32mm (+11-22mm) ... working with available light (PICS)

iPhone 6S - A shot of both lenses with the M6 this week.  The EF-M 11-22mm lens is on the camera.  The EF-M 32mm f/1.4 lens is on the table.

.
'The right lens for the job', they say.  I'm often forced to compromise when I bring a single lens with me.  Sometimes you have the ideal lens along with you for the shoot.  Sometimes you make do without.  But the EF-M lenses are so darned small that I asked my wife if she'd carry a spare in her purse so I wouldn't need to stuff it into my jacket pocket.  I wasn't being lazy, I just have a long history of dropping things from my pockets and breaking them.   It made sense to have two lenses on hand and I'm glad I brought them with me.  The M6 is a tiny terror when you compare the size against the fork on the table in the shot above.  So much lighter and smaller than a DSLR.
.
I took my wife to the Sydney Blue Mountains for lunch her 40th birthday this weekend. I figured that the panoramic lookouts there might benefit from a wide lens so I guess the EF-M 11-22mm was the logical choice.  But I also suspected I'd be shooting indoors in low light plus more after sunset... which meant I really needed to bring a much brighter/faster lens with me.  The 11-22mm lens isn't fond of low light so the 32mm f/1.4 lens was the obvious 2nd choice.  It was either that or bring a large DSLR with a large, fast lens - and I wasn't wanting to lug that around all day long.  Perhaps the 22mm f/2 lens was an option although I wanted a little more bokeh. 
.
11-22mm + CPL filter
I suspected that I'd be dealing with banding on the 11-22mm lens if I shot wide with a Circular Polarizing filter... yet I was curious to see what would happen if I rotated the outer element to cut out the primary effect.... leaving more of a pseudo-Neutral Density filter in place.  The scene was still slightly polarized but the glare was cut down.  I liked the results although I still prefer the bold effect of maximum polarization for scenes like this.
.

M6 + 11-22mm lens - This lens is magnificent when wide at 11mm... which is why I bought it to capture wide vista views... but I thought I'd experiment more with the 22mm focal length since I'd had good results before with this lens at that setting.   (CPL used + PP applied).  I liked this shot.

.
I expected hard banding with a blue sky with the Circular Polarizer set to maximum so for these shots I turned it to almost minimum - which still have some polarized results.  There wasn't any bit-depth related sky banding visible in the JPEGs (a tribute to the DiGiC processing chip) but there seems to be a little here after uploading them to DPreview after reducing the image.  But I liked the resulting shots from the morning... and boy was it COLD up there.  You won't see it in the pictures but the wind was at 90 to 100kmph (virtually gale force) and the ambient temperature was 9C ... but that later dropped to what seemed like-2C due to the wind chill.  When the sun set it was so obscenely cold up in the mountains that it was truly painful.  Even standing in sunlight.
.

M6 + 11-22mm lens -  At 11mm, this lens is hard to beat.  (CPL used at 'minimum position')

M6 + 11-22mm lens - Another shot at 22mm. My wife is into medieval costume and jewellery, which is why I bought her this custom-made amethyst ring for her 40th birthday...along with some other purple gems to keep the theme going.

M6 + 32mm lens - taken (with permission) at the store where my wife spotted the ring a few months ago.  I knew she liked the ring and the pink/purple sapphire necklace so I went back later to get them
iPhone 6S - Not the best shot.  I've had to shave off my whiskers as they've been getting a little too grey recently. This phone-camera is supposed to perform well in bright light but it still overexposed on the skin on my wife's face and blew out the highlights.  I fixed them but left a reflection on her nose. I also took a double-selfie with the M6 but it's not quite as flattering since it was taken in the shade and from a low angle.  The temperature here was 7C but felt closer to -2C with the icy antarctic wind blowing up from the South..

.
32mm shutter speed & lack of I.S.
I always find it strange to hear anyone argue that a fast, bright lens doesn't appeal to them without an Image Stabilizer.  I understand the need for IS with longer focal lengths but it's not really necessary on a 'non-Pro' lens with a wider focal length.  I suspect that 40mm (equiv) is where I.S starts to become useful - and the 32mm is around that ballpark.   But it's so allows so much light to pass through that I certainly don't miss stabilization.  There's less room for an IS mechanism with large optical elements fitted inside a lens.  It can be done but I suspect Canon simply knew the cost of including it over the need to have it was not worth the effort.  Either way, the 32mm lens was deemed fast enough by Canon not to include I.S.
.
For those who haven't used/owned the 32mm f/1.4 lens...
The faster the lens (the wider the aperture), the more light you have to play with. The shutter speed of the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 lens ought to be typically 1/80 sec to be devoid of blur. The first time I used this lens I was walking about when shooting at 1/60 sec and my movement resulted in a few slightly blurred shots.  It was only one or two out of hundreds but you don't want that if you can avoid it.  You can certainly shoot at slower speeds although if I'm standing perfectly still, I can shoot at 1/60 sec, 1/50 sec and 1/40 sec. Anything below 1/60 sec is not ideal if you're shooting handheld and walking about but you'd be surprised at just how much of a benefit it is to be able to shoot at f/1.4 with any lens.  Slower shutter speeds that might have benefited from I.S. means more subject blur.   So there's that to consider and I think most folks over look this.  I found myself walking about in shadowed areas with 1/320 sec shutter speeds on this lens - before I realized what my settings were and figured I could get more light at 1/100 sec or less.  The f/4 aperture on the 11-22mm lens sure makes use of the Image Stabilizer on that lens.  Although narrower optical elements in the lens barrel may allow the room for an I.S. mechanism.  The floating element needs a certain amount of room to work with.  Some folks probably won't be convinced that they don't need I.S. and that's still okay.  But they're missing out on some great lenses if they ignore the ones with no stabilizers. 
.

M6 + 11-22mm lens - Another reason why I brought the 11-22mm lens with me... the largest antique store I've ever seen.  With 50 dealers inside.  The widest aperture of this lens is f/4 so it does need an Image Stabilizer.

