In praise of the 22

Since I got my 32 F1.4, it's pretty much lived on my M6, and become my favorite EF-M lens, but there's definitely still a place for the 22, especially because it's so small that I always have it with my camera. Last week, I got to use it extensively again for the first time since getting the 32. Every Christmas I direct and act in a show at a local theatre in Boulder (I posted about using the M6 to video a performance of it), and I like to take a bunch of pictures during the tech and dress rehearsals in the theatre, and backstage during the run. The backstage area, and dressing rooms, are always pretty crowded (it's a fairly large group of people in the show), so I used the 22, rather than the 32 for these shots. The lighting is also all over the place, so I'm shooting at anything from about ISO 200 all the way up to 12,800. I just set the camera in manual to 1/100 (to minimize blur from subject movement) at F2 with auto ISO. Here are some shots which show why I still love the 22 so much:

My wife, patiently wondering why I'm taking yet another photo of her

Me

The whole cast, including two kick-ass puppets (the troll was made by two cast members), before one of the perormances

Before every show, the songleader teaches some of the songs to the audience, so they can join in (if they want)

And one with the 32 on the M. Using the M backstage while my M6 was filming one of the performances really made me appreciate what a huge upgrade the M6 is in terms of AF, and general speed of operation. I still love the results from the M, though.

I predict that the 32 will continue to be my most used lens on my M6, but I'm really glad I always have the 22 with me as well. It's still a really terrific lens, especially for the size and price.

A guy I know had buyer's remorse when he bought the original M.  I grabbed it for $190.  It came with the 22, the Canon adapter, and the 90 Ex flash unit.  I quickly understood his frustration with the AF, but I'd been shooting with the GX1 so it wasn't a shock.

But I love the 35 mm equivalent focal length.  It is so versatile. The f2 works indoors, decent bokeh when shooting street, and just wide enough for a landscape shot.

I was ready to go back to a DSLR (all the rest of my lenses are EF or EF-S) but ended up buying the M50.

I'm buying picture frames for an exhibit but when that's done I'm thinking of adding the 32.  Coupled with the 22 and 50 1.8 that would a great trio for low light and travel.

Hope to see more of your shots with this lens.

I've found I'm reaching for my 22mm to my surprise quite often actually during the holidays even though I'm smitten by the 32mm.

Although the 32mm produces simply stunning results when you fire it on a newer M like my M50 (which has FAST AF, particularly in the dark, necessary for that thin DOF), the 22mm fills the same role as the 35mm does on a FF; 50mm is not 35mm and indoors in tight places, like you've well sampled (thank you, wonderful shots) and the 11-22 is simply too slow at f/5.6 at 22mm indoors, as is the 15-45 at around f/3.5...

I still have my G1X III, and 15mm @ f/2.8, is something to be desired indoors. I really think Canon should produce a faster 20-ish prime. Whether they will? Dunno. Perhaps that 16-80 f/2-6 patent may emerge which would at least give us a wider option at f/2... That's likely at least (but probably not anytime soon though). Combine it with say IBIS which I suspect will be available around the same time? Yeah, double nice.

Anyhow, I'm finding at 32mm f/1.4, you need to think about your composition as at f/1.4 the 32mm can be too thin of a DOF. But, at f/2 at 22mm, nope, usually not. I usually fire the 22mm wide open indoors with spectacular results. Where things get dicey is if my subject is moving quickly, then that extra stop is really nice to have for faster shutters without blowing my ISO out.

The 22mm definitely has it's place. Point and case? I was so smitten with the 32mm when I got it, I did an outing just with it, no bag (with the 22mm in it) and I had a gut feeling the 22mm would've been more appropriate... The venue: indoor play area for kids. Uh huh, tight places, indoor lighting. The lady working the venue took some shots with a Nikon point and shoot and an onboard flash (yuck!) and got better results as she got shots I didn't due to wider framing. I kept kicking myself for not bringing that 22 instead. Oh well, you live and learn. Had I brought my 22mm and EL-100 (and bounced it)? It would've just delivered. Holy cow. I didn't though. Hindsight is 20-20.

