EF-M 22mm vs 11-22mm blind test

Persizi wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

Persizi wrote:

I've tested 3 copies of EF-M 11-22mm and all of them was 99% the same quality.

Why did you need to test three ?

Because I thought that might be a difference in the copies and I wanted the best.

So what vendor gives you 3 lenses so you can pick the best one for yourself and then puts the 2 you rejected back on the shelf for the next customer?

Who does that? Because I want to make sure that I never buy anything from them.

So where did you get the lenses?

Who said that the "rejected" lenses are back on the shelf.

In UK every big re seller accept the product back in a reasonable time if you are not happy. I believe in US and any other civilised country is the same, so you can try to avoid all of them

No. I sold 2 of them.

Guys, cut the crap, please. My point is that in my experience variations of 11-22mm is practically no existing and yet my copy of EF-M 22mm F2 is touch better than 11-22mm in most of the cases. May be there is variation of the 22mm F2, but the only copy that I have is good.

Hope you didn't make a loss.

And yes, I did make loss.

highlyunfocused wrote:

nnowak wrote:

I just shot a couple more quick photos for further comparison. All image were run through DPP 4 with the only adjustment being DLO. No exposure, contrast or sharpening changes were made. Images were exported as quality 10 jpegs

11-22mm f8 with DLO

22mm f8 with DLO

22mm f4 with DLO

All are fairly close in the center, but if you compare the peripheries of the frame, the 11-22mm starts to clearly fall behind.

My 22mm at f2 can get pretty vignetted. At least, when I apply DLO in DPP, the Peripheral Illumination setting blasts away tons of shadows. I actually like the vignetting and disable the Peripheral Illumination. I suppose it's better to have no vignetting OOC and to let the user decide on how much vignetting is desirable rather than having an obligatory vignette. My 50mm f1.8 doesn't seem to have as much vignetting...not sure why.

Wide angle lenses are more prone to vignetting by optical design.

Dareshooter wrote:

Persizi wrote:

Guys, cut the crap, please. My point is that in my experience variations of 11-22mm is practically no existing and yet my copy of EF-M 22mm F2 is touch better than 11-22mm in most of the cases. May be there is variation of the 22mm F2, but the only copy that I have is good.

Hope you didn't make a loss.

And yes, I did make loss.

Take it easy Persizi.I don't know why you're reacting to me like that as I've not been critical of you in any shape or form.

My fault for asking the obvious question.

Answer 1: UK vendors allow returns.

Answer 2: I sold the other lenses at a loss.

Personally I just drop by The-Digital-Picture.com, Chris Frost's channel, maybe some others, and then check out Canon Refurbished. My thinking is that the refurbs didn't make it through QA the first time so it had to be certified by a tech.

But then it's not my job to test lenses.

OzarkAggie wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

Persizi wrote:

Guys, cut the crap, please. My point is that in my experience variations of 11-22mm is practically no existing and yet my copy of EF-M 22mm F2 is touch better than 11-22mm in most of the cases. May be there is variation of the 22mm F2, but the only copy that I have is good.

Hope you didn't make a loss.

And yes, I did make loss.

Take it easy Persizi.I don't know why you're reacting to me like that as I've not been critical of you in any shape or form.

My fault for asking the obvious question.

Answer 1: UK vendors allow returns.

Answer 2: I sold the other lenses at a loss.

Personally I just drop by The-Digital-Picture.com, Chris Frost's channel, maybe some others, and then check out Canon Refurbished. My thinking is that the refurbs didn't make it through QA the first time so it had to be certified by a tech.

But then it's not my job to test lenses.

So does that mean refurbished lenses or any equipment for that matter are likely better, or worse than the average sample? I’ve seen arguments for both, but am still undecided whether to consider refurbs with future purchases.

Papa48 wrote:

OzarkAggie wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

Persizi wrote:

Guys, cut the crap, please. My point is that in my experience variations of 11-22mm is practically no existing and yet my copy of EF-M 22mm F2 is touch better than 11-22mm in most of the cases. May be there is variation of the 22mm F2, but the only copy that I have is good.

Hope you didn't make a loss.

And yes, I did make loss.

Take it easy Persizi.I don't know why you're reacting to me like that as I've not been critical of you in any shape or form.

My fault for asking the obvious question.

Answer 1: UK vendors allow returns.

Answer 2: I sold the other lenses at a loss.

Personally I just drop by The-Digital-Picture.com, Chris Frost's channel, maybe some others, and then check out Canon Refurbished. My thinking is that the refurbs didn't make it through QA the first time so it had to be certified by a tech.

But then it's not my job to test lenses.

So does that mean refurbished lenses or any equipment for that matter are likely better, or worse than the average sample? I’ve seen arguments for both, but am still undecided whether to consider refurbs with future purchases.

Is equipment off the Canon assembly line individually qc'd or spot checked? Refurbs need to be individually checked to see if they are up to spec, right?

Microprism wrote:

Papa48 wrote:

OzarkAggie wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

Persizi wrote:

Guys, cut the crap, please. My point is that in my experience variations of 11-22mm is practically no existing and yet my copy of EF-M 22mm F2 is touch better than 11-22mm in most of the cases. May be there is variation of the 22mm F2, but the only copy that I have is good.

Hope you didn't make a loss.

And yes, I did make loss.

Take it easy Persizi.I don't know why you're reacting to me like that as I've not been critical of you in any shape or form.

My fault for asking the obvious question.

Answer 1: UK vendors allow returns.

Answer 2: I sold the other lenses at a loss.

Personally I just drop by The-Digital-Picture.com, Chris Frost's channel, maybe some others, and then check out Canon Refurbished. My thinking is that the refurbs didn't make it through QA the first time so it had to be certified by a tech.

But then it's not my job to test lenses.

So does that mean refurbished lenses or any equipment for that matter are likely better, or worse than the average sample? I’ve seen arguments for both, but am still undecided whether to consider refurbs with future purchases.

Is equipment off the Canon assembly line individually qc'd or spot checked? Refurbs need to be individually checked to see if they are up to spec, right?

True, though a piece may be a refurb because someone previously returned it for its sub-par performance. Does a manufacturer correct all deficiencies before returning products as refurbished? That would be admirable, but also cut into profits.

In manufacturing QA pulls samples to test tolerances and/or function. They also use machines. But a refurb is tested individually. Doesn't mean they are better. But they won't be worse. Very often the issue is cosmetic.

I'm not an early adopter either.

nnowak wrote:

Center sharpness is pretty close between the two, but the perimeter looks much better on the EF-M 22mm. It is especially obvious in the yellow wildflowers on the left edge of the frame.

Not sure if it matters, but both of my lenses were purchased almost immediately after initial release. My 22mm is almost 4 years old and has dents and scratches from lots of use and abuse. My 11-22mm is in almost pristine condition.

FYI for those new to shooting landscapes.... pretty much everything in these photos is in focus even though it was shot at f5.6. When shooting with a crop sensor, you don't need to stop down to f11 or f13 to get good depth of field. If you do stop down that much, you will actually make your entire image softer.

Stepping down an f2.0 lens is expected to deliver better results, IMO. Hence whenever I have a choice between using a 24 f2.8 and a 24 f4 I choose the former.