The 'All Canon EF-M lenses' club

In the past several weeks I picked up a Canon EF-M 18-55mm and a 28mm f3.5 macro from eBay - and realized I have all 8 Canon native EF-M lenses.

I'm curious how many readers have most or all Canon EF-M lenses, and what their experiences are.

I have some 3rd party native EF-M lenses: 2 Rokinons (8mm f2.8 fisheye & 12mm f2) and two Sigmas (16mm and 56mm f1.4) in native Canon EF-M mount, giving me 12 native lenses total.

Here's my EF-M collection, along with a set of EF-M extension tubes:

All of them have their unique uses, and I enjoy them all.

When seen together, it's striking how small these lenses really are. The largest and heaviest is the Sigma 16mm - because of this I only take it when I'm sure I'll need it.

Not shown are my Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM, Rokinon 135mm f2.0 in Canon EF mount, Viltrox 0.71x EF-EOS M2 speed booster, Kenko 1.5x SHQ teleconverter and Kiron 2x MC7 teleconverters in Canon EF mount.

I shot the above image with a vintage 3rd-party 1970's Star-D 28mm f2.8 lens in Minolta MD mount... I have half a dozen vintage adapted lenses.

I've shot comparison shots with all Canon EF-M lenses the past week, to compare them. I'm not going to show results here: there are too many images and they're not taken under strict, 'ideal' testing conditions.

My impressions of the image quality of the Canon branded EF-M lenses (only) is as follows. They seem to fall into roughly four 'tiers' of IQ:

Tier 1: Astonishing. The Canon EF-M 32mm f1.4 lens. This lens gets its own tier. No other lens I've had matches its IQ. And it's almost as sharp wide open as stopped down.

Tier 2: Excellent: Canon 11-22. Very sharp at all focal lengths and apertures, just not quite as sharp as the 32

Tier 3: Very Good: Canon 55-200, 22mm f2, 28mm f3.5 macro. The 22mm gets sharpest at 2.8 or lower, but all lenses in this tier are slightly softer than my Canon 11-22

Tier 4: Good: Canon 18-55, 15-45, 18-150. The 15-45 is the sharpest in the center of the frame, but is softer at the corners, while the 18-55 is uniformly sharp across the frame and ends up being sharper in the corners than the 15-45. My 18-150 copy is slightly decentered and shows one or two soft corners wide open at the wide apertures, and overall is slightly less sharp than the 18-55 and 15-45 zooms. All 3 zooms in this tier are perfectly capable of making sharp, vibrant images at 4k monitor resolution with a little cropping, and work well for 4k video. Notably of the 3 zooms in this tier the 18-55 has the best build quality --- it's a well-built, solid lens.

As for the Rokinons and Sigmas, I believe they would mostly fall into Tier 2, definitely stopped down to f4 they're as sharp as the Canon 11-22. Wide open, the Sigma 16 and Rokinon 8mm might be more in the Tier 3 category.

I've got them all, too. And except for the 28 and 32, at least 2 copies of each, which i need for convenience.I've also got Samyang 8mm and 300mm, Sigma 16 and 56, Laowa 9mm f2.8, Viltrox 23mm f1.4, Lensbaby Trio 28mm, 7Artisans 18mm f6.3 UFO lems, Rockstar 10mm f8 Fisheye ( this and the UFO lens are "lens in a cap" types), and the Neewer 35mm f1.7, 7Artisans 35mm f1 2 and Kamlan 50mm f1.1.

I would generally agree with your assessment, but I think the 28mm Macro is Level 2 at least. And I would introduce a tier 5 for the 18-55, "Not very good" - all 3 of mine have been poor, with one of them really bad. Conversely, the now 5 copies I've had of the much-maligned 15-45 have been pretty good - really more level 3. It actually surprised me how little copy variation there has been on all but the 18-55.

Of the non-Canon lenses, I agree with your comments for the lenses we have in common. The Samyang mirror is tier 4, the Laowa tier 2 except wide open, the Viltrox 4 wide open, then 3 and nearly gets 2 at f8. The funnies - Lensbaby and the 2 cap lenses - are off the scale. I like them, though.

Finally, the 2 35s and the 50 - these were cheap lenses I bought before the Canon 32 and the Sigma lenses were available. Probably 4 wide open, 3 stopped down, but the point of them really is their speed, so not sure overall. They don't get a lot of use these days. I do like the character of thr Kamlan, but focusing it on a moving subject at f1.1? Not so much.

Really nice kit Larry. You’re prepared for just about anything! I have to ask if you’d buy the new “little” Sigma 18-50/2.8 if it was released for EF-M?

My own kit gets broken down by usage.