M6 + 11-22mm lens

M6 + 11-22mm lens
.
A visit to the "Victory Cinema Antique Store and Cafe" (ABOVE) at Blackheath NSW made use of the 11-22mm lens and I was able to shoot a few closeups of relics that I may yet return for in the future. With such a crowded and cramped location, the wide 11mm lens coupled with an image stabilizer for the darker corners in the building made sense.  At 22mm the I.S. appeared to do it's thing, allowing fairly lowlight results handheld.  I wasn't sure if anyone would object to me using a camera so the small size of the M system was in my favor.  The somewhat loud shutter release sound of the M6 was not.
.
Lowlight to complete darkness...
I was shooting in challenging available light with these lenses over the weekend... though it reached a new level of impossibility when a tree fell onto the road, killing the occupant of a car and bringing down powerlines which then cut the power to the restaurant I was in... and this all occurred in the fraction of a second.... just as I was reaching out to present a birthday gift to my wife. I'd picked the restaurant based almost entirely on the lighting (due the the nature of the gift I had bought my wife... which I had purchased for its sparkling qualities) and suddenly getting plunged into darkness was a serious impediment for me.
.
Fortunately the lighting was restored. Even with full lighting, the EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens struggled in the room so I had to edit those images to brighten them a little. But the shots taken with a single obscured candle in the room at 1/60sec with the 32mm f/1.4 lens were just fine. The goal wasn't to illuminate the whole room... the goal was to capture exactly what my eyes could see. Unless I'm intending to capture a landscape with a long exposure etc, I generally try to reproduce a scene as I see it and that means I rarely like to use a flash... although occasionally the light or the lens produces something more. Often it's the lighting that makes the shot stand out. Now in the instance of the blackout, I immediately attempted to take two shots with the 32mm lens.... one at the staff trying to light a candle behind me... and one of my wife in front of me. I achieved the goal of capturing what I saw with my eyes. The Autofocus wasn't sure what to do so I placed the AF Reticule over one of my wife's eyes where it seemed to lock onto a tiny reflection fairly quickly.  But each time I pressed the shutter button it wouldn't take the shot.  Thinking quickly, I hit the MF/AF button on the back dial, which set the camera to Manual Focus.  I took several shots... they all came out like the first one below.  It was actually ever so slightly brighter than the actual scene was but you can see for yourself how dark the environment was during the power outage.
.

M6 + 32mm - My wife Rena in virtually total darkness.  An eyeball reflection was used for AF.

M6 + 32mm - Two of the restaurant staff trying to light a candle.

M6 + 32mm - My wife's smartphone had an LED light on it for illumination...  which we used.

.
Shots in the dark...
I know, the pictures are dark.  The one of my wife looks to be almost completely underexposed.  Yet I thought it was interesting to be able to take shots in the dark.  It took a press of the shutter release button before I realized that the camera was refusing to take the shot.   But there was no focus hunting taking place and the AF had settled on a reflection on her eyeball.  The resolution was obvious: Just hit the MF/AF button.... this locked the camera in MF mode and I was then able to take the picture.  I think a lot of people forget that by placing the AF reticule over an area of contrast, they can quickly lock focus.   This can be a highlight, a reflection, a hard edge with contrast, a shadow...  anything with a bit of detail.  Pointing your lens at a flat blue sky or a white wall will cause grief for just about any camera.   Shutter speed was still essential because I didn't want to blur the shot. I could have used a slower shutter speed than 1/80 sec. I probably should have.  Since I was seated i could have easily used 1/40 sec. Of course, I just wanted to capture the scene as it appeared in real life.  But this experiment served to remind me just how practical a fast lens can be and how you can certainly work with a safe speed like 1/80sec, even in the lowest of lighting if you want. Most importantly, the shots perfectly mirrored what I could see with my eyes. Considering what this lens can do in normal light (its sharpness is well noted by all who have used it), I'd still recommend it highly. Operating at 1/focal length is a practical way to shoot but this is a rule that can be broken.   I often break it when shooting with Astrophotography because an extra 5 seconds with a shorter focal length might introduce a tiny amount of star movement, but those 5 full seconds can increase the amount of light tremendously.
.

M6 + 32mm f/1.4 lens -  A moth that I came across on the side-mirror of my car a couple of weeks ago.  It has "eyes" on its markings which were startling.  The tilt-flash on the M6 enabled me to take this shot in the dark by bouncing the light off the garage ceiling.  I could have gotten closer, but this was fine to frame the moth.  Handy having the Closeup ability on this lens.
.
After the blackout in the restaurant, I was on the street at night returning to our car when I took two pictures, one with each lens... in frigid conditions that left me with my fingers stinging from the cold when I took off my gloves.  But look at the difference with both lenses at their widest apertures (BELOW) and then take a look at the ISO comparisons...
.

Take a closer look at the ISO and the shutter speeds... and the use/lack of Image Stabilization... then, the apertures.   The amount of light from that 32mm at 1/80 sec is really something.  (Images are both unedited JPEGS with no lifted shadows or noise reduction).
.
The most important thing to notice about the two shots above is that they were both taken on a darkened street at night with the widest available apertures.  In order to achieve an accurate reflection of the lighting in the scene, I had to drop the ISO right down to 1250 with the 32mm lens.  I certainly should shoot with a higher ISO but  the shutter speed was already at 1/80 sec - which was more than I needed for a night shot that was handheld.  Now take a look at the shot above from the 11-22mm lens.  This lens has an Image stabilizer and yet I still had to slow down the shutter speed to an unacceptable 1/40 sec with a whopping ISO 3200 selected... and it was still underexposed.  The nearby street lights ought to have been reflecting off the red car like they do in the shot below.  These images haven't been edited either (other than to resize).
.

M6 + 32mm lens - Some cool "Prism" ski-goggles from Oakley in a store window

M6 + 32mm lens - shooting Amethyst crystals with the sun in the background.   The shot below was taken by lifting the lens above the subject to shoot the sun as it was close to setting.

M6 + 32mm lens - I was preparing to photograph an Amethyst tea-light cluster on the top of a pier when I thought to take a shot of the sun before it dipped behind clouds.  I normally don't recommend aiming any lens towards the sun - so I'm breaking my own rules here.

M6 + 32mm lens - I drove to an ocean location just to get this shot of the dusk colors in the sky.

.
A week prior I had taken a few random shots of an Amethyst Quartz chunk that had been converted into a tealight - which I shot on a fence post in front of a lighthouse at dusk (ABOVE) ... as well as some Bottega Venetta cologne that I was reviewing (BELOW).  I had no tripod , no flash and no reflectors with me.  I just saw some ideal lighting as I walked past the locations and took a few pictures before moving on.  The show below of the Cologne was taken at my mother's house and the sunlight was coming through a narrow slit at the window.  There was a Hibiscus flower she'd picked from the garden and a small crystal of Amethyst that were both catching the sunlight.  It looks interesting so I placed the cologne bottle down and took two pictures of it.  The amount of defocus on the background was just right.  If I had been shooting this product for a client I'd have likely used two or three reflectors and at least one remote flash with a diffuser.  I'm most likely take about three or four shots to blend together.  But no, just one exposure was fine.  And it was handheld.  I did position myself for that some of the sunlight would reflect off my shirt and onto the bottle cap.  It's quite a nice feeling to be able to catch handheld shots like this without a flash etc to illuminate the subject. Having a shallow DOF is handy for aesthetic reasons but the brighter lenses tend to have less contrast to begin with unless you stop the lens down.  They also seem to offer more room for adjustments to Levels when editing (compared to a high contrast lens).
.

