Future of EOS-M cameras and EF-M lenses...

R2D2 wrote:

Satyaa wrote:

keeponkeepingon wrote:

..

But you only need one lens and if 22mm is good enough for you you are "good to go". It's an OK lens for the size/price but personally I don't think it's super great. The 32mm is suposedly better but it's also quite a bit bigger. Is it a "small prime"? Not compared to the 22mm or canon's 40mm but I'd say it's small for an F1.4 prime. But even so, depending on your pockets, it may affect the caryaroundablity of the system:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#829.791,829.349,ha,t

Thank you for explaining their relative strengths.

My interest is in 22, 40mm (if available somewhere) and the 56. That should cover most of what I want

The Canon EF 40mm STM pancake is actually a pretty nice lens, and fairly compact even with an adapter. The Sigma 56 is an excellent performer.

R2

The 11-22mm zoom is what stays almost permanently on one of my EOS Ms, it's a really nice lens, very versatile. I thought I would have used my 22mm f/2 a lot more, given that I carried a Minox 35EL around for decades, but the flexibility of the zoom with its IS means I almost always use the zoom.  I've an adapted Olympus Pen-F half-frame 38mm f/1.8 which I find an awkward focal length to use - I'm always either having to step back a lot or it's not got enough reach.  That puts me off the EF 40mm, though I can see that one working well on FF cameras.  I'd prefer the 32mm if it weren't a lot more than I'm prepared to pay.  I've just bought the 28mm prime which I thought would be an ideal English Lake District lens (45mm FF equivalent).  Still getting used to it; macro isn't nearly as easy as it looks with those tiny working distances.