Morale of the story: Tight indoor venues = 22mm (35mm), particularly if the subjects aren't as fast moving, or even if they are.

Portraits and things, or more fast moving subjects in the dark (with less tight quarters): 32mm f/1.4.

Each has it's place. Rest assured. Folks (that own both) should dust off their 22mm in my opinion for the right venues. It's no slouch.

Back2M wrote:

I've found I'm reaching for my 22mm to my surprise quite often actually during the holidays even though I'm smitten by the 32mm.

Although the 32mm produces simply stunning results when you fire it on a newer M like my M50 (which has FAST AF, particularly in the dark, necessary for that thin DOF), the 22mm fills the same role as the 35mm does on a FF; 50mm is not 35mm and indoors in tight places, like you've well sampled (thank you, wonderful shots) and the 11-22 is simply too slow at f/5.6 at 22mm indoors, as is the 15-45 at around f/3.5...

I still have my G1X III, and 15mm @ f/2.8, is something to be desired indoors. I really think Canon should produce a faster 20-ish prime. Whether they will? Dunno. Perhaps that 16-80 f/2-6 patent may emerge which would at least give us a wider option at f/2... That's likely at least (but probably not anytime soon though). Combine it with say IBIS which I suspect will be available around the same time? Yeah, double nice.

Anyhow, I'm finding at 32mm f/1.4, you need to think about your composition as at f/1.4 the 32mm can be too thin of a DOF. But, at f/2 at 22mm, nope, usually not. I usually fire the 22mm wide open indoors with spectacular results. Where things get dicey is if my subject is moving quickly, then that extra stop is really nice to have for faster shutters without blowing my ISO out.

The 22mm definitely has it's place. Point and case? I was so smitten with the 32mm when I got it, I did an outing just with it, no bag (with the 22mm in it) and I had a gut feeling the 22mm would've been more appropriate... The venue: indoor play area for kids. Uh huh, tight places, indoor lighting. The lady working the venue took some shots with a Nikon point and shoot and an onboard flash (yuck!) and got better results as she got shots I didn't due to wider framing. I kept kicking myself for not bringing that 22 instead. Oh well, you live and learn. Had I brought my 22mm and EL-100 (and bounced it)? It would've just delivered. Holy cow. I didn't though. Hindsight is 20-20.

Morale of the story: Tight indoor venues = 22mm (35mm), particularly if the subjects aren't as fast moving, or even if they are.

Portraits and things, or more fast moving subjects in the dark (with less tight quarters): 32mm f/1.4.

Each has it's place. Rest assured. Folks (that own both) should dust off their 22mm in my opinion for the right venues. It's no slouch.

That was my conclusion about 50mm eq. Tried it on FF (50mm f1.2 and nifty fifty) and on M50 - 32mm f1.4 but in both cases I quickly went back to 35mm equivalent for versatility. 35mm and 85mm eq. combo just works better for me.

Alexsfo wrote:

Back2M wrote:

I've found I'm reaching for my 22mm to my surprise quite often actually during the holidays even though I'm smitten by the 32mm.

Although the 32mm produces simply stunning results when you fire it on a newer M like my M50 (which has FAST AF, particularly in the dark, necessary for that thin DOF), the 22mm fills the same role as the 35mm does on a FF; 50mm is not 35mm and indoors in tight places, like you've well sampled (thank you, wonderful shots) and the 11-22 is simply too slow at f/5.6 at 22mm indoors, as is the 15-45 at around f/3.5...

I still have my G1X III, and 15mm @ f/2.8, is something to be desired indoors. I really think Canon should produce a faster 20-ish prime. Whether they will? Dunno. Perhaps that 16-80 f/2-6 patent may emerge which would at least give us a wider option at f/2... That's likely at least (but probably not anytime soon though). Combine it with say IBIS which I suspect will be available around the same time? Yeah, double nice.

