Re: The 'All Canon EF-M lenses' club
1
Larry Rexley wrote:
Rock and Rollei wrote:
I've got them all, too. And except for the 28 and 32, at least 2 copies of each, which i need for convenience.I've also got Samyang 8mm and 300mm, Sigma 16 and 56, Laowa 9mm f2.8, Viltrox 23mm f1.4, Lensbaby Trio 28mm, 7Artisans 18mm f6.3 UFO lems, Rockstar 10mm f8 Fisheye ( this and the UFO lens are "lens in a cap" types), and the Neewer 35mm f1.7, 7Artisans 35mm f1 2 and Kamlan 50mm f1.1.
I would generally agree with your assessment, but I think the 28mm Macro is Level 2 at least. And I would introduce a tier 5 for the 18-55, "Not very good" - all 3 of mine have been poor, with one of them really bad. Conversely, the now 5 copies I've had of the much-maligned 15-45 have been pretty good - really more level 3. It actually surprised me how little copy variation there has been on all but the 18-55.
Of the non-Canon lenses, I agree with your comments for the lenses we have in common. The Samyang mirror is tier 4, the Laowa tier 2 except wide open, the Viltrox 4 wide open, then 3 and nearly gets 2 at f8. The funnies - Lensbaby and the 2 cap lenses - are off the scale. I like them, though.
Finally, the 2 35s and the 50 - these were cheap lenses I bought before the Canon 32 and the Sigma lenses were available. Probably 4 wide open, 3 stopped down, but the point of them really is their speed, so not sure overall. They don't get a lot of use these days. I do like the character of thr Kamlan, but focusing it on a moving subject at f1.1? Not so much.
Wow.... I thought I was almost over the top having the whole lens collection... keeping multiple copies didn't ever occur to me!
There is definitely some copy variation going on with more than just the 15-45 and 18-150 - although those seem to be the worst offenders. I am on copy #6 of the 15-45 which is the FIRST copy that is pretty decent, and even then it has a soft edge at 15mm wide open. I have seen images from some 15-45 copies of this lens that would put it into tier 3.
My 28mm macro is just not that sharp for some reason, even stopped down to f5.6 and 8. My 11-22 and even the Canon 22 are ahead of it, as are the Siggy 16 and 56 and the Roki 12. I was expecting as a dedicated Canon prime for it to be optically better than it is. I could just have a mediocre copy. Or maybe DxO's lens correction lab didn't get it quite right as I've only used DxO PhotoLab 5 with it.
I've got home s on 2 continents (sounds much grander than the reality!) so it's much easier to duplicate some kit. Still end up moving some lenses backwards and forwards.
My basic travel kit these days is M6 II, 11-22, 22 and 18-150, but it's supplemented by other lenses as I think I'll need.
The 32, despite its optical excellence, is one of my least-used lenses for reasons you've given elsewhere - just doesn't suit my style. I do love the wides - 8, 9 and 11-22.
Seems counter-intuitive to me that I use my APS-C M system for wides, and my FF R system for teles, but that's where I am...