Which EF or EF-S?

[wed7]

I know I know we all loved our 22's, 32's and the like, but I would like to ask some recommendation for a travel vacation lens mostly for family groups and distant landscapes. I am thinking of the EFS 55-250 vs the EFM 50-200 or do I miss something?

Also considering a Viltrox/Sigma 56, but they are too close (focal length) when paired with my 22/32's

Thank you in advance.

 

[R2D2]

The EF-M 18-150 would be my choice (actually it IS my choice ).

R2

 

[Jack Calypso]

I got the EF-S 55-250mm which quite out-classed my copy of the 15-45. I recently got the 32mm f/1.4, and am considering the 11-22 for a three-lens kit. The 15-45 is still useful for traveling small and light.

 

[Sittatunga]

I know I know we all loved our 22's, 32's and the like, but I would like to ask some recommendation for a travel vacation lens mostly for family groups and distant landscapes. I am thinking of the EFS 55-250 vs the EFM 50-200 or do I miss something?

You already have the best lenses for family groups. 55mm is getting a bit long for that, it's a classic single-person portrait length.

Also considering a Viltrox/Sigma 56, but they are too close (focal length) when paired with my 22/32's

Thank you in advance.

22mm/56mm is almost exactly the classic Leica 35mm/90mm pairing. (I used the equivalent of 22mm/62mm for years, so 32mm/62mm would also work if you could get a 62mm prime.) The 22mm - 32mm gap is the narrow one.

When considering the choice between the EF-M and EF-S telezooms, one has the advantages of size (which is the main point of EOS M) and performance at the shorter end, the other has a tiny bit more reach and speed, is usable on other cameras, but requires an adapter for EOS M. With an adapter it still works like a native lens, particularly if it's your one EF-S / EF lens and you leave it on the adapter, but it's far bigger than any EF-M lens.

 

[Jack Calypso]

With the 32mm and the 55-250mm I was a little concerned about the gap between them, but a benefit of the M6 mkII sensor is I can crop more aggressively, and still get great quality.

 

[wed7]

I know I know we all loved our 22's, 32's and the like, but I would like to ask some recommendation for a travel vacation lens mostly for family groups and distant landscapes. I am thinking of the EFS 55-250 vs the EFM 50-200 or do I miss something?

You already have the best lenses for family groups. 55mm is getting a bit long for that, it's a classic single-person portrait length.

Also considering a Viltrox/Sigma 56, but they are too close (focal length) when paired with my 22/32's

Thank you in advance.

22mm/56mm is almost exactly the classic Leica 35mm/90mm pairing. (I used the equivalent of 22mm/62mm for years, so 32mm/62mm would also work if you could get a 62mm prime.) The 22mm - 32mm gap is the narrow one.

Actually, what drew me into the M system was because of that 22mm as I really liked the 35efl, I would also agree that this is best paired with the 56mm (~85ish efl). But when the 32mm came out, the output of that lens really rivals that of other premium lens.

Perhaps 22 + 56 for two lens set-up and a 32 for a single lens. (Hello LBA)

When considering the choice between the EF-M and EF-S telezooms, one has the advantages of size (which is the main point of EOS M) and performance at the shorter end, the other has a tiny bit more reach and speed, is usable on other cameras, but requires an adapter for EOS M. With an adapter it still works like a native lens, particularly if it's your one EF-S / EF lens and you leave it on the adapter, but it's far bigger than any EF-M lens.

Agree, size and convenience is the major selling point of the M system.

Thank you.

 

[wed7]

With the 32mm and the 55-250mm I was a little concerned about the gap between them, but a benefit of the M6 mkII sensor is I can crop more aggressively, and still get great quality.

Another reason why I would like to upgrade my M50 into an M6ii aside from the blazing AF and better ergonomics. (For me).

 

[thunder storm]

I know I know we all loved our 22's, 32's and the like, but I would like to ask some recommendation for a travel vacation lens mostly for family groups and distant landscapes. I am thinking of the EFS 55-250 vs the EFM 50-200 or do I miss something?

The 22 & 32mm are perfect for group shots.

Also considering a Viltrox/Sigma 56, but they are too close (focal length) when paired with my 22/32's

No, didn't feel close at all to me. However, since your group shots are already covered by the 22&32mm, landscapes is the only remaining purpose. And for landscapes only I would go with a zoom. Theoretically you can crop (a little) from a prime, however, especially for landscapes I prefer the process of framing and changing the perspective while taking pictures, not after the fact.

Thank you in advance.

It's hard to say which zoom is better. Dustin Abbott did a statement. Looking at the ef-m review of Christopher Frost I think that's a weaker performance than the ef-s lens.

The ef-s lens is brighter and more affordable.

 

[TiltShiftR]

I got the EF-S 55-250mm which quite out-classed my copy of the 15-45. I recently got the 32mm f/1.4, and am considering the 11-22 for a three-lens kit. The 15-45 is still useful for traveling small and light.

I think the 15-45 is generally considered a dog of a lens. Almost all reviews I've read and watched about it commonly agree that its performance is terrible.