Anyhow, I'm finding at 32mm f/1.4, you need to think about your composition as at f/1.4 the 32mm can be too thin of a DOF. But, at f/2 at 22mm, nope, usually not. I usually fire the 22mm wide open indoors with spectacular results. Where things get dicey is if my subject is moving quickly, then that extra stop is really nice to have for faster shutters without blowing my ISO out.

The 22mm definitely has it's place. Point and case? I was so smitten with the 32mm when I got it, I did an outing just with it, no bag (with the 22mm in it) and I had a gut feeling the 22mm would've been more appropriate... The venue: indoor play area for kids. Uh huh, tight places, indoor lighting. The lady working the venue took some shots with a Nikon point and shoot and an onboard flash (yuck!) and got better results as she got shots I didn't due to wider framing. I kept kicking myself for not bringing that 22 instead. Oh well, you live and learn. Had I brought my 22mm and EL-100 (and bounced it)? It would've just delivered. Holy cow. I didn't though. Hindsight is 20-20.

Morale of the story: Tight indoor venues = 22mm (35mm), particularly if the subjects aren't as fast moving, or even if they are.

Portraits and things, or more fast moving subjects in the dark (with less tight quarters): 32mm f/1.4.

Each has it's place. Rest assured. Folks (that own both) should dust off their 22mm in my opinion for the right venues. It's no slouch.

That was my conclusion about 50mm eq. Tried it on FF (50mm f1.2 and nifty fifty) and on M50 - 32mm f1.4 but in both cases I quickly went back to 35mm equivalent for versatility. 35mm and 85mm eq. combo just works better for me.

Yup, some folks are 35mm shooters, some are 50mm shooters, and some, 80-85mm shooters.

Personally I can say I gravitate for the former and latter. But, considering Canon gave us this lens (32mm f/1.4) with native AF and fast DOF, I make due. Although the 32mm is a wonder, I'll be keeping my 22mm and am still considering a 50mm f/1.8 STM or even 50mm f/1.2 Rokinon MF for the latter. I'm in no rush though on the latter as the 32mm has been delivering and I'm pushing it to see what it can do. But, so has my 22mm depending on the venue.

i prefer the 40 f2.8 stm over the 501.8. i feel it has better af and sharper than the 50. little smaller with the adapter also. stays  on my m5 now 90 percent of the time.

csxfan wrote:

i prefer the 40 f2.8 stm over the 501.8. i feel it has better af and sharper than the 50. little smaller with the adapter also. stays on my m5 now 90 percent of the time.

The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM is the same way; sharp wide open.

The 50mm f/1.8 (any of em) need to be stopped down for best performance. With the 50mm, you at least have the option of firing it at f/1.8 with less contrast/sharpness, vs 40mm f/2.8, you don't and costs more generally.

The 40mm is less tight framing though, and delivers roughly what the 50mm f/1.8 would at f/2.8, which is what I usually fire it at so I can understand the pros of both.

Truth told, I didn't use the 50mm f/1.8 wide open except in emergencies begging the question, is the EF 40mm f/2.8 a better deal at less size? Maybe.

If you go down the rabbit hole of more cost and weight, the EF 50mm f/1.4 when stopped down to f/2, outdoes em both. But that AF motor on it, *sigh*, the copy I borrowed had the same issue as what most folks complain about. And fire it into bright light, the flare is awful, very low-contrast rendering... Hmph. At least the coating on the 50mm f/1.8 STM fixed that.

The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM needs a newer motor and coatings, badly. But, probably will never see it, this side of the mount anyhow (I suspect the RF will get one though, next year IE 2020).