M6 + 32mm lens - I shot this while crouched so that the sunlight might reflect off my shirt slightly while visiting my parents.  It's a pretty delicious scent.  But the color and light here were appealing.  This scene was actually dark enough that I was asked if I wanted someone to turn the lights on.

M6 + 32mm lens - ground view - looking up at the Sydney Tower restaurant at sunset. The height of the tower is 1000.66 feet (305m).

6D (DSLR) + 24mm f/1.4L II USM lens - looking at the M6 + 32mm f/1.4 lens

M6 + 32mm lens - 1/40 sec @ f/1.4 with 3200 ISO - I probably could have cranked the shutter speed up a little... but you can see how dark the scene was in the shot below. I still had more than enough light to work with on the APS-C sensor.

6D (DSLR) + 24mm f/1.4L -  1/64 (?) sec @ f/1.4 with ISO 3200 - The benefits of a Full Frame sensor aren't lost on me but the settings are close to one another on both cameras/lenses.

M6 + 32mm f/1.4 lens - Kate in Natural Light (and Costume) t at Central Train Station at night

M6 + 32mm f/1.4 lens - Natural Light at Night (backlit) - the girl's hair was bright blue+violet.

M6 + 32mm f/1.4 lens - natural light at dusk on the Sydney Streets

M6 + 32mm f/1.4  - Rena in mid-conversation an hour after sunset (natural light)

.
The last few shots I've posted once before but they were taken quite recently and are all lowlight handheld shots - utilizing existing light in the scene (no flash).  You can get close to the subject, obviously... but at this distance there's less chance of distortion to the subject.  Not that this lens distorts much with a focal length equivalence of around 51.52mm.
.
CPL Banding at 11mm
Finally, here's a sample shot that I took using the Circular Polarizing filter on the 11-22mm lens.  I took this picture just for illustrative purposes.  At maximum polarization, these CPL filters can often produce strong banding in the sky on a wide lens.  It won't do this with the 32mm lens but it sure will on the 11-22mm lens.  If the angle of the lens' position from the sun is better, you can still get good results.  Obviously I couldn't change my location or direction for these images so I simply minimized the CPL effect which eliminated the dark band - This cut down on glare without adding too much contrast to the shots.
.

M6 + 11-22mm lens - harsh banding in the sky with a CPL filter at Maximum Effect.  the contrast is a little harsher when you compare this image to the ones at the top of the post.
--
Regards,
Marco Nero.

As excellent as always Nero!

Marco,

These are magnificent! Thanks so much for sharing such a variety of images in various lighting scenarios.

The EOS M6 really shines in your capable hands.

Heck, Canon should make you an official M series ambassador or something:)

picktherighttoolforthejob wrote:

This is a wonderful post, and full of important detail and necessary nuance for M users shooting in low-light environments.

You sure have the right name to be replying to this thread!  I just hope my post wasn't overly long-winded and that it might be useful to others.  For example, I've ONLY used CPL filters at maximum strength.  But I didn't want banding in the sky for those shots so I turned the effect right down but still benefited from using theCPL filter.  A post I made a couple of years ago when I took a picture of my wife in a car at night with the 11-22mm lens showed me it was capable of nice detail and results at 22mm.  So I applied it in those daylight shots in the mountains and the results appealed to me.  If it wasn't for the constant experiments here and there, I'd have no idea if I'd have captured some of my favorite shots or not.  By sharing, it might help others made decisions of their own without having to guess.

I have resisted purchasing the EF-M 32mm lens (for now) because of its lack of IS, because I own the EF-M 22mm lens...and I have had good luck with low-light image acquisition when utilizing the 5D-MkIII/EF 35mm f2.0 lens...a lens which of course has IS (but is much larger and heavier).

The demand for Image Stabilization
I can appreciate why people have become addicted to Image Stabilization on their cameras and lenses today.  Every time Canon releases a new body, someone (everyone?) complains about a lack of IBIS on it.  Canon painted themselves into a bit of a corner by declaring IBIS to be inferior to OIS and later doubled-down on this by claiming that it affects color and sharpness negatively.  But I have a feeling this may soon change as there have been several light rumors that Canon may actually be looking to introduce IBIS (or their own form of it) in some type of future camera.  I suppose time will reveal all.
.
Lack of IS on the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens
As for the EF 35mm f/2 IS lens (NOT the 32mm lens), it has an excellent reputation for sharpness.  I feel they chose to add I.S. simply to cash in on the demand for it since this lens probably doesn't need it on a Full Frame camera.  I can certainly appreciate why some people might want I.S. on the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens when you see them demanding it elsewhere.  But it's one of those lenses that allows higher shutter speeds in low light.  Even my EF-M 22mm f/2 is relatively "in the dark" in comparison.   I used to use the EF-M 22mm for everything demanding low light performance and the results were were impressive.  In fact, the wider FOV and superb clarity at f/2.2 makes the 22mm lens my absolute favorite lens for Astrophotography.  Where it let me down was a dark restaurant that was literally underground, lit with random candles.  It was so dark that I had to take the menu away from my table to try to read it near a candle.  I later chipped a tooth on what turned out to be a metal straw in my drink.  The place was absurdly dark and I simply couldn't get enough performance out of the EF-M 22mm f/2 lens... So I was pleased to see the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 lens eventuate.  It surprised me that I was unable to work in that dark location.  For visitors to Australia, the restaurant I was dealing with in the dark is called Mjolner .  Bring a torch.
.

EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens - taken on a street at night (Candid shot of my friend's wife) - You'd think that this lens would cover everything in lowlight with an ability to take shots like this at night... but sometimes you need even more light.

