REVIEW: EF-M 22mm f/2 lens on my aging EOS-M (PICS)

leoskats wrote:

So guys these EF-M 22mm has a field of view equivalent to a 35mm Full frame camera? Is it a new technology for not losing image with a crop sensor?

You still do lose (a larger) part of the image circle with a crop sensor, relative to FF.

R2

Where do you guys suggest getting the 22mm?  I've been watching them on eBay and they are selling for $170ish.  I'm hoping to spend $100-120.

Thanks Marco for tour complète review

i am using the M50 for 2 months and i realy love it

best regards

leoskats wrote:

So guys these EF-M 22mm has a field of view equivalent to a 35mm Full frame camera? Is it a new technology for not losing image with a crop sensor?

You know, I once complained about this here since the EF-M lenses can't be fitted to ANY other camera.  So why doesn't Canon just state the "equivalent" field of view on the box and the lens?  The answer is probably twofold:  (1) Canon might release a FF camera someday that still uses the relatively EF-M mount... and if that's the case, (2) Canon might be trying to cover their bases by doing what all the other manufacturers have been doing alongside them for years: Maintaining a universal standard with lenses. (the latter option is most likely the reason).
.
Full Frame Equivalence.
Camera manufacturers equate their lenses to a Full Frame (35mm) equivalent.  A Full Frame sensor is the same size as a 35mm frame of photographic film.  This has become the "standard" since Digital Cameras made their way onto the scene.  Which means every lens is rated as to how only how it will perform on a Full Frame sensor rather than how it will perform on any given mount.  The image circle and sensor varies between one model of camera to another.  There's more than one size for APS-C as well.  Nikon, Pentax and Sony use a different APS-C size than Canon's slightly smaller APS-C sensor. 
.
Hence the 22mm lens will equate to about 35.42mm on a Full Frame sensor camera (if you calculate that a Canon APS-C sensor has a 1.61x crop/magnification element involved).  Unfortunately, you can't stick it on any other camera other than the EOS-M series at the moment unless you can come up with an adapter.  If Canon does indeed create a Full Frame sensor EOS Mirrorless camera, there's a chance it might enable EF-M lenses to be mounted - and that means the EF-M lenses like the 22mm will act like a proper 22mm lens.
.
Of course, we can put a 100mm lens on a FF body or an APS-C body... both cameras could be DSLRs.  But the resulting pictures would be quite different to one another, even though the same lens was used.   On the full frame that same lens would offer 100mm.  But on the APS-C camera it would be closer to 160mm.  There's even an argument that you should multiply the aperture of the lens by the same to determine a different aperture ...but there's people who will disagree with this for several good reasons.
.
My thoughts...
Personally, I think that Canon should mark all their lenses for the actual field of view they offer on different bodies and sensors. Still, there are people who don't understand how wide they need their lens to be for any given purpose.  I asked a girl whom I know recently if the sensor on her Canon DSLR "was Full Frame or APS-C ?" the other day ...and she looked at me in a way that showed she had no idea that there were differences in sensor size and that she just thought any DSLR was the same as another.  I quickly deduced she was using an APS-C camera.  I think Canon and the other camera retailers are counting on this confusion to sell "wide lenses" to people who want wide lenses etc.
.
Focal Reducers...
You can use something called a 'Focal Reducer' lens to change some of the aspect ratio of your lens to project more of the edges of the lens onto the sensor.... In theory this ought to give you a Full Frame projection from your lens onto your sensor... but these things are going to create problems for your camera in other ways (EXIF data may be altered, optical quality will be affected, imperfections towards the edge of the optics may present themselves and there will be an increase in size and weight to your camera due to the addition of this accessory.

CodyZ wrote:

Where do you guys suggest getting the 22mm? I've been watching them on eBay and they are selling for $170ish. I'm hoping to spend $100-120.

I wish I knew!!!  I spent $250 on mine a couple of years ago!

Felt it was worth it.  A tiny lens and a lot of fun.

R2

..first lens I got with the original M, as well as the defunct 18-55mm.

Decent close up macro-ish photography with good Bokeh.

Great low profile street photography lens with F2.

ITs always in my bag and is the goto for group people shots

Shot friends discreetly. On the M3, I would tilt the flash back and have it bounce off the ceiling, creating great toplight for the subjects with a BG falloff of like a stop. Shooting at iso 1600-6400, the ambient light is about a stop or more down (typically a bar) and the iso is high enough for the built flash to cover the few feet that you need with 22mm(35mm FF equiv) field of view. Example below

resized for web, otherwise untouched jpg from M3 using F2 22mm pancake lens.

