The Sweet Spot

Alastair Norcross wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

As others have expressed, if you're going to go lightweight with the M, primes are the way to go. I recently got the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 and found it perfect for 90% of what I do, which is taking pictures of family, friends, pets, etc. It's a natural focal length that is perfect for pictures of people, unlike the 22 mm, which is too wide for portraits. It's still small enough that I can take it pretty much everywhere, either around my neck or clipped to my belt. It now stays on my camera almost all the time. And at f/1.4, the low light capability and shallow DOF are far beyond anything you'll find in a compact camera. For me, this is well worth the lack of zoom. Of course, I'll still switch lenses when the situation calls for it, like if I need wide angle or telephoto.

It's amazing how versatile that focal length (range) is. Sometimes I think that I could survive with the (Canon 32) alone!

For many of us learning photography back in the SLR days (manual focus in my case),

LOL, don’t remind me how old I am!  I started out with my dad’s Canon rangefinder long before graduating to an SLR.

the camera came with a 50-55 fast prime as standard,

Yep, a good old 50mm Nikkor!  Had one for years!

and that's what we shot with most of the time.

I even shot a buddy’s wedding with one…

Zooms were pretty exotic back in the 70's, and most weren't very good.

…with a Nikkor 80-200 on a 2nd body (I was lucky   ).

I shot with an SLR and standard prime (first an F2 58mm on a Zenith, then an F1.8 50mm on a Mamiya) for a couple of years

Same path here.  Graduated to medium format and 4x5 large format eventually.

before supplementing it with a telephoto (200) and wide angle (28). It wasn't until the early 80's that I got my first zoom (a Tamron 28-50 for Canon FD mount).

Sold it all (incl my darkroom equip) in the 90’s after settling down.  Kept just a couple of cameras).  One was indeed an Oly SLR with a 28 wide angle.

Then along came Digital.  Egad it sucked at first!  But boy was it fun!  

The rest as they say, is History!

R2

dan the man p wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Agreed. I sold both my 22 mm and nifty 50 and replaced them with this.

Wow, you really did commit to this!

Indeed. It was partly due to a desire to keep a small kit and partly for financial reasons, considering that the 30 mm fulfills most of the scenarios that I used those two lenses for in the past, and I might as well recoup some of its cost. The one exception is longer focal length portraits (like headshots), but the telephoto I will eventually get should do a good enough job for that, as well as other things that I've been missing without a telephoto lens, of course. The bottom line is that I just don't/won't really need the 22 and 50 anymore.

Certainly.  And a normal to short telephoto prime will really help hone one’s compositional skills.

Thanks for the compliment on the flower shot too. I've been trying to improve my composition, getting the background and foreground to work together to complement each other, and that was one that succeeded, I think.

Indeed it did.  In fact after your first post of images I was almost going to leave a comment/suggestion about working to place your subjects further off center compositionally.  

Have fun!

R2

R2D2 wrote:

Certainly. And a normal to short telephoto prime will really help hone one’s compositional skills.

Indeed it did. In fact after your first post of images I was almost going to leave a comment/suggestion about working to place your subjects further off center compositionally.

Have fun!

R2

Well, for what it's worth, the original shot of the dog in my earlier post had much better composition, but I had to crop it for posting online to remove something with personally identifiable information on it.

dan the man p wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

It's amazing how versatile that focal length (range) is. Sometimes I think that I could survive with the (Canon 32) alone!

Happy shooting!

R2

Agreed. I sold both my 22 mm and nifty 50 and replaced them with this. Not wanting to have to switch lenses so often was a major motivating factor. The Canon version is even smaller, so it's even better if portability is the main goal. I still have the 15-45, though I pretty much only use it for the wide angle in good light now (e.g. landscapes) and will probably get either the EF-M 55-200 or EF-S 55-250 for telephoto eventually. I really love the 30 mm focal length (~50 mm equivalent with the 1.6x crop factor) for pretty much everything else, though. I also appreciate the Sigma's very nice smooth bokeh.