.
That one time I blurred some shots from the 32mm lens...
But yes, I did have some motion-blur in just a couple of shots from the 32mm lens and when I reviewed my images at the end of my second day shooting with this lens, I discovered them to be blurred slightly after downloading them.  They were pretty subtle so I didn't spot them as being blurred when reviewing images on the camera.  But what I found out was that when using a Circular Polarizer in P-Mode, the camera dropped the exposure speed due to the darkened environment.  The other thing I noticed was that each of these shots with a tiny bit of movement was the result of me taking a picture while physically walking or panning with the camera. Each of the blurred shots (and all those that weren't blurred) were taken at 1/60 sec.  Now I knew that I could handhold shots at 1/40 without a problem.  So the issue was that I had gotten overly confident with using Av-mode in daylight with Compact Cameras... but in this instance I was using Av-mode with a mirrorless M6 with a CPL filter on the lens.  And where I really screwed up was when I then set the aperture to f/10.  That was it.  Just the aperture of f/10 was enough to ruin my shots.... because the smaller aperture and low ISO meant the lens was forced to compromise the shutter speed.  And it picked a fairly safe 1/60 sec.  Here's one of the shots from the set that tuned out fine because I'd stopped moving.  You can see how bright the scene is too...
.

M6 + EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens  -  ISO 100 |  f/10  |  1/60 sec + CPL filter
.
This is a sharp shot out of a set that were otherwise blurred ... because I forced the camera to lower the shutter speed by default... and then stupidly panned as I snapped shots without standing still.

.
5 Steps to disaster...
This darkened the scene enough that the camera dropped the shutter speed to what would have been a great exposure... if only I hadn't set the ISO by locking it down to ISO 100... which forced the camera to slow the exposure down the 1/60.  With a wider lens, it wouldn't have mattered.  But the 32mm lens becomes a 51.2mm lens on the APS-C sensor on the EOS M cameras.... and at 52mm an Image Stabilizer might have been useful with that conjunction of settings and shortcomings on my part.  But does this lens need an Image Stabilizer?  I honestly still don't think so.  My blurred shots were the result of (1) a poor decision on my part -  (2) combining a locked ISO, (3) a very slow aperture of f/10 that was entirely unnecessary, (4) darkening the whole scene with a CPL filter dialed up to maximum - and (5) moving about while in the process of making the exposures.  Just avoid my 5-step mistake and you'll be fine.  The f/1.4 lenses are capable on their own.  Even DSLR users noted no improvements in image quality by adding I.S. to the EF 85mm f/1.4L i.S. USM lens... but it looks good on the pamphlets and people will buy it because it has I.S.  Here' another shot taken at the same location just a few minutes later...
.

M6 + EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM - ISO 100 |  f/7.1  |  1/125 sec  + CPL filter
.
The fix was a more reasonable Aperture of f/7.1

.
It's pretty rare for me to get excited about a lens before it get released but I looked at the specs of this lens before it was released and had some very high expectations - mostly based on using another Canon EF L-seres lens that had a similar aperture.  What surprised me was the clarity of the 32mm f/1.4 lens - which is something I've looked at in previous posts last year (so I probably don't need to rehash again here).  The clarity and overall performance from it has attracted quite a bit of attention from other photographers.  The only limitation would be the field of view.
.

FOV: The field of view of the 32mm lens compared with the EF-M 11-22mm lens. These two shots were taken with the camera locked down on a tripod.

.
bbb
.

32mm - 1/100 second - Clearly shot at night outside without needing beyond ISO 2500 -  I did opt to use a small amount of noise reduction on the cloudy sky to remove a little grain.

32mm - 1/250 sec - to catch the bats in flight.  All my other lenses tend to blur shots like this.

32mm -1/80th second.  The illumination in this room was less than 1 candle in brightness.

32mm - 1/80th second.  Traffic at night

32mm - 1/80 sec - shot taken handheld with camera raised over my head.  Note that the little girl's face (which was the AF target zone) is perfectly in focus.

32mm - 1/60 second - The moon behind a smoldering Tiki torch (2x exposures - but exposure of the moon was still kept out of focus to accurately reflect the light in the scene).  Check the ISO - just 320.

Your real-world photos posted here are fine examples. Thanks for posting.

Thank you to the others who left a message or a response...  I started writing this post 3 days ago and kept my browser open for three days to try and convey the material I wanted...but it got a bit complicated because I found some of what i wrote to be repetitive and I also wanted to share information without it seeming in any way to be condescending to do so.  Photography is ALWAYS an exploration.   Some of the shots that I take might be considered too personal to share so I sometimes have to ask people of they'd mind me posting a picture of them.  At least one member here complained that I was posting too many pictures of my wife's (clothed) breasts.  I don't get it but hey, everyone loses out now.  I try never to post an unflattering picture of other people although occasionally there's a person in the background with a silly look on their face .
.
Sometimes I take a picture that I think is technically good (eg exposure and composition is good) and sometimes I'll be fortunate to get access to good illumination that brings an image to life.  If I think it looks nice enough to share, I will.  Other times I share images that might seem mundane but they demonstrate an lens/camera capability that I wasn't previously aware of.  I try to capture everything in-camera rather than have to do a lot of editing in post.
.
Most of the time, when I post images on the M-forum, it's just to share the shot with others so they know what their gear is capable of - of because I was surprised with the results that I got.  Some people don't have an opportunity to push their cameras very far or perhaps they just use their gear for occasional images of day-to-day scenes.  I like knowing that I can take certain lenses out with an M-Camera and (hopefully) capture beautiful landscapes like member HaroldC3 does with his own gear.  Sure, my shots may not be as pretty but at least I know what the camera/lens combo is capable of before I leave the house.  Most of the great shots out there were simply circumstantial, but the studio photographers can plan and execute shots with special lighting and be assured of excellent results almost every time.
.
I'm usually not moved by studio shots taken under professional lighting because if you reproduce the same setup, you get the same results yourself.  For me, an interesting picture is often one that involves a random location, ideal clouds and lighting and a unique view or perspective.  Everyone is different and we all have things that we like or don't care to see.  I tend to like landscapes and animals because there's very little we can to to prepare scenes like those...  / ...We're at the mercy of the elements.  Occasionally I'll see family snapshots that wow me posted by members here who don't have access to exotic locations.  I love the tropics but I haven't been there since 2004.  I'll get back there eventually and I'll be bringing these lenses with me.
.
I'll post another reply her in relation to the 11-22mm lens in a moment... so as not to overcrowd my reply with too many images.
--
Regards,
Marco Nero.

The first time I was told about a lens that produced "crisp blacks and high contrast" it was a Canon dealer telling be about the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens.  He wasn't wrong either.  Something about the aperture seemed to produce very little bokeh but plenty of contrast.  His assistant was using one and spoke highly of it.  I bought one for my wife and it quickly became one of her favorite lenses.
.
So when I saw the EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens announced, I thought that I might benefit from the ultra-wide angle.   It appears to produce pleasant sunstars, it's lightweight and it's affordable.  In fact it's a very close match to the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM lens which is respected for its qualities.  I own the non-IS f/2.8L lens so the focal length seemed useful to me.   When I got to try the 11-22mm lens for the first time, I took this picture of the interior ceiling of the Queen Victoria Building as I left the camera store.  It showed me how clean it was and what I might expect from it in future.  I haven't been able to reproduce the same results with any other lens since...
.