Interesting. I find the 50 STM more than sharp enough at F2, which is where I'm usually shooting it (or perhaps 2.2). I had the 40 STM before the 50 (years ago I had and sold both the 50 F1.8 USM II and the 50 F1.4) on my M, and really liked it as a companion to the 22. After I got the 50 STM, I never used the 40 again. Now I have the 32 to pair with the 22, I doubt the 50 will get much use either. The 32 is such a great lens that I will mostly prefer shooting with it a bit closer than the 50, or cropping. Everyone's preferences are different.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Interesting. I find the 50 STM more than sharp enough at F2, which is where I'm usually shooting it (or perhaps 2.2). I had the 40 STM before the 50 (years ago I had and sold both the 50 F1.8 USM II and the 50 F1.4) on my M, and really liked it as a companion to the 22. After I got the 50 STM, I never used the 40 again. Now I have the 32 to pair with the 22, I doubt the 50 will get much use either. The 32 is such a great lens that I will mostly prefer shooting with it a bit closer than the 50, or cropping. Everyone's preferences are different.

F/2.2-2.5 was "good enough" for most things to your point, but, for peak sharpness, f/2.8 was marketedly better.

The perspective and natural framing of the 50mm (80mm) on a crop lends to better head and shoulder portraits as the natural length you are from your subject (so they aren't uncomfortable for candid shooting) and compression meshed with somewhat manageable shutter requirements (the 32mm obviously wins here) to avoid camera shake.

That's why I haven't jumped on the 50mm bandwagon (on a crop) yet... I may find cropping (no pun) and just framing / getting my subjects (family) used to the closer framing workable. If not, well, there are 50mm options, and at like $300 for a Rokinon 50mm f/1.2, albeit manual focus, isn't too bad. That guy you could fire wide open, and even with no software corrections whatsoever, was pretty awesome if you hit the target, which is half the trouble.

My biggest reason I haven't done that route yet is room in the bag, yet another lens that may go with me, it's metal at that (IE not light) and of course MF.

If that were a Canon EF-M 50mm f/1.2 STM IE plastic mount, with AF? Well, it probably wouldn't be $300... I actually don't think they could make said beast even if they wanted to as the moment you throw an AF motor on that thing, the core glass has to be enveloped differently (I believe) IE I don't think they could do it and have their self-imposed 58mm thread, at least not without making some optical compromises which then you're right back at EF 50mm f/1.8 STM turf IE you need to stop it down for peak sharpness; what's the fun in stopping down a fast lens for "real" use?

Given that I use the 50 pretty much exclusively for portraits, peak sharpness isn’t necessarily desirable.

Back2M wrote:

csxfan wrote:

i prefer the 40 f2.8 stm over the 501.8. i feel it has better af and sharper than the 50. little smaller with the adapter also. stays on my m5 now 90 percent of the time.

The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM is the same way; sharp wide open.

The 50mm f/1.8 (any of em) need to be stopped down for best performance. With the 50mm, you at least have the option of firing it at f/1.8 with less contrast/sharpness, vs 40mm f/2.8, you don't and costs more generally.

The 40mm is less tight framing though, and delivers roughly what the 50mm f/1.8 would at f/2.8, which is what I usually fire it at so I can understand the pros of both.

Truth told, I didn't use the 50mm f/1.8 wide open except in emergencies begging the question, is the EF 40mm f/2.8 a better deal at less size? Maybe.

Your AF has always f/1.8 with the 50mm. A big advantage in my opinion.

If you go down the rabbit hole of more cost and weight, the EF 50mm f/1.4 when stopped down to f/2, outdoes em both.

I had a different experience.

But that AF motor on it, *sigh*, the copy I borrowed had the same issue as what most folks complain about. And fire it into bright light, the flare is awful, very low-contrast rendering... Hmph. At least the coating on the 50mm f/1.8 STM fixed that.

The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM needs a newer motor and coatings, badly. But, probably will never see it, this side of the mount anyhow (I suspect the RF will get one though, next year IE 2020).