I called the 11-22, 32 (or insert 30), 55-200 the trio for a reason, you can take those three and shot anything. That said, I'm not looking to go back to a "system", rather, I'm looking for a compact alternative that's superior.

I love the green and purple here.

Favor? Next time you get the good light, reshoot it, closer; why not have detail and texture added to the lovely colors? That's a complement and feedback in the same sentence.

thunder storm wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

As others have expressed, if you're going to go lightweight with the M, primes are the way to go. I recently got the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 and found it perfect for 90% of what I do, which is taking pictures of family, friends, pets, etc. It's a natural focal length that is perfect for pictures of people, unlike the 22 mm, which is too wide for portraits.

Same here. 22mm (or 35mm on full frame) is too just a tad too wide for me. For others 22mm is still fine though. The ef-s 24mm f/2.8 stm is a better (38.4 on full frame). I have a 40mm on full frame, this works for portraits, and having f/1.4 on full frame helps. There's a ef-m 28mm macro, but that's only f/3.5. The beauty of that 30mm (48mm full frame )is it's the widest workable focal length for portraits, while it gives you the f/1.4 aperture, giving great flexibility as an all round lens.

Sometimes it might seam odd there are so many lenses for ef-m hitting the range from 22 to 32mm. But there might be a reason: all these lenses are in that all round range trying to combine purposes giving best flexibility and as such compactness.

It's still small enough that I can take it pretty much everywhere, either around my neck or clipped to my belt. It now stays on my camera almost all the time. And at f/1.4, the low light capability and shallow DOF are far beyond anything you'll find in a compact camera. For me, this is well worth the lack of zoom. Of course, I'll still switch lenses when the situation calls for it, like if I need wide angle or telephoto.

Although I agree 35mm is too wide for portraits, if given the choice between 50 and 35, the 35 "wins" for versatility. In fact, some folks prefer 28mm and hence why Ricoh GR is 28mm and Fuji X100 is 35mm.

With the 22 and 32 lenses, you can choose, which. Too bad they never did a 28mm prime. That might be interesting.

At any rate, you can choose which compact you build. I'm choosing 35 as I prefer 35 over 50mm. It's also more compact, too and more versatile for environmental shots which I frequent.

I loved my 32/1.4, but, I have no interest returning to it; that's where I view my R comes in. I just need a compact option as the R is stinking huuuuuge and you just don't want to take it everywhere. Well you do, but you don't.

RLight wrote:

I called the 11-22, 32 (or insert 30), 55-200 the trio for a reason, you can take those three and shot anything. That said, I'm not looking to go back to a "system", rather, I'm looking for a compact alternative that's superior.

I love the green and purple here.

Favor? Next time you get the good light, reshoot it, closer; why not have detail and texture added to the lovely colors? That's a complement and feedback in the same sentence.

I have some like that. For the first one I posted I purposely took it from farther away to get the full field of purple, green, and white in the photo.

RLight wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

As others have expressed, if you're going to go lightweight with the M, primes are the way to go. I recently got the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 and found it perfect for 90% of what I do, which is taking pictures of family, friends, pets, etc. It's a natural focal length that is perfect for pictures of people, unlike the 22 mm, which is too wide for portraits.

Same here. 22mm (or 35mm on full frame) is too just a tad too wide for me. For others 22mm is still fine though. The ef-s 24mm f/2.8 stm is a better (38.4 on full frame). I have a 40mm on full frame, this works for portraits, and having f/1.4 on full frame helps. There's a ef-m 28mm macro, but that's only f/3.5. The beauty of that 30mm (48mm full frame )is it's the widest workable focal length for portraits, while it gives you the f/1.4 aperture, giving great flexibility as an all round lens.

Sometimes it might seam odd there are so many lenses for ef-m hitting the range from 22 to 32mm. But there might be a reason: all these lenses are in that all round range trying to combine purposes giving best flexibility and as such compactness.