11-22mm lens - my first picture with this lens - taken just after leaving the store with it.

.
I've chosen to slip this additional reply into the thread I started because a couple of people messaged me to say that they were from other camera brand platforms and were contemplating the EOS M based on some of the samples they saw in this thread.  I don't like to influence people with my own photographs and get them to swap platforms though.  I remember being at a public fair in the mountains many years ago (called the Winter Magic Festival) and spotted a girl using a camera that I was VERY fond of.  I asked her if she were enjoying the results from her camera and they said that they "utterly hated it".  How could they hate something that I liked so much?  Since then, I've tried to avoid recommending products unless I felt others might really benefit from their use.  I tend not to personally endorse anything that I don't personally use.  But I will point out products that I would like to own or use, based on my research and I do sometimes recommend photographic products that my wife uses if I've seen the results. 
.
11-22mm lens - a different approach to ambient light...
The 11-22mm lens is a very sharp lens.  On the original EOS M (which has a smaller sensor resolution at 18MP) it performs very nicely.  But I'm able to get much, much more detail on my EOS M6 (24MP) and the difference is visible during editing and printing.  The lens is sensitive in the sense that it will vignette unless a thin filter is used.  And I can't double stack filters on it or I end up with THIS:
.

11-22mm lens - Hard Vignetting (not Light Falloff) due to me accidentally double-stacking a normal CPL filter on top of the thin Pro 1 UV filter.  I won't make this mistake again.

.
The 11-22mm lens has a lot of contrast and I would presume that this is because of the smaller aperture which starts at f/4. So instead of being able to recover details obscured by shadows, you're using the shadows to generate the atmosphere in the images.  Normally, when I think about using this lens, it's for the ultra-wide view that it offers.  That's usually my motivation for using it.  If I'm dealing with large crowds, architecture, landscapes or similar, this tends to be my primary choice of lens.  But having high contrast doesn't mean a lens is limited to 'contrasty shots'... but they do stand out. 
.
I feel that the 11-22mm lens is limited to either good lighting (if handheld) or a tripod for the best results.  It's almost a polar opposite to the 32mm f/1.4 lens in these respects..  (see below).  These images were all taken in JPEG but some have been subjected to minor edits or tweaks for color and contrast only.  One image required skin blemish correction.
.

11-22mm - I was mixing with people 'above my station' here and was asked to leave after taking this image.  Yes, really.  I had booked to return last weekend but we cancelled our reservation after a 14 month investigation by the Ombudsman into worker abuse allegedly found the establishment guilty.

11-22mm - Fireworks and a burst of lightning in the distance (mini tripod used). There was about 3,000 people standing behind me.

11-22mm lens - a little gold - photographed by torchlight

11-22mm - Gold Panning - those boots might look silly... but you should see the leeches here .

11-22mm lens - EF lens performance in a tiny EF-M package.

11-22mm lens - known for its high contrast (presumably due to the aperture)

11-22mm lens - taken in my car at night - My wife had just removed a costume wig and was illuminated by the overhead lamp in the car. Since the AWB wasn't ideal (the interior light made her skin look bright orange), I simply desaturated the shot to rescue it.  Taken at ISO 3200 (surprisingly).

11-22mm lens - literally working with available light.

11-22mm lens - Taken with a long exposure to capture passing traffic at sunset. NiSi Natural Night Filter used (hence the color hue).

noisephotographer wrote:

With the 15-45mm it is possible to get sharp 15mm or 16mm photos with an exposure time of 1/2s.

In a nutshell, the 32mm f/1.4 STM lens gives the user all the light they need at handheld speeds... usually without the need to rely on high ISO settings.  It's quite liberating to work with bright lenses and the added bonus is in the Bokeh - plus one other thing that I'll mention below.
.
The 15-45mm lens has an f/3.5 aperture when opened to its widest setting. That's not particularly suitable for lowlight work other than completely motionless scenes - but I can appreciate how useful an I.S, system is.  I think I saw a shot taken with this lens by a member image - a shot taken at low speeds (foggy village in the morning) which was quite a lovely shot.   But I'm sure others would agree than half a second exposure (0.5 sec) is a very short amount of time.  For shots like that I'd probably be shooting a landscape and that would demand an even narrower aperture and a tripod to get right... preferably something closer to f/6.   Bit it is a wider lens at 15mm and that's where the f/3.5 aperture ranges from.  It jumps pretty quickly to a smaller aperture as you use the zoom with that lens.  If you're traveling, you might find it easier to shoot like that if you don't have a tripod on hand.  But these are two very different lenses.  The 15-45mm lens is more of a landscape and general purpose lens and this is why Canon selected it as their Kit lens to replace the 22mm lens.  An f/3.5 landscape shot is probably going to be quite sharp.

With the 32mm f/1.4 it's extremely hard to get sharp 1/20s photos without any help.

I agree. But nobody needs to routinely use a lens at 1/20 sec and it's not particularly desirable to do so.  Yet the fact that you can makes it useful as a feature. I just had a cat sitting on my lap but was able to reach my EOS M6 camera with one hand.  I then dropped the shutter speed to 0.5 second but was unable to capture an image at that speed.  It was too slow and only one out of 6 shots was usable with the camera braced against my knee with plenty of movement from my and the cat.  But cranking the settings to f/1.4 + 1/15 sec + ISO 400 (bear in mind that it's night here and my office is pretty dark) was different.  And that gave me 6/6 shots that were sharp.  It was handheld and I still brought my knee up to use as a brace.  Now I could easily crank the shutter speed up to 1/30 second for added stability but the shots I was getting at 1/15 were fine.  In the real world I'm likely to pick a safe exposure time of 1/60 at night if stationary.  In daylight or when moving about, surely 1/80 sec is the ideal minimum with the 32mm lens.  The wider the lens, the longer the shutter speeds that can be used.  The IS on the 11-22mm lens is very good but I can't get much out of it after sunset.  It's just too dark to use at f4, even with the IS active.
.
1/20 sec qualifies as a "long exposure".  It will render movement from your hands if they exceed the ability of the Stabilizer and the subjects in the scene will move and therefore blur.  I generally won't shoot a portrait at 1/40 sec, let alone slower, without a tripod or some sort of stabilizing surface.  Low and Medium levels of Noise can be easily removed with software in many instances and the times where NR is critical is with skin tones for portraits... and you really don't ever want to shoot portraits at 1/20 sec.  I had to take a picture of people talking in a darkened restaurant the other night and I had no choice but to use a higher ISO so that I could keep my shutter down low... but a 1/20 sec exposure with IS would have blurred all three subjects in the shot.  I was fine with some peppery grain in the shot rather than blurred people with less noise and less light.

