The 'All Canon EF-M lenses' club

Photato wrote:

I own both standard zoom kit lenses and did a comparison test to find out which one to sell, but decided to keep them both because is worth more to keep them as they complement each other on their pros and cons than their resale value.
From my copies, the 15-45 is better at shorter focal lengths while the 18-55 is better at the longer range. 18-55 has a better built but 15-45 is light and portable which is good but it feels like wouldn't last.

Exactly. Even though similar they are just different enough to be taken out for different shoots.

I've found most of the Canon native EF-M lens while sharp, are compromised by heavy vignetting which normally doesn't get the attention it deserves. This is by design since Canon wanted to keep these lenses small. I don't own the complete collection but this is easy to find out in many reviews, it is just physics.

True, the vignetting issue doesn't get much attention.... the first time I started reading reviews deeply and saw how much the corner light loss, I thought to myself, that can't be right.... but it is.

However, even though I do a lot of low light high ISO shooting at wide open apertures, I don't really see an issue in my images. I do use DxO Photolab 5 exclusively --- perhaps its corrections and denoise compensate and 'mask' the issue very effectively.

Probably the only exception being the 32mm but its bokeh is not that pretty IMHO.
I really like the 22 for its size and focal length versatility but always wished Canon had a premium version with less vignetting and faster AF speed.
The lens I use when performance and image quality matter more than convenience or portability is the Canon EF 35mm F2 IS. I bought that over the EF-M 32mm because of being future proof, no vignetting and work with the speed booster as a 28mm f1.4 lens, but again is not as portable as the EF-M 32mm.
My 11-22 gets the work done, but is average in sharpness. The colors that come from it are meh, probably has something to do with the coatings or is just me.

Most people rave about the 11-22's sharpness, and get the same sharp results I do.  But I have read some reviewers who did not seem to have such a sharp copy. My 28mm f3.5 macro has no obvious flaws or decentering, but it just isn't as sharp as I was expecting or as I read in other folk's experience... my 22mm f2 is definitely slightly sharper

I also have the EF 40mm which is good for the price and very compact but an average lens.
For Tele I use the value oriented EF-S 55-250 which I'm happy with, only need to add a good teleconverter or will succumb to the Sigma 150-600

I shoot with the EF-S 55-250 over the 55-200 most of the time, due purely to the extra range and becuase I can use my teleconverters on it. Its image quality is slightly inferior to the EF-M 55-200 --- a tad less sharp and a touch less vivid colors and contrast, but it's not a huge difference and for most images I can get results that look very, very close between the two with a little DxO tweaking.

Right now, I'm sitting on the fence between staying with the M long term or moving on to the R APS-C R10, but not excited to further commit to Canon nor have a good impression about Fuji or Sony.

Tough choice. I'm sticking with M since I've got such a complete lens collection, four bodies (2 M6ii's and 2 M200's, one converted to full spectrum), it meets 95% of my needs, and have no desire to drop another $5 - $10k to get a collection of lenses as diverse as what I've got.