Poll: Your favorite EF-M lens

Alastair Norcross wrote:

noneoftheabove wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

noneoftheabove wrote:

I like the 22mm, but the adapted EF 50mm f1.8 mkII usually lives on the front, as there is nothing that compares in native EF-M.

As of today, there is. The Sigma 56 F1.4 for EF-M mount is available today.

Ah, crikey! The 50mm is a budget bargain at £90, and although I would love to try the new Sigma I can't warrant that with a mortgage to pay!

Yes, it's a bit of an indulgence. I feel a bit guilty about ordering the Sigma, given that I have the 50STM, and it works really well on the M. I'm hoping that the Sigma will be so good that I'll feel it was worth it.

Well, I like the 50mm f1.8 but with the x0.71 adapter, I like it even more... 35mm F1.2... (The post was only about native ESO M Canon lenses ? sory if HS)

CQui wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

noneoftheabove wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

noneoftheabove wrote:

I like the 22mm, but the adapted EF 50mm f1.8 mkII usually lives on the front, as there is nothing that compares in native EF-M.

As of today, there is. The Sigma 56 F1.4 for EF-M mount is available today.

Ah, crikey! The 50mm is a budget bargain at £90, and although I would love to try the new Sigma I can't warrant that with a mortgage to pay!

Yes, it's a bit of an indulgence. I feel a bit guilty about ordering the Sigma, given that I have the 50STM, and it works really well on the M. I'm hoping that the Sigma will be so good that I'll feel it was worth it.

Well, I like the 50mm f1.8 but with the x0.71 adapter, I like it even more... 35mm F1.2... (The post was only about native ESO M Canon lenses ? sory if HS)

If you think about it, M6ii is the only Canon “full frame” camera capable of 4k aside from their top of the line cinema cameras.

I've had all the EF-M series lenses, but the 22mm and 55-200 are my favorites. I voted for 55-200 because everyone votes for 22mm .

Alexsfo wrote:

CQui wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

noneoftheabove wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

noneoftheabove wrote:

I like the 22mm, but the adapted EF 50mm f1.8 mkII usually lives on the front, as there is nothing that compares in native EF-M.

As of today, there is. The Sigma 56 F1.4 for EF-M mount is available today.

Ah, crikey! The 50mm is a budget bargain at £90, and although I would love to try the new Sigma I can't warrant that with a mortgage to pay!

Yes, it's a bit of an indulgence. I feel a bit guilty about ordering the Sigma, given that I have the 50STM, and it works really well on the M. I'm hoping that the Sigma will be so good that I'll feel it was worth it.

Well, I like the 50mm f1.8 but with the x0.71 adapter, I like it even more... 35mm F1.2... (The post was only about native ESO M Canon lenses ? sory if HS)

If you think about it, M6ii is the only Canon “full frame” camera capable of 4k aside from their top of the line cinema cameras.

1. Comparing the uncropped 4K with the cropped 4K of the 90D the latter is better. There's more to it than only the file size.

2. The speedbooster gives a slight crop.

snahfu wrote:

Canon, please make a standard zoom with f/2.8 and IS....

something like a 16-85 f/2.8

I’d love to see something with this range (and capabilities) too. But Canon would have to break out of that darn “maximum size” mold first. I think the zoom range would need to be pared down too in order to keep the complexity and costs down to a manageable level (not to mention size ).

A lens with these capabilities would also compete directly with the EOS-R lens line (philosophy), and would likely be nixed in the bud. The closest Canon lens available right now would be the venerable 17-55 f/2.8 IS (adapted). It’s large, but any lens with this range would be. However it’s a pretty good lens (DPReview used it in their evaluation of the M6ii). I had never seriously considered owning it before, but for some reason this camera can make any lens shine.

R2

Persizi wrote:

I've had all the EF-M series lenses, but the 22mm and 55-200 are my favorites. I voted for 55-200 because everyone votes for 22mm .

55-200mm must be the most under-appreciated lens, a hidden gem. It’s by far my favorite telephoto lens and I’ve used 70-300mm ii, 70-300mm L and ef-s 50-250mm. The EF-M delivers when comes to colors, second only to 70-300mm L. Excellent combination IS (must update lens firmware) for 4k video and the lens is totally silent unlike all the other telephotos I’ve used. Still, I voted 22mm as it is the most versatile lens and without it, I would not have even considered the M system. No other APS-C system offers such a bright and compact pancake lens.

Quick frankly, on the new M6II, only the 28mm macro and fabulous 32mm make the 32mp sensor really stand out. All other lenses, my 22mm included, are not in the same league.

And between the two, the 32mm is simply the best native M lens to this day.

Noogy wrote:

Quick frankly, on the new M6II, only the 28mm macro and fabulous 32mm make the 32mp sensor really stand out. All other lenses, my 22mm included, are not in the same league.

And between the two, the 32mm is simply the best native M lens to this day.

Disagree, there is a definite improvement in 22mm performance, just keep in that pancakes are optimized for the center, don’t look for improvements outside of that.

Alexsfo wrote:

Noogy wrote:

Quick frankly, on the new M6II, only the 28mm macro and fabulous 32mm make the 32mp sensor really stand out. All other lenses, my 22mm included, are not in the same league.

And between the two, the 32mm is simply the best native M lens to this day.

