Re: Yes, but perhaps no. Your guess is as good as mine.
2
User1303423862 wrote:
dan the man p wrote:
User1303423862 wrote:
Sittatunga wrote:
But the 15-45mm has IS. So, even stopped down to f/7.1, it will give better results handheld (less shake and more depth of field) for shady corners, woodland, interesting barn interiors, misty days and twilight/sunrise landscapes than the Sigma would at f/2.8. And it's 155g lighter, 10° wider and less than half the price the Sigma would be, were it available.
More depth of field isn't always a better result. The Sigma is the more versatile lens. If I need to support it more stably to get the result I want, I can do that. The 15-45 is never going to offer the same sort of subject separation that can be achieved with the Sigma lens.
Or sharpness, for that matter. The EF-M standard zooms are simply not great optically. That said, for me 18mm on the wide end is a bit limiting (and the 15-45 is actually decently sharp on the wide end when stopped down).
When I find the 18mm FOV limiting, I turn the camera to portrait and take a couple of shots side by side to stitch together later. It'd be nice if that stitching could be done in-camera really. My 11-22 zoom doesn't weigh much either. Easy to carry along for those wide shots.
The 11-22 + Sigma 18-50 would be a great combo, I agree. Throw in the 32mm f/1.4 for low light and 55-200 for telephoto and you'd have a great, light kit that could handle almost anything. Unfortunately, the f/2.8 standard zoom is the big glaring omission as far as what's actually available or what likely will be in the future.