Great form factor but the extending lens barrel scares me a far as reliability, i.e. not as rugged as I'd like. Thats a lot of surfae that can be pushed in and have the gears stripped. Think canon's F1.4 50mm lens build. That being said, its lasted me since the M release.

Lenscap adds like 1/4 to the length. I say ditch the orig lens cap, get the EW-43 lens hood. It helps prevent your fingers from contacting lens. I have that instead of a protective lens. The Vello version is cheaper than the canon.

I also got the Sensei 43mm Screw-in metal lens cap. This helps reduce the profile to the lens. Not as fast as a push release, but whats the rush? Lens cap is ply on when its in the bag. When the lens/camera is out, the above lens hod does the protecting. I always tell novices that if the camera is out, the lens cap is off! Get a lens hood to "protect" the lens while its out, as well as UV filter. Lenscaps are for bags.

However its a prime, which it owes its IQ to, and you have to zoom with your feet. Its more of a purist photographers lens than a consumer one. The current 15-45 is what canon's is pushing as a kit lens which is more versatile (24-72mm FF equiv) with IS, built for video. However for me, personally, how I shoot, I feel more confident with the F2 22mm prime. thx for reading.

leoskats wrote:

VfxByArt wrote:

22mm(35mm FF equiv) field of view.

When you say it’s 35 mm equivalent you mean that the field of view reaches the field of view of FF camera?

Put another way, a 22mm lens mounted on a 1.6x crop camera, will have the same field of view as a 35mm lens mounted on a full frame camera.

The "full frame field of view equivalence" is often used as a convenient reference since there are so many different sensor sizes, and the FOV with a particular focal length lens will be different with each and every sensor size.

R2

R2D2 wrote:

leoskats wrote:

VfxByArt wrote:

22mm(35mm FF equiv) field of view.

When you say it’s 35 mm equivalent you mean that the field of view reaches the field of view of FF camera?

Put another way, a 22mm lens mounted on a 1.6x crop camera, will have the same field of view as a 35mm lens mounted on a full frame camera.

The "full frame field of view equivalence" is often used as a convenient reference since there are so many different sensor sizes, and the FOV with a particular focal length lens will be different with each and every sensor size.

R2

...what he said, leoskats

leoskats wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

leoskats wrote:

VfxByArt wrote:

22mm(35mm FF equiv) field of view.

When you say it’s 35 mm equivalent you mean that the field of view reaches the field of view of FF camera?

Put another way, a 22mm lens mounted on a 1.6x crop camera, will have the same field of view as a 35mm lens mounted on a full frame camera.

The "full frame field of view equivalence" is often used as a convenient reference since there are so many different sensor sizes, and the FOV with a particular focal length lens will be different with each and every sensor size.

R2

Yes I try to understand it bro lol. Then why if the file of view is the same of a 35 mm exist the parameter of “crop”, when I can catch a wide field of view? Someone from one camera shop told me that the wide open field reach the full frame. But I cannot understand how a croped image sensor model reaches with this lens the 35mm?! Sorry if my question is silly but this thing is so strange!

This video might help (excuse the accent  )...

Crop sensor vs Full Frame sensor

As well as this search...

Crop sensor search

R2

Great write up Marco. Interesting read as ever. Thanks.

The 22mm is the only M lens I do not have attached to an EOS M body and consequently I never use it. Something I must remedy.

papybenenuts wrote:

Thanks Marco for tour complète review

i am using the M50 for 2 months and i realy love it

best regards

You should get some awesome shots with the M50.  It shares the DPAF sensor of the new generation of M-series cameras.  The more responsive AF on the new M50 ought to allow faster and more effective results from the same lenses.  The samples posted here by owners have been exceptional.
.
This is a pretty old review... from 2015 I think.

Rockin_Robin wrote:

Great write up Marco. Interesting read as ever. Thanks.

The 22mm is the only M lens I do not have attached to an EOS M body and consequently I never use it. Something I must remedy.

It's an older review from 2015 but I still use the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens on my more recent EOS M6.  It certainly continues to perform well on the newer camera model.  I've been getting some great shots with it lately... and occasionally I'll still use the EOSM with it.
.

NICE

Ben's house close to NICE