It's still small enough that I can take it pretty much everywhere, either around my neck or clipped to my belt. It now stays on my camera almost all the time. And at f/1.4, the low light capability and shallow DOF are far beyond anything you'll find in a compact camera. For me, this is well worth the lack of zoom. Of course, I'll still switch lenses when the situation calls for it, like if I need wide angle or telephoto.

Although I agree 35mm is too wide for portraits, if given the choice between 50 and 35, the 35 "wins" for versatility. In fact, some folks prefer 28mm and hence why Ricoh GR is 28mm and Fuji X100 is 35mm.

With the 22 and 32 lenses, you can choose, which. Too bad they never did a 28mm prime. That might be interesting.

the f/3.5 macro is 28mm. Not extremely bright, but it's stabilized.

At any rate, you can choose which compact you build. I'm choosing 35 as I prefer 35 over 50mm. It's also more compact, too and more versatile for environmental shots which I frequent.

I loved my 32/1.4, but, I have no interest returning to it; that's where I view my R comes in.

The 32mm f/1.4  fills the gap for me between the RF 50mm f/1.8 and RF 50mm f/1.2.

I just need a compact option as the R is stinking huuuuuge and you just don't want to take it everywhere.

I use the M6II with the 32mm, 11-22mm. It's possible to leave the sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 at home, and it's also possible to leave the sigma 56mm f/1.4 at home. For me it's impossible to leave the sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 out of the bag and therefor the 11-22mm gets hardly used. Probably the 11-22mm is the lens to leave at home although it's very compact.

On full frame it's kind of the same, as if I was allowed to bring only 2 lenses I would choose the the EF 24-70 f/2.8 mkII and the 50mm Art.  The only difference: the wider lens - the 40mm - create a shallower DOF as that one can be used wide open without hesitation, and that wider lens isn't more compact but the even bigger option.

The shallower DOF at a yet wider focal length makes it possible to go with that 40mm and the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm and leave the f/2.8 zoom at home.  The only remaining problem: Like your f/2.0 zoom that 40mm gets heavy after a while.

Well you do, but you don't.

   well said.

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

telefunk wrote:

Looks like a great little beast!

Is it better than your G1XII for everyday use? And will it beat your Fuji X100 in low light (can't imagine)?

We're about to find out...

I may have snubbed the EF-M 15-45 previously, and instead opted to go PowerShot G for my portable needs, however, I've found both the G5X II and G1X III as falling short of desirable for my needs. 1" sensor doesn't cut it in IQ, and the Sony sensor, even in a Canon, is less color-friendly; the G1X III on the other hand although more IQ and better color fidelity, DIGIC7 isn't cutting it for my autofocus needs after reviewing the product of it the past few months. Canon really needs a G1X Mark IV, but, I suspect that's never happening.

Going to pit the G1X Mark III against the M6 Mark II with 15-45. I don't like using free returns, but, if the 15-45 doesn't cut it, it doesn't cut it. Looking at my shots from the month I tried it on the EOS M5, I'm thinking maybe I was expecting too much from it. We'll see. I'm holding unto my G1X III until I can verify in fact, an M6 II + 15-45 is a "better" solution. I know from experience the M6 Mark II + 22mm is practically a contender for the Fuji X100 series, but, can the stock zoom effectively compete with Point and Shoots in size/weight and punch? No bet.

Grab your popcorn folks.

with your quest, the popcorn has been continually out for years

15-45 and m62 has shuttershock and bad copies

go with 32 to start

I'm revisiting the M system, again, as I feel perhaps the 15-45 needs a closer look as a contender to make the M system a point and shoot contender, which is what I've been looking for all along (a portable, powerful point and shoot-like solution). I'm thinking although blasphemous to marry a low-res 15-45 to such a high-res 32MP sensor, it is however, when you look at alternatives, logical as a point and shoot-like solution.

Re-processed from my former EOS M5. Although I found the reach limiting of the 15-45 on the long end, and, indoor use it was a bit too slow, perhaps I was expecting too much... Maybe I had the right idea with pairing zooms with primes, but never gave the 15-45 a chance. I never could understand why Canon sold the 15-45 with 22 in Japan as a kit (focal length overlap), but maybe now I do understand...

https://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/advanced-compact-cameras/fixed-lens/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-iii/

.

https://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/lenses/other-ilc/canon-ef-m-15-45mm-f35-63-is-stm-lens/

.

