the exceptional EF-M 11-22 IS

I finally managed to get up into the mountains for some extreme alpine backpacking on Mt Rainier and Mt Hood over the last few weekends. This provided me the opportunity to test out the 11-22 IS lens. I brought the 18-55 IS but only used it once. I have been blown away by the 11-22's quality. The corners are amazingly sharp! It easily beats the image quality of my 16-35/2.8L II when mounted to my 5D2. When DxO Mark released their review of the 11-22 I have been running comparisons to see how it measures up to the competition. I have been surprised to find that it wins out time and time again. I recorded my comparisons and thought the EOS-M community might find the comparison useful.

Canon EF-M 11-22 IS compared to the competition

-Overall: nothing comes close to delivering this level of wide angle image quality when considering the cost, size and weight, plus the lens includes image stabilization and has excellent flare control

-Price ($400): significantly less expensive, only the Sony 16-50 general zoom is less and it isn't remotely competitive by any other criteria

-Size (2.4x2.6): smaller to much smaller, except for slightly heavier than Olympus 9-18

-Weight (220g): lighter to much lighter, equal to Sony 10-18 and slightly heavier than Olympus 9-18

-Sharpness: easily beats nine lenses and matches Olympus 9-18, with Sigma 18-35/1.8 and Nikon 14-24/2.8 offering noticeable improvement

-CA: beats all lenses while matching Sigma 18-35/1.8 and Canon 17-55/2.8 IS

-Distortion: beats six and matches four, with Sigma 8-16 and Canon 10-22 offering noticeable improvement

-Vignetting: beating three and only slightly worse/equal to eight, with only the Sigma 18-35/1.8 offering noticeable improvement, making this the weakest aspect of the lens

Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8

vs

Olympus ED 9-18 @ 9mm f/5.6

-Price ($700): much more expensive

-Size (2.2x1.9): smaller

-Weight (155g): lighter

-Sharpness: equal

-CA: worse

-Distortion: horrifically bad

-Vignetting: slightly better

Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8

vs

Panasonic G 7-14 @ 10mm f/5.6

-Price ($970): much more expensive

-Size (2.8x3.3): much larger

-Weight (300g) heavier

-Sharpness: worse in corners

-CA: much worse overall

-Distortion: horrifically bad

-Vignetting: slightly better

Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8

vs

Sony E 10-18 @ 10mm f/8

-Price ($850): much more expensive

-Size (2.8x2.5): slightly larger

-Weight (225g): equal

-Sharpness: worse in corners

-CA: slightly worse overall

-Distortion: slightly better

-Vignetting: horrifically bad

Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8

vs

Sigma 8-16 @ 10mm f/8

-Price ($850): much more expensive

-Size (3.0x4.2): much larger

-Weight (555g): much heavier

-Sharpness: much worse in corners and overall

-CA: worse overall and much worse in corners

-Distortion: better

-Vignetting: slightly better

Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8

vs

Sigma 10-20 @ 10mm f/8

-Price ($650): much more expensive

-Size (3.4x3.5): much larger

-Weight (520g): much heavier

-Sharpness: much worse in corners and overall

-CA: worse in corners

-Distortion: slightly better

-Vignetting: slightly better

Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8

vs

Canon EF-S 10-22 @ 10mm f/8

-Price ($650): much more expensive

-Size (3.3x3.5): much larger

-Weight (386g): heavier

-Sharpness: much worse in corners

-CA: worse in corners

-Distortion: much better

-Vignetting: slightly better

Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8

vs

Nikon 14-24/2.8G @ 16mm f/8

-Price ($2,000): insanely expensive

-Size (3.8x5.2): insanely large

-Weight (969g): insanely heavy

-Sharpness: much better overall

-CA: slightly worse in corners

-Distortion: equal

-Vignetting: equal

Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8

vs

Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II @ 16mm f/8

-Price ($1,700): insanely expensive

-Size (3.5x4.4): much larger

-Weight (635g): much heavier

-Sharpness: much worse in corners

-CA: much worse in corners

-Distortion: slightly better

-Vignetting: worse

Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 17mm f/8

vs

Sony E 16-50 @ 16mm f/8

-Price ($350): slightly less

-Size (2.5x1.2): smaller

-Weight (116g): lighter

-Sharpness: much worse in corners

-CA: worse in corners

-Distortion: horrifically bad

-Vignetting: much worse

Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 17mm f/8

vs

Canon EF-S 15-85 IS @ 15mm f/8

-Price ($700): much more expensive

-Size (3.2x3.4): much larger

-Weight (575g): much heavier

-Sharpness: worse in corners

-CA: worse in corners

-Distortion: worse

-Vignetting: equal

Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 17mm f/8

vs

Canon 17-55/2.8 IS @ 17mm f/8

-Price ($880): much more expensive

-Size (3.3x4.4): much larger

-Weight (635g): much heavier

-Sharpness: slightly worse in corners

-CA: equal

-Distortion: slightly worse

-Vignetting: equal

Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 17mm f/8

vs

Sigma 18-35/1.8 @ 18mm f/8

-Price ($800): much more expensive

-Size (3.1 x 4.8): much larger

-Weight (811g): insanely heavy

-Sharpness: better in corners

-CA: slightly better in center but slightly worse in corners

-Distortion: worse

-Vignetting: better

If you are using it in the US, how did you get your hands on it?  Are you visiting the US or did you have it imported some how?

Ok I didn't think is was available any where in North America.

Thanks for your review.

Was curious:  all of those lens you are comparing the EF-M 11-22 IS to:  did you try these lens yourself in a head-to-head comparison?  If so, what camera bodies did you use, especially for lens like the Nikon.

I really appreciate the time and effort in the post.

However, as another poster said, I am a bit baffled by your comparison.  for example you picked the nikon 14-24 to be much better, and 16-35II to be much worse in the corners.  I own both lenses, they are pretty close at f8, and I wont even consider 14-24 much better in the corners at f8 than 16-35II. so not sure how you came up with your ratings.  furthermore, it is really so difficult to compare lenses on a crop to those on full frame, as you need to look at the entire image, sensor resolution, microcontrast, color depth, etc.  I think its fair to say, its an inexpensive optically good, small, stablized ultrawide.

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

Thanks for your review.

Was curious: all of those lens you are comparing the EF-M 11-22 IS to: did you try these lens yourself in a head-to-head comparison? If so, what camera bodies did you use, especially for lens like the Nikon.

All of these have been reviewed by DXO Mark, so there is very detailed and useful data if you are will to dig deeper than their overall score.  Their overall score is HEAVILY biased toward large aperture lenses, which isn't very helpful since 99% of my ultra wide usage requires large depth-of-field (landscape/architecture).  Take note that my results include the focal length and f-stop used for each lens comparison.

That being said, I have used many of these lenses professionally or for pleasure over the years, either owning, renting, borrowing or simply trying out.  My personal experience matches DXO Mark's lens testing data.

Jonathan Brady wrote:

jitteringjr wrote:

If you are using it in the US, how did you get your hands on it? Are you visiting the US or did you have it imported some how?

http://www.henrys.com/78480-CANON-EF-M-11-22MM-F4-5-6-IS-STM-LENS.aspx

Have it shipped to the US from Canada

As noted by jitteringjr, I ordered from Henry's Canada.  The lens was out-of-stock when I placed the order last month but it ended up shipping out only a few days later.  The lens arrived in Oregon 48 hours after leaving Henry's, and this incredibly fast shipping only cost $12!

kevindar wrote:

I really appreciate the time and effort in the post.

However, as another poster said, I am a bit baffled by your comparison. for example you picked the nikon 14-24 to be much better, and 16-35II to be much worse in the corners. I own both lenses, they are pretty close at f8, and I wont even consider 14-24 much better in the corners at f8 than 16-35II. so not sure how you came up with your ratings. furthermore, it is really so difficult to compare lenses on a crop to those on full frame, as you need to look at the entire image, sensor resolution, microcontrast, color depth, etc. I think its fair to say, its an inexpensive optically good, small, stablized ultrawide.

All data is directly from DXO Mark, I just extracted data for my f/8 greater depth-of-field requirements, so my overall assessment may differ from DXO Mark's overall lens rating.  I have owned and used many of these lenses, and I find that DXO Mark data closely matches my experience.  I had a good copy of the 16-35/2.8L II and I was very pleased with its overall performance but super sharp corners was not its strongest attribute.  I was willing to pay the f/2.8 "L" premium at the time for its low distortion.  The EF-M 11-22 IS is superior in every way, although, the 16-35 still has a bit of an advantage in the distortion area.  Distortion is the Nikon 14-24's achilles heal.  Of course, the size, weight and bulbous front element is also a downside of the lens, as is the case with my much beloved 17 TSE.