It won't happen. Canon wants you to buy a full frame + 85mm. If Canon brings out a good 50mm for aps-c  Canon is really scared upgraders will move to another brand while upgrading. Let's hope competition will force a change here.

thunder storm wrote:

Back2M wrote:

csxfan wrote:

i prefer the 40 f2.8 stm over the 501.8. i feel it has better af and sharper than the 50. little smaller with the adapter also. stays on my m5 now 90 percent of the time.

The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM is the same way; sharp wide open.

The 50mm f/1.8 (any of em) need to be stopped down for best performance. With the 50mm, you at least have the option of firing it at f/1.8 with less contrast/sharpness, vs 40mm f/2.8, you don't and costs more generally.

The 40mm is less tight framing though, and delivers roughly what the 50mm f/1.8 would at f/2.8, which is what I usually fire it at so I can understand the pros of both.

Truth told, I didn't use the 50mm f/1.8 wide open except in emergencies begging the question, is the EF 40mm f/2.8 a better deal at less size? Maybe.

Your AF has always f/1.8 with the 50mm. A big advantage in my opinion.

If you go down the rabbit hole of more cost and weight, the EF 50mm f/1.4 when stopped down to f/2, outdoes em both.

I had a different experience.

But that AF motor on it, *sigh*, the copy I borrowed had the same issue as what most folks complain about. And fire it into bright light, the flare is awful, very low-contrast rendering... Hmph. At least the coating on the 50mm f/1.8 STM fixed that.

The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM needs a newer motor and coatings, badly. But, probably will never see it, this side of the mount anyhow (I suspect the RF will get one though, next year IE 2020).

It won't happen. Canon wants you to buy a full frame + 85mm. If Canon brings out a good 50mm for aps-c Canon is really scared upgraders will move to another brand while upgrading. Let's hope competition will force a change here.

Yeah, I thought twice about it, especially after looking at what I'm getting off the 32mm f/1.4, which is to say consistent wonderful results vs the Rokinon 50mm f/1.2, although truly magnificent results, inconsistent. If I had no kids and all the time in the world? I'd own it again. Then again I might own an R if that were so.

Indeed, Canon will never produce it for fear of "Canon-balism"... The worst enemy as a consumer owning a Canon product is not a competitor, it's Canon themselves protecting it's own interests. It's competition that spurs Canon to do things like the EF-M 32mm f/1.4, M50 and EOS R... If it were up to Canon? We'd all be shooting an SL2, which I returned. Don't get me wrong, wonderful camera, but mirrorless is the future: you can make better optics and smaller, lighter systems with it.

To rant further for a minute, the only reason we'll get 4K or IBIS is because everyone else, particularly Nikon, has it now. Now that Nikon has it, Canon has to have it. *rolls eyes*

It'd be nice if Canon took the lead for once this decade, what's left of it. Doubtful. They're still riding the wave of the last decade, which don't get me wrong, is arguably why we have what we do and choose we have, because Canon's infrastructure from the last ILC boom lead to what we have today.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Given that I use the 50 pretty much exclusively for portraits, peak sharpness isn’t necessarily desirable.

Depends on the subject.   The skin of young children can often handle a lot sharpness.

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Given that I use the 50 pretty much exclusively for portraits, peak sharpness isn’t necessarily desirable.

Depends on the subject. The skin of young children can often handle a lot sharpness.

You own both the 32mm and 50mm? Any thoughts? At $100, sure, hard to beat. It's got the benefit of being 2/3 stops faster (the 32mm f/1.4 represents 51mm f/2.2) and tighter framing. I know it'd get left at home though if I got one again now that I have a 32mm though... Still curious nonetheless your vote/thoughts on it.

Back2M wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Back2M wrote:

csxfan wrote:

i prefer the 40 f2.8 stm over the 501.8. i feel it has better af and sharper than the 50. little smaller with the adapter also. stays on my m5 now 90 percent of the time.

The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM is the same way; sharp wide open.

