Sigma 16mm f/1.4 or just keep the Canon 22mm f/2

vostokstreetphoto wrote:

MAC wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

ScentedOrange wrote:

Hey everyone, I currently take alot of landscape, but also love to carry my camera around for some street and travel photography. I love my Canon 22mm for its low light performance but I was wondering if it would be worth having the Sigma for the extra bit of light it would let in. Of course alot of photos would be in the daylight, but I don't really want to put the camera away when walking around outside at night. Would it keep my ISO down much lower?

depends

if shooting motion, yes

if shooting stills, the 11-22 with IS is what I would use

the 16 is a big lens - you have a small m200 - many use the 16 on bigger m bodies like the m6II or m50 II

I view the 16 f1.4 as a party lens to photograph kids indoors at f1.4 - sharp in the center at f1.4

outdoors at night, for stills, use the IS on the 11-22

outdoors at night, for motion, the 16 f1.4 would give you 1 stop of light, iso 3200 versus iso 6400, over your 22 f2

Re: 22 f2 vs 11-22 f4-5.6 IS

Your saying the 11-22 would be better than the 22 outdoors at night, for stills? IS would help that much with both at 22mm?

11mm = f/4.0
12-14mm = f/4.5
15-18mm = f/5.0
19-22mm = f/5.6

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

handheld, with the 11-22 you get 3 stops of IS

that is the difference between f2 on the 22 and f5.6 on the 11-22

so then it becomes can you handhold the 22 at the slower ss

Is the three stops with IS really true? I'm just wondering about the real world use.

by a tad - Bryan found 1/3 of a stop less than 3

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-M-11-22mm-f-4-5.6-IS-STM-Lens.aspx

"in practice, I find that the EF-M 11-22mm delivers about 1/3-stop less than the specified 3 stops of improvement in shutter speed. Standing indoors on a stable floor and shooting freehand, I am seeing a good percentage of sharp images down to a 0.4 sec. exposure at 11mm and 1/5 sec. exposure at 22mm. At slower shutter speeds, the percentage of in-focus images drops, but it’s worth noting that a few sharp images were obtained at exposures as long as 1.3 sec. and 1 sec. at the wide and long ends of the focal range, respectively."

StrugglingforLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

ScentedOrange wrote:

Hey everyone, I currently take alot of landscape, but also love to carry my camera around for some street and travel photography. I love my Canon 22mm for its low light performance but I was wondering if it would be worth having the Sigma for the extra bit of light it would let in. Of course alot of photos would be in the daylight, but I don't really want to put the camera away when walking around outside at night. Would it keep my ISO down much lower?

depends

if shooting motion, yes

if shooting stills, the 11-22 with IS is what I would use

the 16 is a big lens - you have a small m200 - many use the 16 on bigger m bodies like the m6II or m50 II

I view the 16 f1.4 as a party lens to photograph kids indoors at f1.4 - sharp in the center at f1.4

outdoors at night, for stills, use the IS on the 11-22

outdoors at night, for motion, the 16 f1.4 would give you 1 stop of light, iso 3200 versus iso 6400, over your 22 f2

Re: 22 f2 vs 11-22 f4-5.6 IS

Your saying the 11-22 would be better than the 22 outdoors at night, for stills? IS would help that much with both at 22mm?

Any chance for people in your photos? or anything that moves?

Yes? Then I would take the 22mm f/2 every night.

If I am shooting outdoors at night or indoors, I always take the 22mm f/2 before the 11-22mm f/4-5.6. It will freeze any movement better and also give me more shallow depth of field (and nicer bokeh).

MyM6II wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

ScentedOrange wrote:

Hey everyone, I currently take alot of landscape, but also love to carry my camera around for some street and travel photography. I love my Canon 22mm for its low light performance but I was wondering if it would be worth having the Sigma for the extra bit of light it would let in. Of course alot of photos would be in the daylight, but I don't really want to put the camera away when walking around outside at night. Would it keep my ISO down much lower?

depends

if shooting motion, yes

if shooting stills, the 11-22 with IS is what I would use

the 16 is a big lens - you have a small m200 - many use the 16 on bigger m bodies like the m6II or m50 II

I view the 16 f1.4 as a party lens to photograph kids indoors at f1.4 - sharp in the center at f1.4

outdoors at night, for stills, use the IS on the 11-22

outdoors at night, for motion, the 16 f1.4 would give you 1 stop of light, iso 3200 versus iso 6400, over your 22 f2

Re: 22 f2 vs 11-22 f4-5.6 IS

Your saying the 11-22 would be better than the 22 outdoors at night, for stills? IS would help that much with both at 22mm?