I agree that making a direct comparison of a full frame lens to a crop sensor lens is problematic.  There are many advantages that a full frame sensor brings to the table, but at base ISO and with a stopped down lens, the advantages become very small.  Each individual can decide if those advantages are worth the expense, size and weight.  I have decided that for backpacking that the EOS-M w/ 11-22 IS more than meets my requirements and helps make my wilderness adventures much, much more enjoyable!

I guess we all have our own perspective, and after all each man's perspective is his reality.

The achilles Heal of 14-24 (other than size and cost I suppose) is flare, and difficulty of using filters.  I never found the distoriton or CA objectionable, as both are very easy to fix in post, and CA is fixed with no penalty.

If you are comparing equivalent, then you are comparing the M lens at 11mm, and f8, to 16-35II at 18mm, f12.  I will say, the 16-35II at f11 and 18mm, has excellent corners.

Now, I think the 11-22, from reading your review, and other reviews, is truly a fantastic lens, and an awesome value.  I think what canon lacks in quantity in ef-m mount, it at least in part makes up in quality, as the kit lens (18-55), 22 mm f2, and now the ultrawide, all appear to be optically just excellent.

I think canon honestly has the potential to corner the mirrorless market b/c of their size, and reputation, and experience in lens production.  I am guessing the next iteration of M will have a view finder, and the dual pixel autofocus.  canon then needs 3 more fast and sharp and decent size primes, say 35, 50, and 85, and they are set.

kevindar wrote:

I guess we all have our own perspective, and after all each man's perspective is his reality.

The achilles Heal of 14-24 (other than size and cost I suppose) is flare, and difficulty of using filters. I never found the distoriton or CA objectionable, as both are very easy to fix in post, and CA is fixed with no penalty.

If you are comparing equivalent, then you are comparing the M lens at 11mm, and f8, to 16-35II at 18mm, f12. I will say, the 16-35II at f11 and 18mm, has excellent corners.

Now, I think the 11-22, from reading your review, and other reviews, is truly a fantastic lens, and an awesome value. I think what canon lacks in quantity in ef-m mount, it at least in part makes up in quality, as the kit lens (18-55), 22 mm f2, and now the ultrawide, all appear to be optically just excellent.

I think canon honestly has the potential to corner the mirrorless market b/c of their size, and reputation, and experience in lens production. I am guessing the next iteration of M will have a view finder, and the dual pixel autofocus. canon then needs 3 more fast and sharp and decent size primes, say 35, 50, and 85, and they are set.

This has been a good exchange, thanks!  I agree that the most important part of gear evaluation is knowing the application.  Each of us has our particular interests and requirements.  I am normally far more explicate about this aspect of my gear evaluation.  In this case, my requirements prioritize the smallest size, lowest weight and lowest cost for wide angle landscape (mostly high alpine) and urban/travel photography.

I used f/5.6 for the m4/3 sensors and probably should have used an aperture smaller than f/8 for the full frame to make the comparison even better.  Of course, that would of further hindered the full frame lenses.  I have found that most lenses have a sweet spot of f/8 where a balance is struck between center sharpness and corner sharpness/vignetting.  As far as focal lengths, I used the widest focal length that was common between the compared lenses in DXO Mark's database.  Sometimes they did not precisely match.  No doubt that zooming into 18mm on the 16-35 would improve corner sharpness and vignetting performance, but based on the 20mm results, it would not help enough to change the overall conclusion.

As far as lens flare, I have learned that shading a lens with my hand is essential anytime the sun is side or front lighting.  Having 100% coverage from the LiveView LCD is very helpful with ensuring one's hand does not show up in the image frame edge.

I once again agree, Canon has delivered the good with their EF-M lens lineup.  Canon continues to excel in the lens arena and I believe that this gets overlooked far to often by photographers and reviewers.  A great sensor coupled with a poor lens (blurry corners along with lots of distortion, vignetting and CA) does not make for good image quality, no matter how high DXO's score of extracted sensor data or how effective the built-in auto lens correction.  Of course, a missed focus from a slow autofocus system cancels out all sensor/lens quality.  Since I only capture still subjects, autofocus speed is FAR less important than autofocus accuracy and sensor/lens quality.  All of this means that the current EOS-M w/ 11-22 IS has no equal when considering size, weight, cost and image quality!  A new EOS-M with 70D sensor will seal the deal for lots of other users and photo subjects.  Whether the photographic community and reviewers embrace the M system remains uncertain.