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

Sittatunga wrote:

MAC wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

MAC wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Carl LaFong wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

lumenite wrote:

Why do you throw away the fantastic 32mm for this group?
I would go for 11-22, 22, 32, 56, 55-250, and 18-150 although I do not have 18-150.

Truth be told, the EF-M 32mm f1.4 is one of my least used Canon M lenses! I know it's spectacular, but it's just not a focal length I shoot very much. 22mm to me is more of a 'normal' focal length on APS-C... even back in the film days my #1 lens for the Canon FD system was the 35mm f2 lens, and after that I used the 24mm f2.8 more than my 50mm f1.4.

Whew! I thought it was just me who felt that way. Everyone raves about the 32mm, and so I finally got one when the price dropped a little while ago. But I’m still not reaching for it much when I grab a lens or 2 to go out with. Back in my (non-Canon) SLR days I used my 24mm much more than my 50mm, apparently because it’s the way I see the world. I have a lot in my peripheral vision it seems.

I've never been tempted by the 32mm, mainly because I already have the original EF 50mm for full-frame and seldom use it on my full-frame cameras. It costs 4x as much as the EF 50mm and, while its performance at f/1.4 is said to be very good, it's only effectively half a stop faster than the stop at which my lens becomes good. That's a lot to pay for an improvement at a focal length I don't use much.

I have a different opinion

and in part it is because I have the better 32.5 crop sensor than you, that when combined with dxo PL approaches my RP FF sensor

I use the 50mm on 30Mpx and 50Mpx full-frame sensors together with PhotoLab, and don't see a huge difference in background blur between f/2.2 and f/2.8.

well, I see the difference, and when I buy primes, I buy them in part for blur and bokeh

There is a difference. But if f/2.2 is going to whip the backdrop out, then it's not going to be much less blurred at f/2.8, and since the corners will be well out of focus anyway it doesn't matter that they're not as sharp as those of the 32mm.

otherwise, heck, just buy a ff zoom

Certainly not £500 worth for a prime focal length I don't use every month.

well, in US the differential in price is $400 vs $150 = $250

I bought my EF 50mm ten years ago, second-hand. It gets more use on my EOS M cameras than on full-frame. The 32mm is £495 from Canon, £494 from WEX and £429 from a grey importer. So, for me, it's practically £500 more money for half a stop advantage over a lens I don't use every month.

I would use full-frame for really blurred backgrounds anyway, something like 100mm at f/2 or 200mm at f/2.8.

sure

but I use my 32 on m6II like a fast, light weight, rangefinder - quick to deploy at a moment's notice

That's the 11-22mm for me.

yes, roll with the 11-22 also

my dynamic duo is the 32 and 11-22

f1.4 lets in 4 times the light over f2.8

4x the intensity over about 2½ the area is roughly 1½x the number of photons, so about a 20% reduction in total image noise. That would just about be significant if I also spent the best party of another £700 on a second-hand M6 II.

in US, $549 - best $549 one can spend imo - then roll with the 32

Shop Canon Refurbished EOS M6 Mark II Body Black | Canon U.S.A., Inc.

on my m6II with this m32 f1.4 setup - high iso looks better, blur looks better, I'd contend bokeh is better, light weight is better, and the price differential is only $250 - well worth it for one of the sharpest across the frame wide open lenses on the planet

so you have to use a 50 on FF at F2.8 to be sharp and doesn't whip the backdrop out of focus

I use the 32 f1.4 @ f1.4 (sharp across the frame f2.2 equivalent) on 32.5 mplx with dxo PL to whip the backdrop out as well as keep low noise in a smaller combo - much better for me than carrying FF

if I could only have 1 lens, it would be the m32 f1.4 - I bought the m6II for this 1 lens

11-22mm IS for me.