If you could only have 3, 6, or 9 lenses for your M system?

silver to silicon wrote:

3 lenses:

• 10-18 EFS (have) or 11-22 M

The EF-S 10-18 is a very good and well-priced lens. It's physically a lot larger, and not quite as good optically as the 11-22, but it's a safer bet for those that may move away from the M mount in future, to the R or even another brand that can use EF lenses with an adapter.

• 18-150 M
• 55-250 EFS. (Does 1.4x Teleconverter count? Three and a half?)

The TC counts, mine lives on the EF-S 55-250 at least half the time.

• for any situation save low light that amazes me vs. options at my SRT era start in this hobby And iso 800-1000 Tri-X monochrome push development was about the limit for low light then, so really not giving up too much.

6 lenses

• macro 35 EFS (have) or 28 macro M.
• 90 adaptall macro probably the optically best lens in bag with nice rendering and bokeh too - manual focus. Sharp enough to use with 1.5x sometimes 2x.
• Pick favorite among manual focus 50-58mm tough choice Helios or MC/MD Rokkors

9 lenses

• A 24mm 2.8 manual focus takes nice close ups and is like a film era 35mm wide normal on M. It makes me question redundancy of 22mm M
• but the 22 M might be #8 for AF, affordable, much smaller size and light weight vs. 24mm as horses for courses like others have said

"There's something" undefinable about the 22mm f2... it's a fun, special lens that's also very good optically. It's one of the few lenses I can put on an M200 or M6ii, like the Laowa 9mm, and put the camera in the pocket of athletic shorts (the "Florida Uniform"). 22mm is a sweet spot for a lot of shooters, including me... and the lens is so small it almost always makes it into my camera bag.

• still not sure between 35 IS macro and old fast film 35mm that can reverse for close macro ( or the idea of 30-32mm 1.4 M). Same logic as 24 vs 22. Keep both IS and old fast 35s for now.

and beyond

• sigma 16mm handled very nice in local store. That might be first new M lens purchased vs, used or refurbished

Even though the Sigma 16mm f1.4 is larger and heavier than any Canon EF-M lens, and most other third-party EOS M mount lenses, there's also something about that lens that makes it particularly satisfying to use. It's solid and has a beautiful finish quality, and in low light, being so wide and having AF, in many cases no other lens can do what it can do. That extra wideness and another stop of speed sets it apart from the 22mm f2. It has become a vlogging lens of choice despite its size and weight. In use it doesn't feel that heavy, only when you carry it around in a bag full of lenses!!

• Handling the 16mm makes me consider the sigma 1.4 trio as future set if I overcome thinking fast 30mm and 56mm AF in M mount are redundant to 35 IS or old fast film primes… I like an old manual 50mm macro and 135mm, too…

being able to adapt EF lenses and old film lenses made the M system appealing