Fisheye fun for shooting mostly people: My Samyang EF-M 8mm Fish gets usurped by the gobsmacking Sigma EF-S 10mm f/2.8 Fishy. Hella sharp, excellent autofocus, great character. A little heavy (like the Siggy 16). I sold this lens once, but missed it so much that I had to buy another one.

UWA (recti): Sold the 11-22 due to disuse (my fault). Great lens, but I just don’t shoot scenics any more it seems.

Wide angle for events: Groups! Sigma 16 rocks this one. Sharp and fast. Especially wonderful in low light.

Workhorse: 15-45 kit lens. Took 2 tries to get a decent one. I use it a LOT.

Working lens: 18-55 kit lens. This stays glued to my M6 at work for product shots. I trust it completely.  Sharp from corner to corner.

Travel and walk-about: 18-150 kit lens. Ready for about anything while on the go.

Carefree lens: Canon 22mm f/2. Tiny!! Need I say more??

Carefree macro lens: 28mm Macro. Small and light, with IS. Fun to the max!

Action: 32mm f/1.4. Crop doesn’t get any better than this. Truly.

People, and Outdoor sports: Sigma 56. I use this more than my full-frame RF 85/2.

Macro: Venus Laowa 65 (2x) Macro. Great all-purpose macro.

Kick-around telephoto: 55-250 STM + 1.5x “Larry Rexley Special” (technically not an EF-M). Gets out to 375mm without killing your arms or wallet.

I’ve used a whole bunch of EF lenses on the M6ii. Everything from the little 40 STM to the mighty 100-400ii + 1.4x iii. The M6ii loves them all!

And don’t forget DxO Photolab 5 (soon to be 6) to top everything off. Truly extends the usefulness of every lens in the bag!

R2

Larry Rexley wrote:

In the past several weeks I picked up a Canon EF-M 18-55mm and a 28mm f3.5 macro from eBay - and realized I have all 8 Canon native EF-M lenses.

I'm curious how many readers have most or all Canon EF-M lenses, and what their experiences are.

I have some 3rd party native EF-M lenses: 2 Rokinons (8mm f2.8 fisheye & 12mm f2) and two Sigmas (16mm and 56mm f1.4) in native Canon EF-M mount, giving me 12 native lenses total.

Here's my EF-M collection, along with a set of EF-M extension tubes:

All of them have their unique uses, and I enjoy them all.

When seen together, it's striking how small these lenses really are. The largest and heaviest is the Sigma 16mm - because of this I only take it when I'm sure I'll need it.

Not shown are my Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM, Rokinon 135mm f2.0 in Canon EF mount, Viltrox 0.71x EF-EOS M2 speed booster, Kenko 1.5x SHQ teleconverter and Kiron 2x MC7 teleconverters in Canon EF mount.

I shot the above image with a vintage 3rd-party 1970's Star-D 28mm f2.8 lens in Minolta MD mount... I have half a dozen vintage adapted lenses.

I've shot comparison shots with all Canon EF-M lenses the past week, to compare them. I'm not going to show results here: there are too many images and they're not taken under strict, 'ideal' testing conditions.

My impressions of the image quality of the Canon branded EF-M lenses (only) is as follows. They seem to fall into roughly four 'tiers' of IQ:

Tier 1: Astonishing. The Canon EF-M 32mm f1.4 lens. This lens gets its own tier. No other lens I've had matches its IQ. And it's almost as sharp wide open as stopped down.

Tier 2: Excellent: Canon 11-22. Very sharp at all focal lengths and apertures, just not quite as sharp as the 32

Tier 3: Very Good: Canon 55-200, 22mm f2, 28mm f3.5 macro. The 22mm gets sharpest at 2.8 or lower, but all lenses in this tier are slightly softer than my Canon 11-22

Tier 4: Good: Canon 18-55, 15-45, 18-150. The 15-45 is the sharpest in the center of the frame, but is softer at the corners, while the 18-55 is uniformly sharp across the frame and ends up being sharper in the corners than the 15-45. My 18-150 copy is slightly decentered and shows one or two soft corners wide open at the wide apertures, and overall is slightly less sharp than the 18-55 and 15-45 zooms. All 3 zooms in this tier are perfectly capable of making sharp, vibrant images at 4k monitor resolution with a little cropping, and work well for 4k video. Notably of the 3 zooms in this tier the 18-55 has the best build quality --- it's a well-built, solid lens.

As for the Rokinons and Sigmas, I believe they would mostly fall into Tier 2, definitely stopped down to f4 they're as sharp as the Canon 11-22. Wide open, the Sigma 16 and Rokinon 8mm might be more in the Tier 3 category.

Thanks for your assessment.