 

[Jack Calypso]

I got the EF-S 55-250mm which quite out-classed my copy of the 15-45. I recently got the 32mm f/1.4, and am considering the 11-22 for a three-lens kit. The 15-45 is still useful for traveling small and light.

I think the 15-45 is generally considered a dog of a lens. Almost all reviews I've read and watched about it commonly agree that its performance is terrible.

I knew that going in, which is why I bought the cheapest one I could find on eBay, an open box one from a Chinese camera store, probably from parting out a kit. I wouldn't say it's terrible, but hugely underwhelming. Small and light is still nice for walking around, but if I change gears from 'Casual' to 'Semi-serious' shooting, it's just not there.

 

[R2D2]

I got the EF-S 55-250mm which quite out-classed my copy of the 15-45. I recently got the 32mm f/1.4, and am considering the 11-22 for a three-lens kit. The 15-45 is still useful for traveling small and light.

I think the 15-45 is generally considered a dog of a lens. Almost all reviews I've read and watched about it commonly agree that its performance is terrible.

...That is if a person is unlucky enough to get a bad copy. Lots of those out there!

However if you have a good copy (I've been fortunate), then this is a really nice useful lens! Plus it's a real pleasure to shoot as it's so tiny on the M bodies!

R2

 

[Jack Calypso]

I got the EF-S 55-250mm which quite out-classed my copy of the 15-45. I recently got the 32mm f/1.4, and am considering the 11-22 for a three-lens kit. The 15-45 is still useful for traveling small and light.

I think the 15-45 is generally considered a dog of a lens. Almost all reviews I've read and watched about it commonly agree that its performance is terrible.

...That is if a person is unlucky enough to get a bad copy. Lots of those out there!

However if you have a good copy (I've been fortunate), then this is a really nice useful lens! Plus it's a real pleasure to shoot as it's so tiny on the M bodies!

R2

So, how bad is a bad copy? Mine serves me in its primary walk around role fine. It's when I pixel-peep that I question it. A lot of the peeping, though, is induced by hearing so many say, "I got a bad copy." Again, how bad is bad?

So, I'm fine with the 15-45 for 85-90% of what I use it for, but when those "special" shots present themselves, I reach for a different lens (if I'm carrying one).

 

[R2D2]

I got the EF-S 55-250mm which quite out-classed my copy of the 15-45. I recently got the 32mm f/1.4, and am considering the 11-22 for a three-lens kit. The 15-45 is still useful for traveling small and light.

I think the 15-45 is generally considered a dog of a lens. Almost all reviews I've read and watched about it commonly agree that its performance is terrible.

...That is if a person is unlucky enough to get a bad copy. Lots of those out there!

However if you have a good copy (I've been fortunate), then this is a really nice useful lens! Plus it's a real pleasure to shoot as it's so tiny on the M bodies!

R2

So, how bad is a bad copy?

I've seen samples from badly decentered copies that were unusable. You'll probably get some hits if you search "15-45 decentered."

Mine serves me in its primary walk around role fine.

I love mine too.

It's when I pixel-peep that I question it. A lot of the peeping, though, is induced by hearing so many say, "I got a bad copy."

If you like the results you're getting then you're golden.

Again, how bad is bad?

Bad as I've ever seen from Canon (in the modern era).

So, I'm fine with the 15-45 for 85-90% of what I use it for, but when those "special" shots present themselves, I reach for a different lens (if I'm carrying one).

I usually reach for a different lens when I need increased capabilities (low light, focus speed, DOF control etc).

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 

[KEG]

I got the EF-S 55-250mm which quite out-classed my copy of the 15-45. I recently got the 32mm f/1.4, and am considering the 11-22 for a three-lens kit. The 15-45 is still useful for traveling small and light.

Mine is a keeper

--
KEG

 

[thunder storm]

pretty good result!

 

[Maxmolly7]

I got the EF-S 55-250mm which quite out-classed my copy of the 15-45. I recently got the 32mm f/1.4, and am considering the 11-22 for a three-lens kit. The 15-45 is still useful for traveling small and light.

Mine is a keeper

--
KEG

I guess that most lenses deliver decent quality in the center of the frame.

The problem occurrs near the edges, resulting in soft or smeared details.

--
May THE LIGHT be with you!

 

[KevinRA]

I got the EF-S 55-250mm which quite out-classed my copy of the 15-45. I recently got the 32mm f/1.4, and am considering the 11-22 for a three-lens kit. The 15-45 is still useful for traveling small and light.

I think the 15-45 is generally considered a dog of a lens. Almost all reviews I've read and watched about it commonly agree that its performance is terrible.

Dog only if a bad copy - had 2 copies and 2 quite good, especially at wide-middle of range - only weaker spots on mine 15mm f/3.5 at edges and 45mm f/6.3. Otherwise at f/5.6 in wide-middle range right up there sharpness wise with most EF / EF-S lenses.

Only reason no longer in my main use as have the 11-22 and 18-150 now also - but that 15mm is great vs the 18mm at wide end. So small and very versatile where one can shoot at f/5.6-8.0.

Suggest to OP 18-150 for flexibility. With just a little sharpening, nice lens.