The G1X III's lens is clearly the better lens, however, being paired to an autofocus system that has trouble keeping up? We'll see.

Too bad I can't just glue the G1X III lens on an M6 II...

That 32mm really might break me of that filthy zoom habit I picked up !

It has not come off my M6II since I put it on.

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

telefunk wrote:

Looks like a great little beast!

Is it better than your G1XII for everyday use? And will it beat your Fuji X100 in low light (can't imagine)?

We're about to find out...

I may have snubbed the EF-M 15-45 previously, and instead opted to go PowerShot G for my portable needs, however, I've found both the G5X II and G1X III as falling short of desirable for my needs. 1" sensor doesn't cut it in IQ, and the Sony sensor, even in a Canon, is less color-friendly; the G1X III on the other hand although more IQ and better color fidelity, DIGIC7 isn't cutting it for my autofocus needs after reviewing the product of it the past few months. Canon really needs a G1X Mark IV, but, I suspect that's never happening.

Going to pit the G1X Mark III against the M6 Mark II with 15-45. I don't like using free returns, but, if the 15-45 doesn't cut it, it doesn't cut it. Looking at my shots from the month I tried it on the EOS M5, I'm thinking maybe I was expecting too much from it. We'll see. I'm holding unto my G1X III until I can verify in fact, an M6 II + 15-45 is a "better" solution. I know from experience the M6 Mark II + 22mm is practically a contender for the Fuji X100 series, but, can the stock zoom effectively compete with Point and Shoots in size/weight and punch? No bet.

Grab your popcorn folks.

with your quest, the popcorn has been continually out for years

15-45 and m62 has shuttershock and bad copies

go with 32 to start

I'm revisiting the M system, again, as I feel perhaps the 15-45 needs a closer look as a contender to make the M system a point and shoot contender, which is what I've been looking for all along (a portable, powerful point and shoot-like solution). I'm thinking although blasphemous to marry a low-res 15-45 to such a high-res 32MP sensor, it is however, when you look at alternatives, logical as a point and shoot-like solution.

Re-processed from my former EOS M5. Although I found the reach limiting of the 15-45 on the long end, and, indoor use it was a bit too slow, perhaps I was expecting too much... Maybe I had the right idea with pairing zooms with primes, but never gave the 15-45 a chance. I never could understand why Canon sold the 15-45 with 22 in Japan as a kit (focal length overlap), but maybe now I do understand...

https://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/advanced-compact-cameras/fixed-lens/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-iii/

.

https://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/lenses/other-ilc/canon-ef-m-15-45mm-f35-63-is-stm-lens/

.

The G1X III's lens is clearly the better lens, however, being paired to an autofocus system that has trouble keeping up? We'll see.

Too bad I can't just glue the G1X III lens on an M6 II...

That 32mm really might break me of that filthy zoom habit I picked up !

It has not come off my M6II since I put it on.

if I buy an m6II, the 32 will be glued (mostly) also

MAC wrote:

if I buy an m6II, the 32 will be glued (mostly) also

I get the feeling that you’d enjoy that combo so much that you’ll want to add to it eventually (or sooner?).

As incredible as the state of the art FF stuff is right now (and I just completed 2 more commissioned event shoots with the R5 and RF 24-105L), I still enjoy shooting with the M System every chance I get. Every single goll-darn chance I get.

R2

R2D2 wrote:

MAC wrote:

if I buy an m6II, the 32 will be glued (mostly) also

I get the feeling that you’d enjoy that combo so much that you’ll want to add to it eventually (or sooner?).

yep, just took the plunge and started a new thread

As incredible as the state of the art FF stuff is right now (and I just completed 2 more commissioned event shoots with the R5 and RF 24-105L), I still enjoy shooting with the M System every chance I get. Every single goll-darn chance I get.