Generally, my conclusions without complete ownership.

Through observation and technical optic sites, I went through the same assessment before buying M system and ended up only buying tier 1 and tier 2, the two lenses you list.

I didn't want tier 3, tier 4, etc. because my FF glass makes it to tier 1 and tier 2 on my RP.

My RF 24-105 F4L on my RP gets so much usage because it is so versatile both indoors and outdoors.   M has nothing like it.  This lack of a bright versatile zoom is the biggest shortcoming of M.

I have all the zooms except the 55-200, which I feel is a bit superfluous since I'm also a member of the Rexley 2X TC and converted EF-S 55-250 club.

I have the 22mm F2 and 28mm F3.5 IS primes. I'll have to wait before getting the 32mm F1.4, as I'm thinking I'll upgrade my M6 to the M6ii first for the better AF, so I can take full advantage of the fast lens for action shots.

I also have a TTartisan 35mm F1.4 manual lens in EF-M mount which is great for it's price. My favourite adapted lenses are my E.Zuiko Pen-f 38mm F1.8 and 100mm F3.5 and 3X TC. The adapter is very slim, and the lenses perfectly sized image circle makes them almost 'native' to handle.

This is by far the best and most extensive system I've owned and I love it!

I own both standard zoom kit lenses and did a comparison test to find out which one to sell, but decided to keep them both because is worth more to keep them as they complement each other on their pros and cons than their resale value.
From my copies, the 15-45 is better at shorter focal lengths while the 18-55 is better at the longer range. 18-55 has a better built but 15-45 is light and portable which is good but it feels like wouldn't last.

I've found most of the Canon native EF-M lens while sharp, are compromised by heavy vignetting which normally doesn't get the attention it deserves. This is by design since Canon wanted to keep these lenses small. I don't own the complete collection but this is easy to find out in many reviews, it is just physics.
Probably the only exception being the 32mm but its bokeh is not that pretty IMHO.
I really like the 22 for its size and focal length versatility but always wished Canon had a premium version with less vignetting and faster AF speed.
The lens I use when performance and image quality matter more than convenience or portability is the Canon EF 35mm F2 IS. I bought that over the EF-M 32mm because of being future proof, no vignetting and work with the speed booster as a 28mm f1.4 lens, but again is not as portable as the EF-M 32mm.
My 11-22 gets the work done, but is average in sharpness. The colors that come from it are meh, probably has something to do with the coatings or is just me.
I also have the EF 40mm which is good for the price and very compact but an average lens.
For Tele I use the value oriented EF-S 55-250 which I'm happy with, only need to add a good teleconverter or will succumb to the Sigma 150-600
Right now, I'm sitting on the fence between staying with the M long term or moving on to the R APS-C R10, but not excited to further commit to Canon nor have a good impression about Fuji or Sony.

The Tamron EF-M 18-200mm VC is still missing on your list! 😉

Mine was better than my 18-55m but weaker in the corners than 18-150mm. I did not run a comparison with 15-45mm yet.

That's quite a collection you have there! I have a mere 7 EF-M mount lenses (Canon 22, 32, 11-22, 18-55, 18-150, Sigma 16, 56). Actually, it's 6 now, because I have just sent off my 18-55, along with a bunch of other lenses and converters, to mpb for sale. I got the 18-55 with the original M in a kit on firesale for around $400, and that included the 22 pancake, a little flash and a mount adapter! When I bought the M6 in a kit with the 18-150 and EVF, I just didn't use the 18-55 anymore. I found the quality about the same through the shared portion of the range, so the only advantage the 18-55 had over the 18-150 was size. But the 18-150 isn't that big, and the extra range is really useful. I mostly use the 18-150 when I'm traveling, and want a do everything lens. My most used EF-M lenses are the 22 and the Sigma 56. I often carry my M6II with 22 mounted in a little bag that also has the 56. I find the M6II and 56 to be a superb portrait combination. The 22 is just a really fun lens to carry around on the M6II (or M6, which I still have) as a stealth carry-everywhere combination. I get great results from it too, especially when processed with DXO PL5. The best EF-M lens I have, and almost certainly the best one ever made, is the 32 F1.4. It's simply superb. I don't use it as much as the 22 and 56, though, because I slightly prefer the 35 (FF equivalent) and 90 focal lengths to the 50. When I do use it, I'm always amazed at the quality. I would put it a tiny bit ahead of the SIgma 56 in optical quality. The other lens I use a lot is the 11-22 for landscapes and cityscapes. Great sharpness in a tiny lens. I know that a lot of R7 and R10 users are hoping for an RF version of that lens. My least used lens is the Sigma 16 F1.4. That's mostly because it's also my biggest EF-M mount lens, and, for me, the M is all about portability. It does give great results, though, and can be very useful indoors. And, to be fair, it's only big in comparison to other EF-M lenses.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