Therefore even the 15mm f/3.5 IS can lead to less noisy photos than the Ef-m 32mm, if there are no moving objects and if one doesn't crop the 15mm photo.

Hold on ... an f/3.5 exposure, even stabilized at half a second (let alone 1/20 sec) ... isn't going to compare to the amount of light coming through an f/1.4 lens at 1/40 sec.  The trees move, the people move and the cars and everything else moves. That leaves indoor lowlight environments. If you're shooting a picture of a meal on a plate of a book on a shelf, sure... that will work. But your picture will have a greater DOF which will have an aesthetic effect on your results. Try photographing a pet or a person indoors with that method and you'll have issues with movement. One of the very best image stabilizers I've used enabled me to take a 4 second exposure that was handheld - of the Orion Nebula (see below). I was crouched down with my back against my car and shooting blindly since the nebula itself isn't visible to the human eye. It just looks like a star. The Stabilizer did a marvelous job since this was a 400mm lens.... and yet the subject was blurred. It turned out that 4 seconds at 400mm was enough to show the effects of the Earth's rotation... causing the stars to streak. Technically, I needed an even longer exposure to capture this properly (or to stack a bunch of shots). But the best Image Stabilizer I've used did a fine job and it still let me down. For indoor shots, an image stabilizer can be very useful. But with a fast lens it's not required (see samples further down).
.

EOS M + EF 100-400mmL II - Handheld (Orion Nebula)

.
That's the disadvantage of using Image Stabilizer if you're not shooting static subjects. There's no chance in the world I could have caught any of the following shots with f/3.5 using I.S. for a handheld shot:
.

32mm - a fast swimming turtle @ f/1.4 with 1/400 sec and ISO 640

32mm - 1/160 sec @ f/2.8 with ISO 1600 - the bats in the distance show how short this exposure was.  Any slower and we'd see people blurred.  Any wider with the aperture and some people might have ended up out of focus. Any higher with ISO might have introduced more noise.  This was also an accurate representation of the lighting in this environment.

32mm - 1/60 second @ f/1.4 with ISO 250 - plasma

32mm - f/1.4 @ 1/320 second + ISO 500

32mm - 1/400 sec (to freeze traffic) @ f/2.8 for overall DOF clarity and to reduce overexposure with the sunset + ISO 100 to reduce highlight blowout.

.
Much bolder Bokeh:
Another important consideration is that the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens was given a bright aperture to enable useful bokeh. So having set your 15-45mm lens to approximately 32mm, you'd end up with an aperture of around f/5.6-6.3.
.

32mm @ f/1.4 - @ f/1.4 + ISO 320 - Marzipan Cake

32mm @ f/1.4 - @ f/1.4 + ISO 200 - Marzipan Cake

32mm @ f/1.4 with 1/60 sec. Handheld and razor sharp with ISO 500 & no visible noise.

.

Faster, more accurate Auto Focus.
Another major benefit with using brighter lenses with larger apertures is that the camera's sensor is presented with far more light. This results in faster and more accurate Auto Focus. Even with the Aperture set to a narrower size, the sensor still has the benefit of more light when the exposure takes place. The same applies with using darkened filters like Circular Polarizers and Neutral Density filters. It's one of those things that gets overlooked quite often. And it's one of the most compelling reasons to be using fast lenses.
.

32mm - accurate AF through glass in a very dark museum. Tack Sharp @ 1/80 sec with ISO 100.  Taken at the Sydney Powerhouse Museum... so dark that I can't even use a PowerShot camera in this room.

32mm - Autofocus in the dark - natural lighting - 1/25 sec (NR applied).  I was perched against the door of my car for this shot... with my wife complaining it was

32mm - Autofocus in the dark - natural lighting at 1/80 sec (NR applied). 

.
--
Regards,
Marco Nero.

Very nice pics. Can live with that.   Say it many times, say it again the kit lens is the weak spot of M series.....

For the gathering of light I prefer the image stabilizer of the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM over having f/1.4  in all situations with non moving subjects and/or a larger depth of field.

.

Faster, more accurate Auto Focus.
Another major benefit with using brighter lenses with larger apertures is that the camera's sensor is presented with far more light. This results in faster and more accurate Auto Focus.

How fast AF is depends on more factors than only the aperture. Even with all the light in the world the EF-m 32mm f/1.4 stm isn't focusing fast. Een in low light the Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM is focusing faster than the ef-m 32mm stm. Furthermore: This lens, and also my sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is focusing slightly more accurate in low light situations.

In fact the focusing is so slow i returned  the lens. And the slight difference in focusing accuracy was especially disappointing. It is not a bad focusing lens, not at all, but when pixel peeping you will find out the other ones are better.

Even with the Aperture set to a narrower size, the sensor still has the benefit of more light when the exposure takes place. The same applies with using darkened filters like Circular Polarizers and Neutral Density filters. It's one of those things that gets overlooked quite often. And it's one of the most compelling reasons to be using fast lenses.
.

32mm - accurate AF through glass in a very dark museum. Tack Sharp @ 1/80 sec with ISO 100. Taken at the Sydney Powerhouse Museum... so dark that I can't even use a PowerShot camera in this room.

This picuture would have benefitted more from a stabilizer than a larger aperture as it needs more depth of field. This a an example the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM would have been able to give a better result.

I tried a 35 mm F/2.0 IS on my EOS M and it had wonderful clarity, but even wide open it wasn't as bright as I had hoped in low light.

Since it is an EF lens (full frame) the EOS M series being APS-C doesn't really take full advantage of the light gathering capability.

Having said that I have gotten nice results with my 50 mm F/1.8 on the M, though it too is an EF lens.

My point being that sometimes I forget that the EF lenses while often awesome on a crop body in terms of clarity, may not be optimized on them because of the difference in diameter and distance to the sensor.

(admittedly I am not a techie so don't fully grasp all of the nuances of that).

I haven't tried the 32 mm f/1.4  yet....

Marco Nero wrote:

Much bolder Bokeh:
Another important consideration is that the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens was given a bright aperture to enable useful bokeh. So having set your 15-45mm lens to approximately 32mm, you'd end up with an aperture of around f/5.6-6.3.
.