The 50mm f/1.8 (any of em) need to be stopped down for best performance. With the 50mm, you at least have the option of firing it at f/1.8 with less contrast/sharpness, vs 40mm f/2.8, you don't and costs more generally.

The 40mm is less tight framing though, and delivers roughly what the 50mm f/1.8 would at f/2.8, which is what I usually fire it at so I can understand the pros of both.

Truth told, I didn't use the 50mm f/1.8 wide open except in emergencies begging the question, is the EF 40mm f/2.8 a better deal at less size? Maybe.

Your AF has always f/1.8 with the 50mm. A big advantage in my opinion.

If you go down the rabbit hole of more cost and weight, the EF 50mm f/1.4 when stopped down to f/2, outdoes em both.

I had a different experience.

But that AF motor on it, *sigh*, the copy I borrowed had the same issue as what most folks complain about. And fire it into bright light, the flare is awful, very low-contrast rendering... Hmph. At least the coating on the 50mm f/1.8 STM fixed that.

The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM needs a newer motor and coatings, badly. But, probably will never see it, this side of the mount anyhow (I suspect the RF will get one though, next year IE 2020).

It won't happen. Canon wants you to buy a full frame + 85mm. If Canon brings out a good 50mm for aps-c Canon is really scared upgraders will move to another brand while upgrading. Let's hope competition will force a change here.

Yeah, I thought twice about it, especially after looking at what I'm getting off the 32mm f/1.4, which is to say consistent wonderful results vs the Rokinon 50mm f/1.2, although truly magnificent results, inconsistent. If I had no kids and all the time in the world? I'd own it again. Then again I might own an R if that were so.

Indeed, Canon will never produce it for fear of "Canon-balism"... The worst enemy as a consumer owning a Canon product is not a competitor, it's Canon themselves protecting it's own interests.

Those sigma's working fine with latest firmware updates are always a bit of a gamble as you will never know if it will work with Canons next AF generation.

OTOH, a monopolist in manufacturing sensors isn't an appealing perspective either.

It's competition that spurs Canon to do things like the EF-M 32mm f/1.4, M50 and EOS R... If it were up to Canon? We'd all be shooting an SL2, which I returned. Don't get me wrong, wonderful camera, but mirrorless is the future: you can make better optics and smaller, lighter systems with it.

To rant further for a minute,

(i like it    )

the only reason we'll get 4K or IBIS is because everyone else, particularly Nikon, has it now. Now that Nikon has it, Canon has to have it. *rolls eyes*

It'd be nice if Canon took the lead for once this decade, what's left of it. Doubtful. They're still riding the wave of the last decade, which don't get me wrong, is arguably why we have what we do and choose we have, because Canon's infrastructure from the last ILC boom lead to what we have today.

Back2M wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Given that I use the 50 pretty much exclusively for portraits, peak sharpness isn’t necessarily desirable.

Depends on the subject. The skin of young children can often handle a lot sharpness.

You own both the 32mm and 50mm? Any thoughts? At $100, sure, hard to beat. It's got the benefit of being 2/3 stops faster (the 32mm f/1.4 represents 51mm f/2.2) and tighter framing. I know it'd get left at home though if I got one again now that I have a 32mm though... Still curious nonetheless your vote/thoughts on it.