Any chance for people in your photos? or anything that moves?

Yes? Then I would take the 22mm f/2 every night.

*my* answer to this is I would take the 32 f1.4

why?

because for the razor sharpness I want in low light with people motion, I'd need to stop down the 22 to f2.8 to be as sharp as the 32 f1.4 is at f1.4. I don't want to sharpen high iso images but instead use razor sharp lens wide open.

that 2 stops (difference in f1.4 vs f2.8) translates to needing 4 times the light and the difference between using iso 3200 vs iso 12,800

If I am shooting outdoors at night or indoors, I always take the 22mm f/2 before the 11-22mm f/4-5.6. It will freeze any movement better and also give me more shallow depth of field (and nicer bokeh).

just to clarify -- shallow dof is not the definition of nicer bokeh

Thanx, this makes my future selection easier... 👍

MAC wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

ScentedOrange wrote:

Hey everyone, I currently take alot of landscape, but also love to carry my camera around for some street and travel photography. I love my Canon 22mm for its low light performance but I was wondering if it would be worth having the Sigma for the extra bit of light it would let in. Of course alot of photos would be in the daylight, but I don't really want to put the camera away when walking around outside at night. Would it keep my ISO down much lower?

depends

if shooting motion, yes

if shooting stills, the 11-22 with IS is what I would use

the 16 is a big lens - you have a small m200 - many use the 16 on bigger m bodies like the m6II or m50 II

I view the 16 f1.4 as a party lens to photograph kids indoors at f1.4 - sharp in the center at f1.4

outdoors at night, for stills, use the IS on the 11-22

outdoors at night, for motion, the 16 f1.4 would give you 1 stop of light, iso 3200 versus iso 6400, over your 22 f2

Re: 22 f2 vs 11-22 f4-5.6 IS

Your saying the 11-22 would be better than the 22 outdoors at night, for stills? IS would help that much with both at 22mm?

Any chance for people in your photos? or anything that moves?

Yes? Then I would take the 22mm f/2 every night.

*my* answer to this is I would take the 32 f1.4

So between the 22mm and the 11-22mm you would take the 32mm. 🤔 Hmmm.

why?

because for the razor sharpness I want in low light with people motion, I'd need to stop down the 22 to f2.8 to be as sharp as the 32 f1.4 is at f1.4. I don't want to sharpen high iso images but instead use razor sharp lens wide open.

that 2 stops (difference in f1.4 vs f2.8) translates to needing 4 times the light and the difference between using iso 3200 vs iso 12,800

It depends on what you shoot. The EF-M22mm center quality is excellent at f/2.
And the 22mm is much smaller and lighter than the 11-22mm, so easier to have in a small pocket when out in the town at night.

If I am shooting outdoors at night or indoors, I always take the 22mm f/2 before the 11-22mm f/4-5.6. It will freeze any movement better and also give me more shallow depth of field (and nicer bokeh).

just to clarify -- shallow dof is not the definition of nicer bokeh

??. I never said it was.

Decisions, decisions...

MyM6II wrote:

MAC wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

ScentedOrange wrote:

Hey everyone, I currently take alot of landscape, but also love to carry my camera around for some street and travel photography. I love my Canon 22mm for its low light performance but I was wondering if it would be worth having the Sigma for the extra bit of light it would let in. Of course alot of photos would be in the daylight, but I don't really want to put the camera away when walking around outside at night. Would it keep my ISO down much lower?

depends

if shooting motion, yes

if shooting stills, the 11-22 with IS is what I would use

the 16 is a big lens - you have a small m200 - many use the 16 on bigger m bodies like the m6II or m50 II

I view the 16 f1.4 as a party lens to photograph kids indoors at f1.4 - sharp in the center at f1.4

outdoors at night, for stills, use the IS on the 11-22

outdoors at night, for motion, the 16 f1.4 would give you 1 stop of light, iso 3200 versus iso 6400, over your 22 f2

Re: 22 f2 vs 11-22 f4-5.6 IS

Your saying the 11-22 would be better than the 22 outdoors at night, for stills? IS would help that much with both at 22mm?

