I'm considering returning my EF-M 22mm f/2 lens....

nnowak wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

TrackDayLT4 wrote:

Jayson A wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

1. TrackDayLT4 wrote:

Jayson A wrote:

Holy cow. How the heck did it pick up the sticks? I put the focus directly on the rock. This lens is too hard to turn for manual focus (it feels too tight), so I have to use auto focus.

I think you are all correct. I had to use a low f stop because it was fairly dim out there. I know it's not the best picture, but that seems to be one of the ones where I just couldn't get a sharp image from it. Is there a way in Adobe Bridge or something to see where the focus was set? Surely that's saved somewhere in the metadata.

Something is wrong with this lens, it should not feel to tight to manually focus. I would return it and exchange for one that works correctly.

I missed that part. Something definitely wrong there!

Could indeed be why it’s mis-focusing.

R2

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the focus decided by the dual-pixel auto focus, not by the lens itself? Once the camera sees that the focus area is sharp, then it allows you to take the photo doesn't it?

Also, doesn't the focus ring just move the electronic focus motor, so even if the ring itself is tight, it doesn't really mean there's something wrong with the stepping motor inside right?

if the manual focus is tight, that means it is binding on something because of misalignment. Misalignment can extend to the optical elements which means that the lens will never be sharp. Autofocus just determines the sharpest focus the lens is capable of which as seen in your pictures is very poor. Send it back and get one that is not damaged.

The manual focus ring on the EF-M 22mm has no mechanical coupling to the optical elements. It is solely a rotary encoder that sends an electrical signal to the stepper motor.

It could certainly be an indicator that something else is messed up (ie misaligned) in there however.

Possibly. The point was that modern EF-M lenses are nothing like old manual focus lenses and the focus ring has no mechanical connection to the motion of the optical elements.

As we were saying, those optical elements (ie the transport) could be all messed up.

Sure, they could be, but as there is no physical connection between the focus ring and the optical elements, failure of one does not indicate a failure of the other.

Or perhaps the “rotary encoder” is pegged all the way resulting in misfocus.

You have used enough EF-M gear to know that is physically impossible. When you switch to manual focus, it always starts from the last position of the optical elements, not the last position of the focus ring. In technical terms, EF-M lenses use an incremental encoder, not an absolute encoder. In laymen's terms, EF-M lenses don't know where the focus ring is, only how far it has moved and in which direction.

Even if it were possible to "peg" the encoder (it isn't), you would need to go into the menus and change the camera's default behavior to AF+MF to even enable manual focus.

You’re incorrect here. It’s indeed possible to damage the focusing ring mechanism so that it’s constantly sending a focus-to-near or far signal to the lens controller. I’ve seen it happen.

I don't know what lens you witnessed that behavior, but it absolutely was not an EF-M 22mm f/2.0 lens. The focus ring in the EF-M lens is an optical incremental encoder. It is physically impossible to damage this mechanism in such a way as to produce a continuous signal. The only failure mode is to produce no signal.

Even it were possible to damage the focus ring in such a way as to produce a continuous signal, then the lens would be pegged at infinity focus or the minimum focus distance. All of the OP's samples were not captured at either of those extremes, but instead were at an intermediate distance.

Furthermore, the OP would need to specifically enable AF+MF mode for the lens to even look at inputs from the focus ring.

The OP is lucky he could return it.

I am not saying the lens is not defective, but it looks like the bigger issues is sloppy AF technique that was masked by slow kit lenses and suddenly highlighted by a bright prime with thinner depth of field.

Well it WAS defective. And it’s now perfectly obvious from other photos (and responses) that he’s posted that he’s aware of those facts. Give him some credit!

Really? The OP posted these samples without any focus issues.

Geez, with your troubleshooting prowess…

R2