 zooms (18-35 and 50-100mm). The 32mm and 56mm primes are a tad better, but on crop cameras these zooms are beating all the other lenses in their focal range (maybe save the fulll frame sigma 85mm Art).

Even with the shorter focal range, that 18-35mm is the same size as a full frame 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. The Sigma also lack stabilization. For a travel lens for the OP, the RP with the EF 24-105mm f/4 would be a far better option than that Sigma on the M6 II.

For travel, yes. But once you have the M6mkII for travel, and you want a zoom for when you're at home....

There is no reason they can't be the same lens.

I'm trying to recommend an existing lens. If somebody wants to complain about the non existing lenses, that's fine, but the OP doesn't need me to do the complaining.

Canon’s hype for this camera is therefore misleading, if not downright false. This means I’m unable to write anything too positive about the camera ‘cause I’ve yet to discover its real potential for taking high quality photographs!

You can't blame a manufacturer they don't break the laws of physics. Good zooms aren't small, so there's no reason to make one specifically for the ef-m mount. Good zooms are big. If you accept big you can adapt.

Fixing massive quality control issues does not require the laws a physics to be broken.

Could be true, but all we gain by this truth is we can blame a camera manufacturer for not making the lens we want, while the actual existing sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 allows you to shoot a very sharp zoom on the M6mkII, still having a compact body when traveling (with the 11-22mm and 32mm for instance). Now i have the 24-70 f/2.8 mkII (note: this one lacks IS too!) on full frame i still find myself shooting the best pictures in the 28-50mm range. For portraits the 70mm lacks smooth bokeh, and the 24mm is harder to use without annoying distortion than 28mm or even narrower field of view and some stepping back.

18-35 is a limited range, but it's just the most important part of a standard zoom range, and the f/1.8 allows you to leave some primes at home.

That my be true for you, but not at all for me.

What matters if it's true for the OP.

The only time I ever shoot anything remotely close to 50mm equivalent is when I am shooting video. In which case IS is essential

Let's just not talk about stabilization. This is a Canon forum ;).

And even for traveling: with the 11-22 and the 32mm you'll need a lot of lens changes as the gap is just where you want to zoom. Actually you would need a second body, but this will immediately lead you in a total price range being full frame category.

Again, those would be your focal length preferences. For photos, I almost never shoot in the range between 35mm and 85mm equivalent.

Not sure if that is a very common preference, but in your case the M lens line up is perfect. 11-22mm for the wide end, 55-200mm for the long end, and the adapted ef-s 35mm f/2.8 IS stm macro for video.

So yes, RP + 24-105mm f/4.0 L would be the best option, although..... is this exactly what you would call a compact combo?

It is still smaller than the M6 II and your 18-35mm f/1.8 Sigma

As long as the zoom is attached: yes. But we are talking about ilc's here. As soon as you change to primes or the 11-22mm the size advantage of the M6mkII becomes clear.