32mm @ f/1.4 - @ f/1.4 + ISO 320 - Marzipan Cake

Yeah, the bokeh was bolder, but is bolder bokeh more artistic in every case? In my opinion less bokeh was better in this case, and therefor IS over a larger aperture.  I don't have any arguments for this as it is a matter of taste...

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Marco Nero.

mvrbnsn wrote:

I tried a 35 mm F/2.0 IS on my EOS M and it had wonderful clarity, but even wide open it wasn't as bright as I had hoped in low light.

It is only f/2.0, but for non moving subjects this is combined with IS. Furthermore the AF is much faster and a bit more accurate.

For moving subjects in low light the AF of the 32mm is often to slow.... It has the slowest stm implementation i have seen (slower than the ef-m 22mm EF 50mm, EF 40mm, EF-s 24mm, ef-m 11-22mm). That is also the reason this lens has a focus limiter whyle the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM has not. The latter simply doesn't need it, whyle it has about the same magnification factor.

Since it is an EF lens (full frame) the EOS M series being APS-C doesn't really take full advantage of the light gathering capability.

That is true, however, it has less vignetting than the 32mm (or light fall of, whatever you name it).

Having said that I have gotten nice results with my 50 mm F/1.8 on the M, though it too is an EF lens.

This lens is not the best performing lens at borders and corners, and therefore best suited for aps-c

My point being that sometimes I forget that the EF lenses while often awesome on a crop body in terms of clarity, may not be optimized on them because of the difference in diameter and distance to the sensor.

Maybe it is more a matter of pixel density of the aps-c sensor not being optimized for the full frame lens.

(admittedly I am not a techie so don't fully grasp all of the nuances of that).

I haven't tried the 32 mm f/1.4 yet....

I did, and i returned it. Stopped down for landscapes i have other options sharp enough for me. I found the AF too slow in general, and in low light slightly inaccurate compared to my other lenses. It was clearly visible working with speedlites in low light, as this gives low enough ISO's to see the AF of this lens can't handle the sharpness of this lens. Without speedlites the non-ideal AF results will be camouflaged by higher ISO noise though.

When the AF of the lens hits at f/2.0 it is crazy sharp. Better than my Sigma 18-35mm and way better than the Canon 35mm f/2.0 IS USM at the same aperture. But unfortunately it has its flaws, so i couldn't justify its price:

- slow AF

- slightly inaccurate AF in low light (i would estimate 50 or 60% having focus being on par with the lens its sharpness in situations other options still give about 90%)

- No IS

- can not be speedboosted

- can not be mounted on EF-s, EF or R cameras.

- can not be adapted to Sony E or FE cameras

- the sigma 30mm f/1.4 will likely more affordable, and who knows it is even focusing faster as my sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 have proved a sigma can focus faster than a Canon lens.

thunder storm wrote:

Even with the Aperture set to a narrower size, the sensor still has the benefit of more light when the exposure takes place. The same applies with using darkened filters like Circular Polarizers and Neutral Density filters. It's one of those things that gets overlooked quite often. And it's one of the most compelling reasons to be using fast lenses.
.

32mm - accurate AF through glass in a very dark museum. Tack Sharp @ 1/80 sec with ISO 100. Taken at the Sydney Powerhouse Museum... so dark that I can't even use a PowerShot camera in this room.

This picuture would have benefitted more from a stabilizer than a larger aperture as it needs more depth of field. This a an example the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM would have been able to give a better result.

Look at the ISO used, you absolute peanut.
.
It was ISO 100.  Which means I had the ability to shoot with anything up to say ISO 3200 and thus reduce the aperture while keeping the shutter speed at 1/80 sec - thus increasing the Depth Of Field if it were desirable.  You clearly don't understand the basics of photography.  Remember that time you said I should have used 1/16,000 second?  Please go away.  Your continued passive-aggressive 'troll posting' will not find you many friends here.

Thunderstorm, I've said this before and I will say it again:
.
You are an literal definition of the word Troll.  And the comments you make are often contradictory to the evidence on hand.  I don't even need to post a reply or photographic evidence to support my observations because they're wasted on a person like yourself.  You made four disparaging posts in this thread almost simultaneously.  Desperate to muddy the waters with your unnecessary and negative comments.  It's not just that you are technically wrong, it's that you persist in trollish behavior.  I can't tell if you do this because you find it entertaining or because you mistakenly think that it makes you smarter than everyone else here (it doesn't), so I can only conclude that your repeatedly poor social skills are the result of psychological condition.  It certainly seems to be the case and others have pondered the same.  The thing is, you ought to be old enough and smart enough to know better.
.
Your list of dislikes... which included an inability to mount this lens with a speedbooster - would be utterly stupid if you understand the physics behind the design of optical elements. You say the Sony 30mm is more affordable... and that the 32mm Canon "can not be adapted to Sony E or FE cameras."  No kidding.  And why would that be? Now I know the Sony Fanboys are themselves the worst Trolls on the internet but you're in Canon territory now.  And it's becoming abundantly clear that you're just Trolling the members here.  I don't mean trolling in a friendly sense of the word, either.  You're just trying to inflict offense with various members here.  I've got thick skin and no shame so you won't score any brownie points with me.  But your behavior hasn't improved in years.  It might actually be time for you to take a break from this forum.  I'll be happy to put in a word to this effect if required.
.
When the 32mm lens was announced you accused me of over-accentuating the benefits of this lens.  I posted examples of why the M series would benefit from such a lens but you complained loudly and often that this lens was going to be a dud.
.
Then the lens was released.  I picked up an advance copy prior to the public release date and spent three solid days taking thousands of photographs with it to test the aspects of the lens.  The results were exceptional.  It is without a doubt, one of the best lenses Canon has produced and it's certainly the best EF-M lens they've produced. 
.
Then you were critical of the bokeh.  It wasn't for you, apparently.
.
Then you complained when other members appeared to enjoy using their lens.
.
But no, for you, the Sigma was just as good if not better for your needs.
.
Despite this, you claim to have actually purchased this 32mm lens and suddenly didn't like it at all.  Why you would buy a lens that is the source of your dislike is a mystery.  Why you'd claim to have done so is not.  So despite your distaste and open hostility towards this lens, and your disapproval of the price, you now claim you bought one.  I say that's just rubbish.  And I'm not the only one here to make this observation.
.
Of course, you then immediately claim that you "sold it" because you said it wasn't good enough for you.  And what do you know? That Sony lens was apparently "better" after all.  Or so you claim.
.
But you never posted any pictures from that lens to support your endless online crusade against it.  And when another member noted that you hide behind an internet name, post no personal details, have no images in your galleries and post no examples, you became defensive and even abusive towards them.   How dare they question you?  Your faux outrage was embarrassing.  Your unchecked behavior towards me is evident right now with your passive aggressive behavior in this thread.
.
And now, like you have done before, you are stalking threads that I have posted, disagreeing vehemently with what I write and claiming (as usual) that every body else is wrong and that your observations and experiences outweigh the opinions and evidence as posted here by others.
.
You accused me of "hysteria" simply for pointing out the obvious when a member here used clickbait or ignorance in their headline to claim that a vague rumor was factual.
.
I believe you are a fraud.  You've posted no evidence whatsoever that you've owned the lenses you claim to own.  You've been nothing but hostile to the other members here.  And poor Olga didn't quite know how to handle your petty distaste for other people on this forum.  Try this behavior on another forum here and see how far your behavior takes you.  You claim that the 32mm lens is "too slow" (AF) for you and yet you profess to shoot Landscapes.  The 32mm lens is just fine with operational speed and it's arguably Canon's SHARPEST lens right now.  You're clearly spoiling for a reaction from others and myself because you've failed at delivering  evidence to the contrary in almost an entire year.
.