I like the 50 STM a lot, especially for the price and size. Even with the adapter, it's about the same size as the EF-M 18-55. The 32 is better, though. The 50 isn't faster than the 32, except, in a certain restricted sense, when you are comparing the 50 on a FF camera to the 32 on an M. Given that I use the 50 on my M6 and, occasionally, on my 7DII, the extra light-gathering ability is purely theoretical. Also, the sense in which the 32 represents 51 F2.2 is rather artificial. It is the equivalent of a 51 F2.2 mounted on a full frame camera of equal sensor tech to the APS-C camera you mount the 32 on. But this means that, roughly, the noise performance and DOF characteristics of the 32 mounted on a current M are equivalent to mounting a 51 F2.2 on, say, the EOS R or 5DIV. F1.4 is still 1 1/3 stops faster than F2.2 in terms of what shutter speed/aperture/ISO combination you need to set for a particular exposure. You need to be careful about taking all the equivalence talk too literally. But, the main point for this discussion is that you should compare lenses with respect to the camera you intend to mount them on. Given that we are talking about comparing the 32 with the 50STM for use on an M, the 32 is 2/3 stop faster than the 50 (and has the advantage in low-light focusing). If the 32 on the M represents 51 F2.2 (on full frame), then the 50 on the M represents 80 F2.8 (on full frame).

Sorry for the long reply. The bottom line is that the 50STM is excellent value for money, and, at $100, well worth getting. It gets a lot less use on my M6, now that I have the 32, than it used to, but I'm still glad to have it, and expect to use it from time to time.

thunder storm wrote:

Back2M wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Back2M wrote:

csxfan wrote:

i prefer the 40 f2.8 stm over the 501.8. i feel it has better af and sharper than the 50. little smaller with the adapter also. stays on my m5 now 90 percent of the time.

The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM is the same way; sharp wide open.

The 50mm f/1.8 (any of em) need to be stopped down for best performance. With the 50mm, you at least have the option of firing it at f/1.8 with less contrast/sharpness, vs 40mm f/2.8, you don't and costs more generally.

The 40mm is less tight framing though, and delivers roughly what the 50mm f/1.8 would at f/2.8, which is what I usually fire it at so I can understand the pros of both.

Truth told, I didn't use the 50mm f/1.8 wide open except in emergencies begging the question, is the EF 40mm f/2.8 a better deal at less size? Maybe.

Your AF has always f/1.8 with the 50mm. A big advantage in my opinion.

If you go down the rabbit hole of more cost and weight, the EF 50mm f/1.4 when stopped down to f/2, outdoes em both.

I had a different experience.

But that AF motor on it, *sigh*, the copy I borrowed had the same issue as what most folks complain about. And fire it into bright light, the flare is awful, very low-contrast rendering... Hmph. At least the coating on the 50mm f/1.8 STM fixed that.

The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM needs a newer motor and coatings, badly. But, probably will never see it, this side of the mount anyhow (I suspect the RF will get one though, next year IE 2020).

It won't happen. Canon wants you to buy a full frame + 85mm. If Canon brings out a good 50mm for aps-c Canon is really scared upgraders will move to another brand while upgrading. Let's hope competition will force a change here.

Yeah, I thought twice about it, especially after looking at what I'm getting off the 32mm f/1.4, which is to say consistent wonderful results vs the Rokinon 50mm f/1.2, although truly magnificent results, inconsistent. If I had no kids and all the time in the world? I'd own it again. Then again I might own an R if that were so.

Indeed, Canon will never produce it for fear of "Canon-balism"... The worst enemy as a consumer owning a Canon product is not a competitor, it's Canon themselves protecting it's own interests.

Those sigma's working fine with latest firmware updates are always a bit of a gamble as you will never know if it will work with Canons next AF generation.

OTOH, a monopolist in manufacturing sensors isn't an appealing perspective either.

It's competition that spurs Canon to do things like the EF-M 32mm f/1.4, M50 and EOS R... If it were up to Canon? We'd all be shooting an SL2, which I returned. Don't get me wrong, wonderful camera, but mirrorless is the future: you can make better optics and smaller, lighter systems with it.

To rant further for a minute,

(i like it )

the only reason we'll get 4K or IBIS is because everyone else, particularly Nikon, has it now. Now that Nikon has it, Canon has to have it. *rolls eyes*

It'd be nice if Canon took the lead for once this decade, what's left of it. Doubtful. They're still riding the wave of the last decade, which don't get me wrong, is arguably why we have what we do and choose we have, because Canon's infrastructure from the last ILC boom lead to what we have today.