Any chance for people in your photos? or anything that moves?

Yes? Then I would take the 22mm f/2 every night.

*my* answer to this is I would take the 32 f1.4

So between the 22mm and the 11-22mm you would take the 32mm. 🤔 Hmmm.

... the topic of the thread is to take an f1.4 lens or your beloved f2 pancake - go with f1.4 everytime if motion

why?

because for the razor sharpness I want in low light with people motion, I'd need to stop down the 22 to f2.8 to be as sharp as the 32 f1.4 is at f1.4. I don't want to sharpen high iso images but instead use razor sharp lens wide open.

that 2 stops (difference in f1.4 vs f2.8) translates to needing 4 times the light and the difference between using iso 3200 vs iso 12,800

It depends on what you shoot.

why limit taking just 1 pancake lens that with camera doesn't fit in a jeans pocket ...

The EF-M22mm center quality is excellent at f/2.

center ok but limiting, 1 stop disadvantage in center is limiting, it begins to add up and be more limiting in the aggregate.

And the 22mm is much smaller and lighter than the 11-22mm, so easier to have in a small pocket when out in the town at night.

it doesn't fit in a jeans pocket and my jackets have pockets that easily fit both

If I am shooting outdoors at night or indoors, I always take the 22mm f/2 before the 11-22mm f/4-5.6. It will freeze any movement better and also give me more shallow depth of field (and nicer bokeh).

just to clarify -- shallow dof is not the definition of nicer bokeh

??. I never said it was.

bokeh = the aesthetic quality of blur

you said the 22 had nicer bokeh than the 11-22

your statement hasn't been proven and would be difficult to prove - the reviews of OpticalLimits and The Digital Picture are good to ok, but don't point to Steller bokeh for either .

what the heck does bokeh mean is discussed in below links

https://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-bokeh

MAC wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

MAC wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

ScentedOrange wrote:

Hey everyone, I currently take alot of landscape, but also love to carry my camera around for some street and travel photography. I love my Canon 22mm for its low light performance but I was wondering if it would be worth having the Sigma for the extra bit of light it would let in. Of course alot of photos would be in the daylight, but I don't really want to put the camera away when walking around outside at night. Would it keep my ISO down much lower?

depends

if shooting motion, yes

if shooting stills, the 11-22 with IS is what I would use

the 16 is a big lens - you have a small m200 - many use the 16 on bigger m bodies like the m6II or m50 II

I view the 16 f1.4 as a party lens to photograph kids indoors at f1.4 - sharp in the center at f1.4

outdoors at night, for stills, use the IS on the 11-22

outdoors at night, for motion, the 16 f1.4 would give you 1 stop of light, iso 3200 versus iso 6400, over your 22 f2

Re: 22 f2 vs 11-22 f4-5.6 IS

Your saying the 11-22 would be better than the 22 outdoors at night, for stills? IS would help that much with both at 22mm?

Any chance for people in your photos? or anything that moves?

Yes? Then I would take the 22mm f/2 every night.

*my* answer to this is I would take the 32 f1.4

So between the 22mm and the 11-22mm you would take the 32mm. 🤔 Hmmm.

... the topic of the thread is to take an f1.4 lens or your beloved f2 pancake - go with f1.4 everytime if motion

OP posted a followup question about two lenses @ 22mm. (See the bold text above.) That was what I answered.

Both the 32mm and 16mm are great lenses, but very different FOV. And that was not the question this time.

why?

because for the razor sharpness I want in low light with people motion, I'd need to stop down the 22 to f2.8 to be as sharp as the 32 f1.4 is at f1.4. I don't want to sharpen high iso images but instead use razor sharp lens wide open.

that 2 stops (difference in f1.4 vs f2.8) translates to needing 4 times the light and the difference between using iso 3200 vs iso 12,800

It depends on what you shoot.

why limit taking just 1 pancake lens that with camera doesn't fit in a jeans pocket ...