R2

My coffee mug is empty, but I feel like writing, and, I've got some oatmeal to consume...

Regarding the former M6 Mark II and what I feel is the best use case for it:

Travel Photography

When dealing with the unpredictable, you want to have more lenses on you, not less. And, when traveling, you want to travel light. Likewise, everyone wants good quality of special occasions which traveling usually is a more special occasion.

The M6 Mark II makes for an excellent traveling companion. During my business trips the M6 II and the native EF-M lenses do well in luggage, the M6 Mark II does well in image quality, and it's such a fun system to shoot with. Whether you find yourself in the deserts reaching for a wide angle lens, in the cafe reaching for a 22mm or 32mm for food and street photography (with some decent bokeh capability), the 55-200 or 18-150 for creative reach needs, say visiting a local venue or native wildlife, the M system has you covered in terms of the lenses it offers for this sort of use case.

Where the M6 II fails?

Absolute bokeh or image quality on demand. Look to more professional systems with fast zooms (which finding fast primes for the M isn't the problem, the Sigma trio has you covered). Absolute portability. Even though small, lenses equal a bag of some kind, usually. You can backpack with an M for example, but, it lacks weather sealing, and it's footprint can get large for that use case depending how many lenses you drag along. This is where I might kindly suggest one look at the M's brother, the G1X Mark III. For family shooting I recommend going out with just the camera, and one lens extra in tow at most to simplify things. The "duo" comes recommended. But perhaps that's where the G5X Mark II does better than that as it's low profile, doesn't attract attention and has a more versatile single-lens solution.

Tips:

Lenses pairing for given events. For example, Travel, the 11-22 and 32mm f/1.4 are staples. I like to add the 55-200 to make a "trio" where you can cover most creative needs between width of the 11-22, bokeh and macro of the 32, and reach of the 55-200 myself though.

The "duo". That 18-150 when paired with the 22 make for a no bag solution where you only swap the lens when light runs out, or bokeh is desired.

RLight wrote:

My coffee mug is empty, but I feel like writing, and, I've got some oatmeal to consume...

Regarding the former M6 Mark II and what I feel is the best use case for it:

Travel Photography

When dealing with the unpredictable, you want to have more lenses on you, not less. And, when traveling, you want to travel light. Likewise, everyone wants good quality of special occasions which traveling usually is a more special occasion.

The M6 Mark II makes for an excellent traveling companion. During my business trips the M6 II and the native EF-M lenses do well in luggage, the M6 Mark II does well in image quality, and it's such a fun system to shoot with.

exactamundo!

We can tell you miss it!

Whether you find yourself in the deserts reaching for a wide angle lens, in the cafe reaching for a 22mm or 32mm for food and street photography (with some decent bokeh capability), the 55-200 or 18-150 for creative reach needs, say visiting a local venue or native wildlife, the M system has you covered in terms of the lenses it offers for this sort of use case.

Where the M6 II fails?

Absolute bokeh or image quality on demand.

cough... maybe for its native zooms, but not for primes

let's read what Bryan at the Digital Picture says about the m32 F1.4

"It always helps to compare a lens against one of the best to know how well it really performs. The Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM Lens vs. Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens comparison is quite revealing. In that comparison link, I selected f/1.4 for the 32mm lens and stopped the impressive-performing 200mm L lens down to f/4 to illustrate how good the 32mm lens really is. I see a slight contrast difference in this comparison, but there is little resolution difference and both lenses equalized at f/4 shows the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 lens performing similarly to a lens costing over 12 times more."