Disagree, there is a definite improvement in 22mm performance, just keep in that pancakes are optimized for the center, don’t look for improvements outside of that.

Diagree. It's not in the same league as the two lenses I mentioned above. Not saying it's a bad lens. In fact I wouldn't have bought it if it were.

actually, kit lens 15-45 is excellent one, I'm lucky to have great copy and it is quite sharp. Nevertheless I have voted for 22mm

nnowak wrote:

Yes, the AF mechanism is a bit slow, noisy, and fragile. Yes, the vignetting is pretty high and the corners are soft wide open. Yes, the Canon hood is an extra expense and is worthless. It is not an "L" lens, very far from it.

But, none of that matters. This is the closest thing to a universal lens in the lineup. It is the smallest and lightest lens which makes carrying it very easy. It is one of the least expensive lenses in the lineup. The 32mm f/1.4 and the 22mm f/2.0 are the only two lenses I would consider using indoors in low light. However, the 22mm focal length means you are much less likely to literally get backed into a corner than with the 32mm. The minimum focus distance is only 15cm. Even wide open, the center is quite sharp.

The image quality is good enough and it is the only lens in the lineup that I know I could take anywhere in the world, at any time, and get a very good photo. Some of the other lenses are nice too, but they are either too dim and/or the focal lengths would put my back against a wall.

Bang for the buck, yes, the 22mm is good value for money. But image quality belongs to the EFM32mm f/1.4, hands down. Stopped down from 1.4 to 2.0 - 2.8 and this lens can compete with L lenses on the EF and RF mount.

Noogy wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Yes, the AF mechanism is a bit slow, noisy, and fragile. Yes, the vignetting is pretty high and the corners are soft wide open. Yes, the Canon hood is an extra expense and is worthless. It is not an "L" lens, very far from it.

But, none of that matters. This is the closest thing to a universal lens in the lineup. It is the smallest and lightest lens which makes carrying it very easy. It is one of the least expensive lenses in the lineup. The 32mm f/1.4 and the 22mm f/2.0 are the only two lenses I would consider using indoors in low light. However, the 22mm focal length means you are much less likely to literally get backed into a corner than with the 32mm. The minimum focus distance is only 15cm. Even wide open, the center is quite sharp.

The image quality is good enough and it is the only lens in the lineup that I know I could take anywhere in the world, at any time, and get a very good photo. Some of the other lenses are nice too, but they are either too dim and/or the focal lengths would put my back against a wall.

Bang for the buck, yes, the 22mm is good value for money. But image quality belongs to the EFM32mm f/1.4, hands down. Stopped down from 1.4 to 2.0 - 2.8 and this lens can compete with L lenses on the EF and RF mount.

You don’t need to stop down. The 32mm can compete at 1.4, too.

MyM3 wrote:

Noogy wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Yes, the AF mechanism is a bit slow, noisy, and fragile. Yes, the vignetting is pretty high and the corners are soft wide open. Yes, the Canon hood is an extra expense and is worthless. It is not an "L" lens, very far from it.

But, none of that matters. This is the closest thing to a universal lens in the lineup. It is the smallest and lightest lens which makes carrying it very easy. It is one of the least expensive lenses in the lineup. The 32mm f/1.4 and the 22mm f/2.0 are the only two lenses I would consider using indoors in low light. However, the 22mm focal length means you are much less likely to literally get backed into a corner than with the 32mm. The minimum focus distance is only 15cm. Even wide open, the center is quite sharp.

The image quality is good enough and it is the only lens in the lineup that I know I could take anywhere in the world, at any time, and get a very good photo. Some of the other lenses are nice too, but they are either too dim and/or the focal lengths would put my back against a wall.

Bang for the buck, yes, the 22mm is good value for money. But image quality belongs to the EFM32mm f/1.4, hands down. Stopped down from 1.4 to 2.0 - 2.8 and this lens can compete with L lenses on the EF and RF mount.

You don’t need to stop down. The 32mm can compete at 1.4, too.

With a handful of L lenses, yes. However, with the EF24-70mm f/2.8 II, I would stop it down to 2.8 and using both these lenses on cropped bodies, man, the 32mm loses only by a very thin margin.

MyM3 wrote:

Just for fun.

What is your favorite Canon EF-M lens? The one you love the most? One you just can't be without?

You can only choose one. (That's how the polls work in here.)

This after market hood does the job!

I would expect the 32mm to be better at f/2.8.

Noogy wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

Just for fun.

What is your favorite Canon EF-M lens? The one you love the most? One you just can't be without?

You can only choose one. (That's how the polls work in here.)

This after market hood does the job!

Does the job? What job? The job of making the whole contraption super long? You need a smaller, Leica-rangefinder type hood, bro.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Noogy wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

Just for fun.

What is your favorite Canon EF-M lens? The one you love the most? One you just can't be without?

You can only choose one. (That's how the polls work in here.)

This after market hood does the job!

Does the job? What job? The job of making the whole contraption super long? You need a smaller, Leica-rangefinder type hood, bro.

Nope, this offers more protection in crowded places. And provides better cover to prevent glare. I have that kind of lens hood for my EFM28mm and RF35mm. On my RF35mm light strays into the front element of the lens a lot that I wish Canon provides a petal hood similar to that of the RF35mm 2.0, though a macro lens would probably need a thinner kind.