That's quite a collection you have there! I have a mere 7 EF-M mount lenses (Canon 22, 32, 11-22, 18-55, 18-150, Sigma 16, 56). Actually, it's 6 now, because I have just sent off my 18-55, along with a bunch of other lenses and converters, to mpb for sale. I got the 18-55 with the original M in a kit on firesale for around $400, and that included the 22 pancake, a little flash and a mount adapter! When I bought the M6 in a kit with the 18-150 and EVF, I just didn't use the 18-55 anymore. I found the quality about the same through the shared portion of the range, so the only advantage the 18-55 had over the 18-150 was size. But the 18-150 isn't that big, and the extra range is really useful. I mostly use the 18-150 when I'm traveling, and want a do everything lens. My most used EF-M lenses are the 22 and the Sigma 56. I often carry my M6II with 22 mounted in a little bag that also has the 56. I find the M6II and 56 to be a superb portrait combination. The 22 is just a really fun lens to carry around on the M6II (or M6, which I still have) as a stealth carry-everywhere combination. I get great results from it too, especially when processed with DXO PL5. The best EF-M lens I have, and almost certainly the best one ever made, is the 32 F1.4. It's simply superb. I don't use it as much as the 22 and 56, though, because I slightly prefer the 35 (FF equivalent) and 90 focal lengths to the 50. When I do use it, I'm always amazed at the quality. I would put it a tiny bit ahead of the SIgma 56 in optical quality. The other lens I use a lot is the 11-22 for landscapes and cityscapes. Great sharpness in a tiny lens. I know that a lot of R7 and R10 users are hoping for an RF version of that lens. My least used lens is the Sigma 16 F1.4. That's mostly because it's also my biggest EF-M mount lens, and, for me, the M is all about portability. It does give great results, though, and can be very useful indoors. And, to be fair, it's only big in comparison to other EF-M lenses.

Thanks for sharing your experiences, they are quite interesting and your impressions and uses of the lens are not dissimilar to mine.

I too think the Canon 32mm f1.4 is incredible optically --- but for my shooting it just doesn't have a lot of uses.... I am either much wider or need a long telephoto nearly all the time. So of all my lenses it is certainly the least used (the 28 macro is so new to me I haven't used it yet except for comparison shots.).

Back in the film days I didn't use the 50mm focal much ---- 35mm and especially 24mm were closer to my 'normal' focal lengths  Shooting with the M system I shoot around 18mm and 15/16 a LOT, occasionally going wider to 11 or 12. Shooting telephoto it's almost always between 200 and 375mm.

Photato wrote:

I own both standard zoom kit lenses and did a comparison test to find out which one to sell, but decided to keep them both because is worth more to keep them as they complement each other on their pros and cons than their resale value.
From my copies, the 15-45 is better at shorter focal lengths while the 18-55 is better at the longer range. 18-55 has a better built but 15-45 is light and portable which is good but it feels like wouldn't last.

Exactly. Even though similar they are just different enough to be taken out for different shoots.

I've found most of the Canon native EF-M lens while sharp, are compromised by heavy vignetting which normally doesn't get the attention it deserves. This is by design since Canon wanted to keep these lenses small. I don't own the complete collection but this is easy to find out in many reviews, it is just physics.

True, the vignetting issue doesn't get much attention.... the first time I started reading reviews deeply and saw how much the corner light loss, I thought to myself, that can't be right.... but it is.

However, even though I do a lot of low light high ISO shooting at wide open apertures, I don't really see an issue in my images. I do use DxO Photolab 5 exclusively --- perhaps its corrections and denoise compensate and 'mask' the issue very effectively.

Probably the only exception being the 32mm but its bokeh is not that pretty IMHO.
I really like the 22 for its size and focal length versatility but always wished Canon had a premium version with less vignetting and faster AF speed.
The lens I use when performance and image quality matter more than convenience or portability is the Canon EF 35mm F2 IS. I bought that over the EF-M 32mm because of being future proof, no vignetting and work with the speed booster as a 28mm f1.4 lens, but again is not as portable as the EF-M 32mm.
My 11-22 gets the work done, but is average in sharpness. The colors that come from it are meh, probably has something to do with the coatings or is just me.

