Canon EF-M Series in 2025

Pierre Lagarde said:

KEG said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

nnowak said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

nnowak said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

To my sense you nailed exactly what I call "the fundamental set of lenses for EOS-M" . BTW, the 11-22 is really a gem, even in comparison to any other system to date.

Click to expand...

The 11-22mm is a very good lens, but the almost mythical, legendary status...

Click to expand...

You wrote it . I only wrote it's a gem.

Click to expand...

You also wrote "No equivalent anywhere else." That was maybe true in 2014, but is absolutely not the case today.

Click to expand...

It still is.

Click to expand...

The lens is for instance optically corrected.

UWA lenses are also rather expensive for other mounts especially if you have to factor in the price of the camera body also.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Try to do some pano with the RF 10-18 for instance (BTW, its vignette is worse at same focal lengths and apertures as the 11-22), and you'll see that most softwares are unable to work correctly with the raw files, ending in too many errors and artefacts that makes stitched results unusable, most of the time.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a RAW software problem and not a lens problem

Pierre Lagarde said:

The balance of size, weight, price, optical qualities and features of the 11-22 is still unparalleled in any brand by now.

Click to expand...

Fortunately no manufacturer has exactly copied the 11-22mm because the locking/retracting mechanism is an absolute pain.

Pierre Lagarde said:

This excellent page gives a list of its advantages against some other lenses at the time, but still, no recent lens can rival (even in Nikon Z mount line-up... so ).

https://www.witnesstobeauty.com/canon-11-22-is-review-and-comparison

Click to expand...

It is no longer 2013. That review is comically outdated and some of the comparisons are just ridiculous. Who is cross shopping the EF-M 11-22mm against the Sony E 16-50 kit lens or Canon EF-S 15-85mm?

Lens option have changed a lot in 12 years. Every current mirrorless system has wide angle options that are as good as, or better than, the 11-22mm. While the EF-M system has exactly one wide angle option, other systems have four, or more. If someone is already in the EF-M system, of course, the 11-22mm would be easy to recommend. For anyone not in the EF-M system, they will have their own excellent wide angle options. Many of those alternatives offer capabilities the 11-22mm can not match.

Pierre Lagarde said:

nnowak said:

KEG said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

nnowak said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

nnowak said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

To my sense you nailed exactly what I call "the fundamental set of lenses for EOS-M" . BTW, the 11-22 is really a gem, even in comparison to any other system to date.

Click to expand...

The 11-22mm is a very good lens, but the almost mythical, legendary status...

Click to expand...

You wrote it . I only wrote it's a gem.

Click to expand...

You also wrote "No equivalent anywhere else." That was maybe true in 2014, but is absolutely not the case today.

Click to expand...

It still is.

Click to expand...

The lens is for instance optically corrected.

Click to expand...

In what way? Especially at 11mm, there is significant distortion and vignetting that both get corrected with software profiles.

Click to expand...

The 11-22mm has quite less distortion than most nowadays ultra-wide, especially at that size and weight, and vignetting is also far from being the worst, even uncorrected.

Click to expand...

That is simply not true. There are multiple crop wide angle zooms with less distortion and less vignetting.

Pierre Lagarde said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

UWA lenses are also rather expensive for other mounts especially if you have to factor in the price of the camera body also.

Click to expand...

This is an odd comment, especially since the OP does not own any M cameras.

Click to expand...

The OP asked :

"As such, I'm drawn to the deadline of EF-M gear. I'm thinking of picking up an M5 or M6ii, possibly even an M200 with the 11-22mm, 22mm, and 55-200mm lenses.

Does anyone still shoot with this gear and how does it hold up in 2025?"

So what's odd with KEG's comment. He's just talking about qualities that are still up to date for the lens and system in comparison to others.

Click to expand...

KEG was suggesting that a non-EF-M wide angle would be more expensive because one would also need a non-EF-M body. The OP does not own any EF-M bodies. The OP already owns m4/3 and Z bodies. Contrary KEG's comment, the cheapest option would be something that works with what they already own.

Pierre Lagarde said:

The OP also asked if someone still shoots with those gears in 2025, and that's what we're answering to : I'm still shooting with EOS M6 Mark II and EF-M 11-22mm because it's still valuable in 2025 and because it's still quite unique, no doubt.

Click to expand...

Being valuable to you as an existing owner, and also being a poor choice for someone to buy into today can both be true at the same time.

Pierre Lagarde said:

What's odd is trying to prevent real owners from testifying about that, to my sense, especially without no fair argument.

Click to expand...

I am not "preventing" anything. I am providing a counterpoint to some exaggerated claims about the M system.

nnowak said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

KEG said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

nnowak said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

nnowak said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

To my sense you nailed exactly what I call "the fundamental set of lenses for EOS-M" . BTW, the 11-22 is really a gem, even in comparison to any other system to date.

Click to expand...

The 11-22mm is a very good lens, but the almost mythical, legendary status...

Click to expand...

You wrote it . I only wrote it's a gem.

Click to expand...

You also wrote "No equivalent anywhere else." That was maybe true in 2014, but is absolutely not the case today.

