davev8 wrote:
Thomas A Anderson wrote:
Last year I managed to pick up a bargain M100 along with the standard zoom lenses. I'm enjoying using the camera enough that I'm planning to sell my 70D and start saving towards a FF mirrorless setup. At the minute I'm mostly using adapted EF-S glass with the camera and although it adds bulk I'm happy enough with it.
Seeing the suggested roadmap forward for Canon lenses, I'm concerned about the support of the M series moving forward. Obviously the focus is on the RF system.
Is it worth investing in more M glass?
I'm afraid that lenses can't really be considered an investment, but I get what you're saying. The M glass you buy today will keep working for many, many years. If you were wondering about buying more M bodies I think the discussion might be different, but M lenses are going to work with your M body for as long as you have it.
Should I be steering clear and trying to sell my M lenses before they lose value - if they will?
Oh, I think I see the issue now. You would like to get some money back out of your lenses when you're done with them. Are there any M lenses that are so expensive that you'd get a good amount of money from their sale? I have never worried about how much my gear will one day be worth so I'm not all that familiar with the used gear market. I typically just give my old lenses to other photographers, especially those who are just starting out.
Thanks
Alastair Norcross wrote:
Pretty much no camera equipment can be considered an investment.
Certainly not an investment in that they will pay for themselves in future profits or appreciation. It's like saying a house is an investment....there are very few cases where you'd ever actually turn a profit on a long-term dwelling after you take into account interest, maintenance, inflation, and other expenditures. The fact that all your monthly payments don't simply disappear forever and you one day will have equity/collateral in your property is nice, but since a $250,000 house costs more than twice that over the life of a loan.....sorry for the tangent. It's just that people are often told to think of some expensive items as "investments" when they should be told what the advantage and disadvantages are rather than that oversimplified term.
Buy the equipment that does what you want it to do in the way that you like. For me, the M6II (and M6, and the original M) and various EF-M mount lenses are a joy to use, and produce results I love. I'm finding the same applies to the R I recently picked up refurbished at a bargain price, and some RF lenses. The combination of being enjoyable to use and producing results that you're happy with is what's important. Hand-wringing about possible future products does nothing except detract from the enjoyment of photography.
Moving to an RF body and wanting to bring along M lenses has never made any sense to me. None of the M lenses are what I'd call "optically excellent"
i would disagree with you here ,,the 11-22 is the sharpest APS-c UWA out of all of them all sharper than sony or fuji in fact the only other UWA lens canon has that almost as sharp is the £2500 GBP canon 11-24 F4L (when on APS-c) i have not looked at the RF uwa
I wasn't limiting my field of comparison to APS-C lenses. It's a good lens and certainly an excellent ultra-wide....zoom....crop lens. But in the field of all UW zoom lenses, or just all lenses in general which is what I use to qualify blanket statements about OPTICAL excellence rather than all of the various qualifiers that relegate what is possible from a camera to an arbitrary subset of lenses, it's very good but not excellent.
The next sharpest canon UWA is the 16-35F4L which when its on a FF body will match the 11-22 !!!!
I'm afraid that's not the case. The 16-35 f/4 is better in several ways including sharpness. And the 16-35 f/2.8 is certainly optically excellent in terms of sharpness and faster and less aberration and vignetting....so kind of across the board excellent.
the 16-35F4L is probably the lens that i will replace my 11-22 with for my R6 ..its 3 or 4 times more expensive waaaay bigger and looking at test cherts the L lens is about the same sharpness on 21MP FF as the 11-22 is on 18MP so the 11-22 may have the edge on my 24MP M5 than the 16-35L on the 20MP R6 ....the 11-22 is a VERY reluctant sale
the EF-m 22mm F2 is a little sharper than the £800 sony/Zeiss 24mm F1.8...the sony/Zeiss is described as an excellent lens
the EF-m 32mm F1.4 i believe is best in class as well
as i believe the 28 macro is as well
Sorry but the M has some MOST excellent lenses ,,, at any price
I guess we just have a different threshold for excellence.
and using a crop lens on a FF body defeats the purpose. Why not buy EF lenses that will always work? Then buy RF lenses once you're in that system.