1/3 - History repeating itself.

2/3

I no longer care to read your comments.  But be sure to let us all know when 1/16,000 sec gets introduced to the Canon range.

.
.

You've been described as having the 'thought process from a three year old toddler' by other veteran members of the forum who no longer care to interact with you..

.
In the past, when you found yourself cornered by your own hostile behavior, your next course of action was to try and contain the damage by either repeating yourself or by telling people that there's room for another opinion (as though opinions equate to factual information)... or you simply accuse them of being (A) wrong or (B) lying.
.
Your stalking behavior is likely to trigger something appropriate from our new moderators after the passing of our last one.  I would suggest that you simply refrain from responding to any of my posts again.  Until the block feature here is resolved to my satisfaction, consider this a stern and sincere warning. 
.
Sort yourself out.

thanks for your thorough response. I will take this into account for future purchases!

Marco Nero wrote:

Thunderstorm, I've said this before and I will say it again:
.
You are an literal definition of the word Troll. And the comments you make are often contradictory to the evidence on hand. I don't even need to post a reply or photographic evidence to support my observations because they're wasted on a person like yourself. You made four disparaging posts in this thread almost simultaneously. Desperate to muddy the waters with your unnecessary and negative comments. It's not just that you are technically wrong, it's that you persist in trollish behavior. I can't tell if you do this because you find it entertaining or because you mistakenly think that it makes you smarter than everyone else here (it doesn't), so I can only conclude that your repeatedly poor social skills are the result of psychological condition. It certainly seems to be the case and others have pondered the same. The thing is, you ought to be old enough and smart enough to know better.
.
Your list of dislikes... which included an inability to mount this lens with a speedbooster - would be utterly stupid if you understand the physics behind the design of optical elements. You say the Sony 30mm is more affordable... and that the 32mm Canon "can not be adapted to Sony E or FE cameras." No kidding. And why would that be? Now I know the Sony Fanboys are themselves the worst Trolls on the internet but you're in Canon territory now. And it's becoming abundantly clear that you're just Trolling the members here. I don't mean trolling in a friendly sense of the word, either. You're just trying to inflict offense with various members here. I've got thick skin and no shame so you won't score any brownie points with me. But your behavior hasn't improved in years. It might actually be time for you to take a break from this forum. I'll be happy to put in a word to this effect if required.
.
When the 32mm lens was announced you accused me of over-accentuating the benefits of this lens. I posted examples of why the M series would benefit from such a lens but you complained loudly and often that this lens was going to be a dud.
.
Then the lens was released. I picked up an advance copy prior to the public release date and spent three solid days taking thousands of photographs with it to test the aspects of the lens. The results were exceptional. It is without a doubt, one of the best lenses Canon has produced and it's certainly the best EF-M lens they've produced.
.
Then you were critical of the bokeh. It wasn't for you, apparently.
.
Then you complained when other members appeared to enjoy using their lens.
.
But no, for you, the Sigma was just as good if not better for your needs.
.
Despite this, you claim to have actually purchased this 32mm lens and suddenly didn't like it at all. Why you would buy a lens that is the source of your dislike is a mystery. Why you'd claim to have done so is not. So despite your distaste and open hostility towards this lens, and your disapproval of the price, you now claim you bought one. I say that's just rubbish. And I'm not the only one here to make this observation.
.
Of course, you then immediately claim that you "sold it" because you said it wasn't good enough for you. And what do you know? That Sony lens was apparently "better" after all. Or so you claim.
.
But you never posted any pictures from that lens to support your endless online crusade against it. And when another member noted that you hide behind an internet name, post no personal details, have no images in your galleries and post no examples, you became defensive and even abusive towards them. How dare they question you? Your faux outrage was embarrassing. Your unchecked behavior towards me is evident right now with your passive aggressive behavior in this thread.
.
And now, like you have done before, you are stalking threads that I have posted, disagreeing vehemently with what I write and claiming (as usual) that every body else is wrong and that your observations and experiences outweigh the opinions and evidence as posted here by others.
.
You accused me of "hysteria" simply for pointing out the obvious when a member here used clickbait or ignorance in their headline to claim that a vague rumor was factual.
.
I believe you are a fraud. You've posted no evidence whatsoever that you've owned the lenses you claim to own. You've been nothing but hostile to the other members here. And poor Olga didn't quite know how to handle your petty distaste for other people on this forum. Try this behavior on another forum here and see how far your behavior takes you. You claim that the 32mm lens is "too slow" (AF) for you and yet you profess to shoot Landscapes. The 32mm lens is just fine with operational speed and it's arguably Canon's SHARPEST lens right now. You're clearly spoiling for a reaction from others and myself because you've failed at delivering evidence to the contrary in almost an entire year.
.

1/3 - History repeating itself.

2/3

I no longer care to read your comments. But be sure to let us all know when 1/16,000 sec gets introduced to the Canon range.

.
.

You've been described as having the 'thought process from a three year old toddler' by other veteran members of the forum who no longer care to interact with you..

.
In the past, when you found yourself cornered by your own hostile behavior, your next course of action was to try and contain the damage by either repeating yourself or by telling people that there's room for another opinion (as though opinions equate to factual information)... or you simply accuse them of being (A) wrong or (B) lying.
.
Your stalking behavior is likely to trigger something appropriate from our new moderators after the passing of our last one. I would suggest that you simply refrain from responding to any of my posts again. Until the block feature here is resolved to my satisfaction, consider this a stern and sincere warning.
.
Sort yourself out.

I don't even open his posts anymore Marco.....I just skip to the next one.