Click to expand...

It still is.

Click to expand...

The lens is for instance optically corrected.

UWA lenses are also rather expensive for other mounts especially if you have to factor in the price of the camera body also.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Try to do some pano with the RF 10-18 for instance (BTW, its vignette is worse at same focal lengths and apertures as the 11-22), and you'll see that most softwares are unable to work correctly with the raw files, ending in too many errors and artefacts that makes stitched results unusable, most of the time.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a RAW software problem and not a lens problem

Click to expand...

Then it's all of them. I've enough experiment with those lenses distorted to death to know that the raw files they produce are a pain to work with in any software. It's not softwares fault, it's just that the corrections needed are too heavy.

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

The balance of size, weight, price, optical qualities and features of the 11-22 is still unparalleled in any brand by now.

Click to expand...

Fortunately no manufacturer has exactly copied the 11-22mm because the locking/retracting mechanism is an absolute pain.

Click to expand...

Simply put : considering the size of the lens it is certainly not, and at least completely exaggerated. It works very easily, and never prevents me from nailing a shot with it.

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

This excellent page gives a list of its advantages against some other lenses at the time, but still, no recent lens can rival (even in Nikon Z mount line-up... so ).

https://www.witnesstobeauty.com/canon-11-22-is-review-and-comparison

Click to expand...

It is no longer 2013. That review is comically outdated and some of the comparisons are just ridiculous. Who is cross shopping the EF-M 11-22mm against the Sony E 16-50 kit lens or Canon EF-S 15-85mm?

Click to expand...

It is not as well, and most everything in this review is still absolutely accurate.

nnowak said:

Lens option have changed a lot in 12 years.

Click to expand...

Yes, many are optically worst indeed because manufacturers decided they should rely on software corrections more and more.

nnowak said:

Every current mirrorless system has wide angle options that are as good as, or better than, the 11-22mm.

Click to expand...

Not at all, especially if you consider the whole set of features.

nnowak said:

While the EF-M system has exactly one wide angle option, other systems have four, or more.

Click to expand...

With none with as many real advantages...

nnowak said:

If someone is already in the EF-M system, of course, the 11-22mm would be easy to recommend. For anyone not in the EF-M system, they will have their own excellent wide angle options.

Click to expand...

Wrong. I've EOS R's cameras and Nikon Z, and I still keep the 11-22. I see no better option in both those systems, and even less in others.

nnowak said:

Many of those alternatives offer capabilities the 11-22mm can not match.

Click to expand...

No. Not for the size, price, weight combination, and even some much more expensive and heavier are not as good optically.

nnowak said:

I am providing a counterpoint to some exaggerated claims about the M system.

Click to expand...

It is not possible to exaggerate claims about the M system - it is a cult system after all

I wonder if the original poster still follows this thread though?

nnowak said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

nnowak said:

KEG said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

nnowak said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

nnowak said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

To my sense you nailed exactly what I call "the fundamental set of lenses for EOS-M" . BTW, the 11-22 is really a gem, even in comparison to any other system to date.

Click to expand...

The 11-22mm is a very good lens, but the almost mythical, legendary status...

Click to expand...

You wrote it . I only wrote it's a gem.

Click to expand...

You also wrote "No equivalent anywhere else." That was maybe true in 2014, but is absolutely not the case today.

Click to expand...

It still is.

Click to expand...

The lens is for instance optically corrected.

Click to expand...

In what way? Especially at 11mm, there is significant distortion and vignetting that both get corrected with software profiles.

Click to expand...

The 11-22mm has quite less distortion than most nowadays ultra-wide, especially at that size and weight, and vignetting is also far from being the worst, even uncorrected.

Click to expand...

That is simply not true. There are multiple crop wide angle zooms with less distortion and less vignetting.

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

UWA lenses are also rather expensive for other mounts especially if you have to factor in the price of the camera body also.

Click to expand...

This is an odd comment, especially since the OP does not own any M cameras.

Click to expand...

The OP asked :

"As such, I'm drawn to the deadline of EF-M gear. I'm thinking of picking up an M5 or M6ii, possibly even an M200 with the 11-22mm, 22mm, and 55-200mm lenses.

Does anyone still shoot with this gear and how does it hold up in 2025?"

So what's odd with KEG's comment. He's just talking about qualities that are still up to date for the lens and system in comparison to others.

Click to expand...

KEG was suggesting that a non-EF-M wide angle would be more expensive because one would also need a non-EF-M body. The OP does not own any EF-M bodies. The OP already owns m4/3 and Z bodies. Contrary KEG's comment, the cheapest option would be something that works with what they already own.

Click to expand...

No. Simply not.

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

The OP also asked if someone still shoots with those gears in 2025, and that's what we're answering to : I'm still shooting with EOS M6 Mark II and EF-M 11-22mm because it's still valuable in 2025 and because it's still quite unique, no doubt.

Click to expand...

Being valuable to you as an existing owner, and also being a poor choice for someone to buy into today can both be true at the same time.

Click to expand...

But it is not.