Most people rave about the 11-22's sharpness, and get the same sharp results I do.  But I have read some reviewers who did not seem to have such a sharp copy. My 28mm f3.5 macro has no obvious flaws or decentering, but it just isn't as sharp as I was expecting or as I read in other folk's experience... my 22mm f2 is definitely slightly sharper

I also have the EF 40mm which is good for the price and very compact but an average lens.
For Tele I use the value oriented EF-S 55-250 which I'm happy with, only need to add a good teleconverter or will succumb to the Sigma 150-600

I shoot with the EF-S 55-250 over the 55-200 most of the time, due purely to the extra range and becuase I can use my teleconverters on it. Its image quality is slightly inferior to the EF-M 55-200 --- a tad less sharp and a touch less vivid colors and contrast, but it's not a huge difference and for most images I can get results that look very, very close between the two with a little DxO tweaking.

Right now, I'm sitting on the fence between staying with the M long term or moving on to the R APS-C R10, but not excited to further commit to Canon nor have a good impression about Fuji or Sony.

Tough choice. I'm sticking with M since I've got such a complete lens collection, four bodies (2 M6ii's and 2 M200's, one converted to full spectrum), it meets 95% of my needs, and have no desire to drop another $5 - $10k to get a collection of lenses as diverse as what I've got.

Rock and Rollei wrote:

I've got them all, too. And except for the 28 and 32, at least 2 copies of each, which i need for convenience.I've also got Samyang 8mm and 300mm, Sigma 16 and 56, Laowa 9mm f2.8, Viltrox 23mm f1.4, Lensbaby Trio 28mm, 7Artisans 18mm f6.3 UFO lems, Rockstar 10mm f8 Fisheye ( this and the UFO lens are "lens in a cap" types), and the Neewer 35mm f1.7, 7Artisans 35mm f1 2 and Kamlan 50mm f1.1.

I would generally agree with your assessment, but I think the 28mm Macro is Level 2 at least. And I would introduce a tier 5 for the 18-55, "Not very good" - all 3 of mine have been poor, with one of them really bad. Conversely, the now 5 copies I've had of the much-maligned 15-45 have been pretty good - really more level 3. It actually surprised me how little copy variation there has been on all but the 18-55.

Of the non-Canon lenses, I agree with your comments for the lenses we have in common. The Samyang mirror is tier 4, the Laowa tier 2 except wide open, the Viltrox 4 wide open, then 3 and nearly gets 2 at f8. The funnies - Lensbaby and the 2 cap lenses - are off the scale. I like them, though.

Finally, the 2 35s and the 50 - these were cheap lenses I bought before the Canon 32 and the Sigma lenses were available. Probably 4 wide open, 3 stopped down, but the point of them really is their speed, so not sure overall. They don't get a lot of use these days. I do like the character of thr Kamlan, but focusing it on a moving subject at f1.1? Not so much.

Wow.... I thought I was almost over the top having the whole lens collection... keeping multiple copies didn't ever occur to me!

There is definitely some copy variation going on with more than just the 15-45 and 18-150 - although those seem to be the worst offenders. I am on copy #6 of the 15-45 which is the FIRST copy that is pretty decent, and even then it has a soft edge at 15mm wide open. I have seen images from some 15-45 copies of this lens that would put it into tier 3.

My 28mm macro is just not that sharp for some reason, even stopped down to f5.6 and 8. My 11-22 and even the Canon 22 are ahead of it, as are the Siggy 16 and 56 and the Roki 12. I was expecting as a dedicated Canon prime for it to be optically better than it is. I could just have a mediocre copy.  Or maybe DxO's lens correction lab didn't get it quite right as I've only used DxO PhotoLab 5 with it.

R2D2 wrote:

Really nice kit Larry. You’re prepared for just about anything! I have to ask if you’d buy the new “little” Sigma 18-50/2.8 if it was released for EF-M?

My own kit gets broken down by usage.

Fisheye fun for shooting mostly people: My Samyang EF-M 8mm Fish gets usurped by the gobsmacking Sigma EF-S 10mm f/2.8 Fishy. Hella sharp, excellent autofocus, great character. A little heavy (like the Siggy 16). I sold this lens once, but missed it so much that I had to buy another one.

UWA (recti): Sold the 11-22 due to disuse (my fault). Great lens, but I just don’t shoot scenics any more it seems.

Wide angle for events: Groups! Sigma 16 rocks this one. Sharp and fast. Especially wonderful in low light.

Workhorse: 15-45 kit lens. Took 2 tries to get a decent one. I use it a LOT.

Working lens: 18-55 kit lens. This stays glued to my M6 at work for product shots. I trust it completely. Sharp from corner to corner.

Travel and walk-about: 18-150 kit lens. Ready for about anything while on the go.

Carefree lens: Canon 22mm f/2. Tiny!! Need I say more??

Carefree macro lens: 28mm Macro. Small and light, with IS. Fun to the max!