Look to more professional systems with fast zooms (which finding fast primes for the M isn't the problem, the Sigma trio has you covered).

add the siggy 56 and siggy 16 to the m32 and the trio is great

Absolute portability. Even though small, lenses equal a bag of some kind, usually. You can backpack with an M for example, but, it lacks weather sealing, and it's footprint can get large for that use case depending how many lenses you drag along. This is where I might kindly suggest one look at the M's brother, the G1X Mark III. For family shooting I recommend going out with just the camera, and one lens extra in tow at most to simplify things.

with one lens setup, you would go with the G1XMark III, and I can accept you found it better than the m6II + 15-45 combo...

for me, depending on the walkabout, I would go with either the

m6II + m32 (the size of this combo is small enough that I think of this combo as the size of carrying one EF/RF lens).

or the small RP + RF 24-105 F4L

or take both

The "duo" comes recommended. But perhaps that's where the G5X Mark II does better than that as it's low profile, doesn't attract attention and has a more versatile single-lens solution.

well IQ starts to diminish on these point and shoots.

think iphone 13 pro instead

Tips:

Lenses pairing for given events. For example, Travel, the 11-22 and 32mm f/1.4 are staples.

this is where I'm going --those two with the m6II are the two

I like to add the 55-200 to make a "trio"

though light, there has been reported some shutter shock on that one that would scare me away - see link

Canon EOS M6 Mark II - Analysis of Shutter Shock | Canon News

where you can cover most creative needs between width of the 11-22, bokeh and macro of the 32, and reach of the 55-200 myself though.

for me it is the the 55-250 stm as the third lens but I'm looking at the new 100-400 for my RP

I think too often folks get hung up on only carrying one camera. Well, if the camera goes down, then the lenses do no good

This is where the RP duo with the M6II comes into play - RP is small enough

So my go to IQ bag will carry

M6II + RP

11-22 + 32 (for bokeh) staples as you said +

RF 24-105 F4L + RF 100-400

two small bodies, 4 lenses

maybe add my toki 10-17 fe as # 5 lens

and the iphone 13 pro

The "duo". That 18-150

I'd not go there

when paired with the 22 make for a no bag solution where you only swap the lens when light runs out, or bokeh is desired.

the 22 is nice and small, but my priority is on using the 32 first and foremost, and if I need 22, use the 11-22

glad you haven't given up

I think it is important you continue to seek the best. The R3 is amazing if you can afford it.

but for your small carry, IMO, those point and shoots occupying 70% of your time without bokeh is an issue that the great M6II + M32 could solve.

Happy shooting!

MAC wrote:

the 22 is nice and small, but my priority is on using the 32 first and foremost, and if I need 22, use the 11-22

The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS is your best low light "22mm".  No need for the ef-m f/2.0 pancake.

MAC wrote:

for me it is the the 55-250 stm as the third lens but I'm looking at the new 100-400 for my RP

I would keep the 55-250mm stm next to that RF 100-400mm. You won't get a whole lot for it anyway, and it's useful to have next to a standard lens on the RP.

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

for me it is the the 55-250 stm as the third lens but I'm looking at the new 100-400 for my RP

I would keep the 55-250mm stm next to that RF 100-400mm. You won't get a whole lot for it anyway, and it's useful to have next to a standard lens on the RP.

it is a “great” value lens considering I only paid $179 for it back when I bought an SL1 kit when they first came out- yes I will keep this puppy!

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

the 22 is nice and small, but my priority is on using the 32 first and foremost, and if I need 22, use the 11-22

The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS is your best low light "22mm". No need for the ef-m f/2.0 pancake.

my EF 35 F2 IS on my RP serves the role of F2 with IS and speedy focus on FF versus F3.2 with vignetting and no IS and slower focus on crop

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

the 22 is nice and small, but my priority is on using the 32 first and foremost, and if I need 22, use the 11-22

The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS is your best low light "22mm". No need for the ef-m f/2.0 pancake.

Although it's not my first choice for "serious" work, I just love to throw the little 22/2 on whenever I'm just shooting around.

R2

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

the 22 is nice and small, but my priority is on using the 32 first and foremost, and if I need 22, use the 11-22

The RF 35mm f/1.8 IS is your best low light "22mm". No need for the ef-m f/2.0 pancake.

Try as I might, I just can't get my RF 35 to mount on my M6 II, and it's simply too bulky to travel hand baggage only with the RP and a couple of other lenses.
Besides, I love the little 22 for all its faults.