Which Sigma are you hinting at (they make so many) would be appropriate?

My bigger concern is actually the color; I personally haven't been a fan of Sigma's color rendition. Unless, you can correct me here that I'm off base and perhaps it's been due to the predominance of samples I've seen have not come off a Canon?

Back2M wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Back2M wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Back2M wrote:

csxfan wrote:

i prefer the 40 f2.8 stm over the 501.8. i feel it has better af and sharper than the 50. little smaller with the adapter also. stays on my m5 now 90 percent of the time.

The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM is the same way; sharp wide open.

The 50mm f/1.8 (any of em) need to be stopped down for best performance. With the 50mm, you at least have the option of firing it at f/1.8 with less contrast/sharpness, vs 40mm f/2.8, you don't and costs more generally.

The 40mm is less tight framing though, and delivers roughly what the 50mm f/1.8 would at f/2.8, which is what I usually fire it at so I can understand the pros of both.

Truth told, I didn't use the 50mm f/1.8 wide open except in emergencies begging the question, is the EF 40mm f/2.8 a better deal at less size? Maybe.

Your AF has always f/1.8 with the 50mm. A big advantage in my opinion.

If you go down the rabbit hole of more cost and weight, the EF 50mm f/1.4 when stopped down to f/2, outdoes em both.

I had a different experience.

But that AF motor on it, *sigh*, the copy I borrowed had the same issue as what most folks complain about. And fire it into bright light, the flare is awful, very low-contrast rendering... Hmph. At least the coating on the 50mm f/1.8 STM fixed that.

The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM needs a newer motor and coatings, badly. But, probably will never see it, this side of the mount anyhow (I suspect the RF will get one though, next year IE 2020).

It won't happen. Canon wants you to buy a full frame + 85mm. If Canon brings out a good 50mm for aps-c Canon is really scared upgraders will move to another brand while upgrading. Let's hope competition will force a change here.

Yeah, I thought twice about it, especially after looking at what I'm getting off the 32mm f/1.4, which is to say consistent wonderful results vs the Rokinon 50mm f/1.2, although truly magnificent results, inconsistent. If I had no kids and all the time in the world? I'd own it again. Then again I might own an R if that were so.

Indeed, Canon will never produce it for fear of "Canon-balism"... The worst enemy as a consumer owning a Canon product is not a competitor, it's Canon themselves protecting it's own interests.

Those sigma's working fine with latest firmware updates are always a bit of a gamble as you will never know if it will work with Canons next AF generation.

OTOH, a monopolist in manufacturing sensors isn't an appealing perspective either.

It's competition that spurs Canon to do things like the EF-M 32mm f/1.4, M50 and EOS R... If it were up to Canon? We'd all be shooting an SL2, which I returned. Don't get me wrong, wonderful camera, but mirrorless is the future: you can make better optics and smaller, lighter systems with it.

To rant further for a minute,

(i like it )

the only reason we'll get 4K or IBIS is because everyone else, particularly Nikon, has it now. Now that Nikon has it, Canon has to have it. *rolls eyes*

It'd be nice if Canon took the lead for once this decade, what's left of it. Doubtful. They're still riding the wave of the last decade, which don't get me wrong, is arguably why we have what we do and choose we have, because Canon's infrastructure from the last ILC boom lead to what we have today.

Which Sigma are you hinting at (they make so many) would be appropriate?

I have the aps-c f/1.8 zooms (18-35mm&50-100mm). Working flawless on the M50,  i can only hope it will on an eventually (more) appealing future aps-c mirrorless Canon body.

My bigger concern is actually the color; I personally haven't been a fan of Sigma's color rendition. Unless, you can correct me here that I'm off base and perhaps it's been due to the predominance of samples I've seen have not come off a Canon?

I am not so picky on this aspect. For me the colors of these lenses are fine, but i highly recommend you to ask someone who is more critical on this IQ aspect.