Action: 32mm f/1.4. Crop doesn’t get any better than this. Truly.

People, and Outdoor sports: Sigma 56. I use this more than my full-frame RF 85/2.

Macro: Venus Laowa 65 (2x) Macro. Great all-purpose macro.

Kick-around telephoto: 55-250 STM + 1.5x “Larry Rexley Special” (technically not an EF-M). Gets out to 375mm without killing your arms or wallet.

I’ve used a whole bunch of EF lenses on the M6ii. Everything from the little 40 STM to the mighty 100-400ii + 1.4x iii. The M6ii loves them all!

And don’t forget DxO Photolab 5 (soon to be 6) to top everything off. Truly extends the usefulness of every lens in the bag!

R2

Thanks for sharing your blurbs on each lens, they're fun to read and helpful!

Photato wrote:

Right now, I'm sitting on the fence between staying with the M long term or moving on to the R APS-C R10, but not excited to further commit to Canon nor have a good impression about Fuji or Sony.

I've given consideration to the R10 and R7 recently and may even do a write up on the topic as platform conversions aren't something to be taken lightly.

.

Some thoughts regarding the R7 and R10...

.

For weight and size, the R7 (which you didn't ask) is more on par with the RP, which in turn isn't so portable after adding existing glass available at this time.

.

The R10 on the other hand when paired with say the RF-S 18-45 or RF-S 18-150, or, one of the non-L RF primes, ala RF 50 f/1.8, RF 35 f/1.8, RF 24 f/1.8, you're talking business. In fact, the RF 35mm in particular can give you 0.8x macro capabilities, with IS, on a crop. Where the R10 lacks is in a wide angle option, and, still isn't as compact/light as an M, and, lacks the ISO performance and resolution of the M6 II all at the same time... That hurts.

.

Canon is also holding themselves back by not using a stacked sensor. Although I agree with keeping things low-cost, and "kicking it out the door" so I may concur with the move to do another FSI in terms of a business decision, in terms of an enthusiast, I'm well aware that what holds me back on the M is autofocus and shutter shock ruining the number of keepers I take back home. I do get plenty, but compared to say my lowly R, or G5X II? Heh, no. The trouble is the R10 although has better autofocus processing, it still has a slower readout sensor which I've seen enough demos to tell you this side of even touching one, no. It may beat an M50/II, but in low light or demanding situations, I've read and suspect it'll struggle. Should Canon do an R20, with say the same M6 II sensor, we can talk. Also, the lack of crop RF glass, really does do it in. Going R10 although tempting, I know from experience it'd be going back to SL2 + EF-S footprint right now. When I came back to M, I tried the SL2, wonderful I might add, but the footprint difference between M and EF-S? The M is a joy to shoot due to the footprint. RF-S, because it exists in only two lenses right now, that's a real problem. Don't kid yourself.

https://bit.ly/3RKp8J8

The R10 may have access to that 100-400, which I suspect is awesome on a crop, but look at the footprint?

Also wide angle in particular becomes a problem...

https://bit.ly/3eh1172

I'll say there is very much a case to argue the RP, or it's successor with say an RF 15-30 (not-L) and it's non-L lenses, start to make RF-S look like a crop-reach only affair.

https://bit.ly/3fTkeMo

Imagine the RP mark II gets say the 30MP ADC capable R sensor, for a minute.

And let's look at "standard" zooms for a moment too

Will Canon ever do a "fast" RF-S zoom? Or do you have to adapt a legacy EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, which has older optical formula, USM motor? Ridiculous

I fear Canon will never do a RF-S f/2.8 zoom. If they were going to? They should've launched it out the gate with the R7, they didn't. But as a result, this is how insane reality is.

.

Oddly I think the M will stay in production ala M50 II, M200 and existing M glass for the short term, but the alternatives, Fuji and Sony have problems too. Sony has cancelled their enthusiast A6500/A6600 lineup, Fuji still can't get autofocus right after how many years and is still FF in size, price? Ugh.

Don't get me started with market conditions like chip shortages, etc.

But this is how you end up looking at the "old" M as being really friendly, despite Canon wishing they had never made it so as to sell more R. Ironically, the camera from yesterday (M's), is the funnest one. That shouldn't be and represents a failure IMO by Canon to not launch the RF-S platform correctly. Granted they're still growing it, but are they? Again look above and you can quickly see how the R7 is meant as a "birder" and the R10 is meant as the new Rebel, where folks only ever shoot the stock lens, and a telephoto. They've got both ala the RF-S 18-45 and RF 100-400... The R10/R7 may be "complete" in Canon's eyes. Go figure. Sadly if I was a product manager, I'd be nodding my head and suggesting marketing the R10 better to soccer moms, not making more RF-S glass...