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

What's odd is trying to prevent real owners from testifying about that, to my sense, especially without no fair argument.

Click to expand...

I am not "preventing" anything. I am providing a counterpoint to some exaggerated claims about the M system.

Click to expand...

By giving exaggerated bashing points that does not help at all, you mean. You don't use the lens, clearly (if ever you did). I hope the OP will understand that only real users of various systems have a valuable advice.

You're just bashing from the start for who knows why ?

Pierre Lagarde said:

nnowak said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

nnowak said:

KEG said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

nnowak said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

nnowak said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

To my sense you nailed exactly what I call "the fundamental set of lenses for EOS-M" . BTW, the 11-22 is really a gem, even in comparison to any other system to date.

Click to expand...

The 11-22mm is a very good lens, but the almost mythical, legendary status...

Click to expand...

You wrote it . I only wrote it's a gem.

Click to expand...

You also wrote "No equivalent anywhere else." That was maybe true in 2014, but is absolutely not the case today.

Click to expand...

It still is.

Click to expand...

The lens is for instance optically corrected.

Click to expand...

In what way? Especially at 11mm, there is significant distortion and vignetting that both get corrected with software profiles.

Click to expand...

The 11-22mm has quite less distortion than most nowadays ultra-wide, especially at that size and weight, and vignetting is also far from being the worst, even uncorrected.

Click to expand...

That is simply not true. There are multiple crop wide angle zooms with less distortion and less vignetting.

Pierre Lagarde said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

UWA lenses are also rather expensive for other mounts especially if you have to factor in the price of the camera body also.

Click to expand...

This is an odd comment, especially since the OP does not own any M cameras.

Click to expand...

The OP asked :

"As such, I'm drawn to the deadline of EF-M gear. I'm thinking of picking up an M5 or M6ii, possibly even an M200 with the 11-22mm, 22mm, and 55-200mm lenses.

Does anyone still shoot with this gear and how does it hold up in 2025?"

So what's odd with KEG's comment. He's just talking about qualities that are still up to date for the lens and system in comparison to others.

Click to expand...

KEG was suggesting that a non-EF-M wide angle would be more expensive because one would also need a non-EF-M body. The OP does not own any EF-M bodies. The OP already owns m4/3 and Z bodies. Contrary KEG's comment, the cheapest option would be something that works with what they already own.

Click to expand...

No. Simply not.

Click to expand...

Simply yes. Adding a couple m4/3 lenses to the OP's existing kit would be much cheaper than adding a whole new kit of an M camera and 3 lenses.

Pierre Lagarde said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

The OP also asked if someone still shoots with those gears in 2025, and that's what we're answering to : I'm still shooting with EOS M6 Mark II and EF-M 11-22mm because it's still valuable in 2025 and because it's still quite unique, no doubt.

Click to expand...

Being valuable to you as an existing owner, and also being a poor choice for someone to buy into today can both be true at the same time.

Click to expand...

But it is not.

Click to expand...

But it is.

Pierre Lagarde said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

Pierre Lagarde said:

What's odd is trying to prevent real owners from testifying about that, to my sense, especially without no fair argument.

Click to expand...

I am not "preventing" anything. I am providing a counterpoint to some exaggerated claims about the M system.

Click to expand...

By giving exaggerated bashing points that does not help at all, you mean. You don't use the lens, clearly (if ever you did). I hope the OP will understand that only real users of various systems have a valuable advice.

You're just bashing from the start for who knows why ?

Click to expand...

I have years of experience with the 11-22mm, likely more than you. It is a good lens, but far from perfect. The OP also needed the 22mm and 55-200mm to complete their kit. Are you going to start defending the 55-200mm too? Because that lens is mediocre at best.

Kjeld Olesen said:

nnowak said:

I am providing a counterpoint to some exaggerated claims about the M system.

Click to expand...

It is not possible to exaggerate claims about the M system - it is a cult system after all

I wonder if the original poster still follows this thread though?

Click to expand...

Right, he probably got tired of this cross purposes talk since a long time.

On the other hand, I know I should never answer to such "no-names, no-pictures, no-evidence" pseudos, so why I still do is a self enigma I'm stupid !

nnowak said:

Sounds like a RAW software problem and not a lens problem

Fortunately no manufacturer has exactly copied the 11-22mm because the locking/retracting mechanism is an absolute pain.

Click to expand...

Panasonic Lumix G 12-32 is similar

nnowak said:

It is no longer 2013. That review is comically outdated and some of the comparisons are just ridiculous. Who is cross shopping the EF-M 11-22mm against the Sony E 16-50 kit lens or Canon EF-S 15-85mm?

Lens option have changed a lot in 12 years. Every current mirrorless system has wide angle options that are as good as, or better than, the 11-22mm. While the EF-M system has exactly one wide angle option, other systems have four, or more. If someone is already in the EF-M system, of course, the 11-22mm would be easy to recommend. For anyone not in the EF-M system, they will have their own excellent wide angle options. Many of those alternatives offer capabilities the 11-22mm can not match.

Click to expand...

Your OM5 is currently better than any M-series camera, and its limited selection of lenses