Your Favorite EF-M Prime with AF

We had a poll some time ago about your favorite Canon EF-M lens. The 22mm won with a good margin. Now let's try it again, but only with primes this time and also including the Sigmas. I have restricted the poll to only primes with AF.

Geez, I love them all . But they each play a different role for me (I have also adapted the outstanding Sigma 10mm fish, Canon 40 STM, 50 STM, 60 Macro, 85/1.8, 100L, and 400/5.6 primes on my M6ii). All to good effect.

So really, even though I (narrowly) voted for the 32 from your list, I’d have to qualify your question with “best for WHAT?” That’s what really matters to me when I’m selecting which lens to mount (note: I have all of the above save for the Sigma 30).

Happy shooting all!

R2

It's hard between the 22 and 32. If I had to choose only one lens to use it would be the 22 but the 32 is really good.

32mm is still my favourite closely followed by 56mm...28mm is good fun for macro...I've not used the 22mm much recently & the sigma 16mm has barely been used since I got it.

rrc1967 wrote:

that's a real tough call between the EF-M 32 and the Sigma 56.

Trust you voted for the better one of the two - the Sigma 😁

Sigma 56/1.4 of course ahead of the 22/2 for me

This is tricky. If you asked me which was the best prime, I think I'd say the Sigma 56, closely followed by the Canon 32. But since you asked which is my favorite prime, the answer, for me, has to be the 22. It's the most fun for me to use, because of the field of view, and the size. If I'm going to take my M6II with just one lens, it's usually with the 22. Of course, I often carry it in a small bag that also fits the 32 and 56. But if I'm going really minimal, it's the camera with 22.

I'm the so far sole 28 macro vote.  But then I may be a bit different M system user.  The M6II is my first M and I tend to use it, along with my G1X3, as alternates to my DSLRs.  Not contrarian by any means.  The M is a great fast prime host and there are many excellent options to choose from.  I imagine an M5II with IBIS would be killer in this regard.

I tend to use my M with longer adapted lenses like the 70-300 II.  The 11-22 and 28 macro are very portable options and they are excellent.  I recently added the 22 f2 at R2D2's suggestion but haven't used it much yet.  I also have a bunch of EF and EF-S lenses, the 35, 60, and 100L macros and the 24 and 35 IS primes.  These are bigger and require the adapter but I usually don't use them far from home although I often take the 35 instead of the 28.  They've all proven to be excellent performers.  These primes and the M6II's focus stacking feature offer a powerful capability.  Stacking has also worked well with every zoom I've tried.

The 60 macro only weighs 2 oz more than the 56 (ignoring adapter), is f2.8 and focuses close.  Yes, on the M6II at least, its close focus is reliable.  It lacks a focus limiter so the AF time from near to far and back is longer than other lenses.  I prefer it on a tripod.  The 22 is an experiment in non-IS primes for lower light casual venues so see if I can break my IS dependancies.  Will it work better than the 11-22 IS in those situations?

My only ef-m mount lenses are the 11-22mm and the Samyang 12mm.

For AF primes i have used the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art, the 100mm f/2.8 IS USM macro in combination with the Viltrox 0.71 speedbooster. I have also also used the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art with the Viltrox speedbooster. These are all nice lenses working really well on crop cameras.

Today i keep my M50 mainly for the 50-100mm Art, the 11-22, and the  Samyang 12mm f/2.0.

rrc1967 wrote:

Alexis wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

that's a real tough call between the EF-M 32 and the Sigma 56.

Trust you voted for the better one of the two - the Sigma 😁

different use cases. I love my sigma for what it does especially when combined with the M6 II's eyeAF but I use it as primarily a people lens - however I do like the subject isolation, but the 32mm also serves a wonderful purpose, and IMO, is the closest we'll see to a Canon L in the EOS-M world.

Both are simply a joy to use especially on the M6 Mark II where IMO, both just shine.

and yes, i voted for the Sigma

A big +1 to this.

R2

rrc1967 wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Geez, I love them all . But they each play a different role for me (I have also adapted the outstanding Sigma 10mm fish, Canon 40 STM, 50 STM, 60 Macro, 85/1.8, 100L, and 400/5.6 primes on my M6ii). All to good effect.

So really, even though I (narrowly) voted for the 32 from your list, I’d have to qualify your question with “best for WHAT?” That’s what really matters to me when I’m selecting which lens to mount (note: I have all of the above save for the Sigma 30).

Happy shooting all!

R2

how did you find the 60mm macro on your M6 II? I have had a on and off love affair with that lens going back to the original M days, but every camera I have tried it on (up to the M5) the AF always struggled when it got to near macro distances. farther away AF was good. I have been wondering if I should I buy it again.

I too have had a love/hate relationship with the 60 Macro over the years. I’ve owned and sold it twice now!

AF with the M6ii is much better than with the M5 of course, but it still really needs that darn focus limiter. Plus I’d love to have IS too. (Hopefully the rumored future EF-M 60 will incorporate both of these features). I’d be buying it day one.

For now I’ve been shooting macros with the sweet 100L. It’s a great lens on the M6ii.

100L Macro on the M6ii. A perennial favorite (non-native) lens. Click on “original size”

Dragons illuminated with a 500 watt 55,000 lumen (6500k daylight) light panel and Nissin i40C flash w/Graslon Prodigy diffuser. Plus a little (open shade) daylight thrown in there for good measure.

R2

I haven’t tried any of the Sigma lenses which I think they are great! I am between the 22mm and the 32mm and although the 32mm is faster, sharper and better in every way I will choose once again the 22mm. It’s my favourite focal length, it’s fast enough, sharp enough, as small as it can be and one of the most value for money lens you can find in any system. I have it on my M5 all the time and if I could only own one lens that would be the one.

prospects wrote:

Seems like the 22mm is winning again! The value for money in this lens is 10/10!

I’m having trouble deciding - would you sell off your 22mm to fund a 32mm? I am mainly using my camera for travel, family and environmental portraits. (All of which I know the 22mm does well in but I’d like some more shallow DOF)

Is the 32mm suitable for such uses?

My opinion:

For family and environmental portraits you'll be fine (step back a little).  For travel.....  i don't know. For inside transportation vehicles, city scapes, architecture, interiors and such 22mm is sometimes better. OTOH 22mm is still not wide enough in a lot of travel cases. In my opinion you should be able to go at least as wide as 18mm and even better 15mm.

Ideally i you would have the 11-22mm next to the 32mm for travel, and in that case you can easily go without the 22mm. If you want a just-one-lens solution for travel...... it would be the 22mm or the 11-22mm. For the categories i mentioned you just need a bit wider sometimes.

vibex_photos wrote:

It's hard between the 22 and 32. If I had to choose only one lens to use it would be the 22 but the 32 is really good.

Same here.