My 2 cents, you've got the M with it's glass, the RP (or R, R6) and non RF-L glass, and the R10/7 with it's stock lens, and telephoto options. And then Fuji/Sony. Pick.

RLight wrote:

Photato wrote:

Right now, I'm sitting on the fence between staying with the M long term or moving on to the R APS-C R10, but not excited to further commit to Canon nor have a good impression about Fuji or Sony.

I've given consideration to the R10 and R7 recently and may even do a write up on the topic as platform conversions aren't something to be taken lightly.

.

Some thoughts regarding the R7 and R10...

.

For weight and size, the R7 (which you didn't ask) is more on par with the RP, which in turn isn't so portable after adding existing glass available at this time.

Having spent a lot of time with my $1750 RP + RF 24-105 F4 L -- I like it a lot -- for what it does - it isn't so big when I like something this much

.

The R10 on the other hand when paired with say the RF-S 18-45 or RF-S 18-150, or, one of the non-L RF primes, ala RF 50 f/1.8, RF 35 f/1.8, RF 24 f/1.8, you're talking business.

nope - starting at 29 fov is not business for me -- I use 24 fov a lot -- I see you use 15 mm (24 fov) a lot

In fact, the RF 35mm in particular can give you 0.8x macro capabilities,

get a 100L or RF 85 f2 - the working distance better suits macro

with IS, on a crop.

Where the R10 lacks is in a wide angle option,

yep - the achilles heel

and, still isn't as compact/light as an M, and, lacks the ISO performance and resolution of the M6 II all at the same time... That hurts.

yep - hurts bad

.

Canon is also holding themselves back by not using a stacked sensor. Although I agree with keeping things low-cost, and "kicking it out the door" so I may concur with the move to do another FSI in terms of a business decision, in terms of an enthusiast,

I'm well aware that what holds me back on the M is autofocus and shutter shock ruining the number of keepers I take back home.

we've covered this before, but your face/eye detect tracking ain't keeping up with your slow stm lens.  Instead, need to use spot focus and manually track

I do get plenty, but compared to say my lowly R, or G5X II? Heh, no. The trouble is the R10 although has better autofocus processing, it still has a slower readout sensor which I've seen enough demos to tell you this side of even touching one, no.

the rolling shutter is an issue

It may beat an M50/II, but in low light or demanding situations, I've read and suspect it'll struggle.

m6II sensor and DXO PL5 for the win!

Should Canon do an R20, with say the same M6 II sensor, we can talk.

they've reserved the 32.5 mpxl sensor for $1500 cameras

Also, the lack of crop RF glass, really does do it in.

Going R10 although tempting,

yuk -backwards to that old 24 mpxl sensor and backwards with no great apscs glass

I know from experience it'd be going back to SL2 + EF-S footprint right now.

yep, backwards

When I came back to M, I tried the SL2, wonderful I might add, but the footprint difference between M and EF-S?

The M is a joy to shoot due to the footprint.

^ this

RF-S, because it exists in only two lenses right now, that's a real problem. Don't kid yourself.

^ this

https://bit.ly/3RKp8J8

The R10 may have access to that 100-400, which I suspect is awesome on a crop, but look at the footprint?

reach is what it is about, but need 32.5 mpxl for reach also

Also wide angle in particular becomes a problem...

https://bit.ly/3eh1172

I'll say there is very much a case to argue the RP, or it's successor with say an RF 15-30 (not-L) and it's non-L lenses, start to make RF-S look like a crop-reach only affair.

yep - case is for RP

for reach, then R7

https://bit.ly/3fTkeMo

Imagine the RP mark II gets say the 30MP ADC capable R sensor, for a minute.

And let's look at "standard" zooms for a moment too

Will Canon ever do a "fast" RF-S zoom? Or do you have to adapt a legacy EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, which has older optical formula, USM motor? Ridiculous

I fear Canon will never do a RF-S f/2.8 zoom.

^ this

If they were going to? They should've launched it out the gate with the R7, they didn't. But as a result, this is how insane reality is.

it is a strategy to get users to FF instead

.

Oddly I think the M will stay in production ala M50 II, M200 and existing M glass for the short term, but the alternatives, Fuji and Sony have problems too. Sony has cancelled their enthusiast A6500/A6600 lineup, Fuji still can't get autofocus right after how many years and is still FF in size, price? Ugh.

exactly

Don't get me started with market conditions like chip shortages, etc.

sony is worried about their FF also

fuji will suffer letting those siggy's in

But this is how you end up looking at the "old" M as being really friendly, despite Canon wishing they had never made it so as to sell more R.

yeah, they have regrets

Ironically, the camera from yesterday (M's), is the funnest one. That shouldn't be and represents a failure IMO by Canon to not launch the RF-S platform correctly.

I don't think they ever planned more than a R7.  The R10 was an after thought imo

Granted they're still growing it, but are they? Again look above and you can quickly see how the R7 is meant as a "birder" and the R10 is meant as the new Rebel, where folks only ever shoot the stock lens, and a telephoto. They've got both ala the RF-S 18-45 and RF 100-400... The R10/R7 may be "complete" in Canon's eyes. Go figure. Sadly if I was a product manager, I'd be nodding my head and suggesting marketing the R10 better to soccer moms, not making more RF-S glass...

R7/R10 + RF100-400 was the soccer mom cameras -- then they switch to their iphones

My 2 cents, you've got the M with it's glass, the RP (or R, R6) and non RF-L glass, and the R10/7 with it's stock lens, and telephoto options. And then Fuji/Sony. Pick.

my solution is M6II + two lenses (32 + 11-22), then FF for the amazing RF 24-105L then maybe an R7 with the RF 100-400 and Rf 800 for reach

nnowak wrote:

Clearly there is some sample variation with many of these lenses.

At 22mm, my 22mm f/2.0 was noticeably sharper than my 11-22mm

at f5.6, on tripod, I don't see a distinguishable difference

and the IS and e-shutter comes in handy with the 11-22 on m6II

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58014740

My copy of the 55-200mm was lackluster, at best, and was clearly inferior to every 200mm/250mm zoom that I compared it against.

nnowak wrote:

MAC wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Clearly there is some sample variation with many of these lenses.

At 22mm, my 22mm f/2.0 was noticeably sharper than my 11-22mm

at f5.6, on tripod, I don't see a distinguishable difference

Other people clearly saw a difference. 76% of the people in the poll preferred the image from the 22mm.

seeing images from 6 years ago on an m2 is hard to correlate to Larry's m6II, PL5, e-shutter, IS handheld of today

if we go back and look at original m comparisons on tripod, the m22 has LOCA at f5.6, the 11-22 does not

a tad of sharpness is easy to increase, LOCA can be a pain

Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

and the IS and e-shutter comes in handy with the 11-22 on m6II

3 stops of IS versus a lens that is 3 stops faster.

true, but it is a different lens for different purpose

In daylight, shutter speeds will be high enough that neither will matter.

but as soon as the sun starts going down, the IS and e-shutter play big

In low light, the brighter lens will better handle subject motion.

true, but these lenses are completely different animals for different purposes

The advantage of the 11-22mm lens is from 11-21mm.

the advantage is more than that

- scapes in lower light,

- IS and e-shutter play in low light

- 32.5 mpxl and PL5 and no loca make for remarkable combos

As for e-shutter, that works for both lenses.

true, but the 22 doesn't have the combo of e-shutter and IS

The 22mm needs e-shutter for wide open daylight shots and the 11-22mm needs it to prevent shutter shock.

different lenses for different purposes

in the scene you took I'd use the 11-22 with 32.5 mpxl m6II + IS + e-shutter + PL5 everytime

when shooting scenes, I want to be able to opt to go from 11 to 22 in a heartbeat as a test I did shows

if I go indoors, I prefer my RP + RF24-105 F4L with IS to an M6II + m22 setup

the only reason for the m22 for me is size

I would never choose it to shoot scapes

it is the equivalent of f3.2 -- an indoor lens if you don't have something else to cover the FL - as I said I prefer my RF F4L on FF to using m22 wide open on crop

Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58014740

My copy of the 55-200mm was lackluster, at best, and was clearly inferior to every 200mm/250mm zoom that I compared it against.

MAC wrote:

my solution is M6II + two lenses (32 + 11-22), then FF for the amazing RF 24-105L then maybe an R7 with the RF 100-400 and Rf 800 for reach

This is quite a lot of gear to pack and to carry around at the same time.

My remedy for wide coverage is a Sony RX10IV which covers 24-600mm ff and, for my usage the output of the 1" senor is good enough. I shoot my photos for my private output and not for bragging on any internet website.

2 days ago, I spend a day in Barcelona, very light weighted and absolutely carefree, solely with Sony RX 100VII. It allowed me some nice candid shots without pointing at me as a  photograher. 

I'll keep my M6 II for now and use it "around the house", but my M100 and M6 have to go.
Since I have "rediscovered" the usage of a EVF, I prefer to have one either built-in or, optional at least.

As you, I thought about Rx plus 100-400 or, 100-500mm for reach, but my opportunities to make good use of it do not justify all this expense and a RX10IV is easier to carry.