You can take as many as you want. I prefer one small one out at night. (And the M200 does fit in my jeans pocket, if I want to carry it that way.)

The EF-M22mm center quality is excellent at f/2.

center ok but limiting, 1 stop disadvantage in center is limiting, it begins to add up and be more limiting in the aggregate.

Tree stops advantage vs the 11-22 @ 22mm, which was the question. (When people/motion.) Yes, very limiting for the 11-22mm. 😉

And the 22mm is much smaller and lighter than the 11-22mm, so easier to have in a small pocket when out in the town at night.

it doesn't fit in a jeans pocket and my jackets have pockets that easily fit both

The 22mm fits nicely in my pockets (also in jeans).

If I am shooting outdoors at night or indoors, I always take the 22mm f/2 before the 11-22mm f/4-5.6. It will freeze any movement better and also give me more shallow depth of field (and nicer bokeh).

just to clarify -- shallow dof is not the definition of nicer bokeh

??. I never said it was.

bokeh = the aesthetic quality of blur

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in out-of-focus parts of an image.

you said the 22 had nicer bokeh than the 11-22

Yes. And it also has much more out-of-focus blur. f/2 vs f/5.6. When subject/distance is the same. Try it for yourself. The 11-22mm has almost nothing compared to the 22mm.

Or search for some of Marco Nero's posts in this forum. He has posted a lot of great examples with the qualities of these lenses.

Some examples (EF-M 22mm) in this thread .

MAC wrote:

Makes me want a 16!

I like mine a lot.

Bought the USB dock to check for firmware updates and it needed one. Just bought it new too.

My 56mm also needed a firmware update.

The USB dock can also be used to change how sensitive the focus ring is.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1570253-REG/sigma_878971_ud_11_usb_dock_for.html

MyM6II wrote:

MAC wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

MAC wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

ScentedOrange wrote:

Hey everyone, I currently take alot of landscape, but also love to carry my camera around for some street and travel photography. I love my Canon 22mm for its low light performance but I was wondering if it would be worth having the Sigma for the extra bit of light it would let in. Of course alot of photos would be in the daylight, but I don't really want to put the camera away when walking around outside at night. Would it keep my ISO down much lower?

depends

if shooting motion, yes

if shooting stills, the 11-22 with IS is what I would use

the 16 is a big lens - you have a small m200 - many use the 16 on bigger m bodies like the m6II or m50 II

I view the 16 f1.4 as a party lens to photograph kids indoors at f1.4 - sharp in the center at f1.4

outdoors at night, for stills, use the IS on the 11-22

outdoors at night, for motion, the 16 f1.4 would give you 1 stop of light, iso 3200 versus iso 6400, over your 22 f2

Re: 22 f2 vs 11-22 f4-5.6 IS

Your saying the 11-22 would be better than the 22 outdoors at night, for stills? IS would help that much with both at 22mm?

Any chance for people in your photos? or anything that moves?

Yes? Then I would take the 22mm f/2 every night.

*my* answer to this is I would take the 32 f1.4

So between the 22mm and the 11-22mm you would take the 32mm. 🤔 Hmmm.

... the topic of the thread is to take an f1.4 lens or your beloved f2 pancake - go with f1.4 everytime if motion

OP posted a followup question about two lenses @ 22mm. (See the bold text above.) That was what I answered.

Both the 32mm and 16mm are great lenses, but very different FOV. And that was not the question this time.

why?

because for the razor sharpness I want in low light with people motion, I'd need to stop down the 22 to f2.8 to be as sharp as the 32 f1.4 is at f1.4. I don't want to sharpen high iso images but instead use razor sharp lens wide open.

that 2 stops (difference in f1.4 vs f2.8) translates to needing 4 times the light and the difference between using iso 3200 vs iso 12,800

It depends on what you shoot.

why limit taking just 1 pancake lens that with camera doesn't fit in a jeans pocket ...

You can take as many as you want. I prefer one small one out at night. (And the M200 does fit in my jeans pocket, if I want to carry it that way.)

The EF-M22mm center quality is excellent at f/2.

center ok but limiting, 1 stop disadvantage in center is limiting, it begins to add up and be more limiting in the aggregate.

Tree stops advantage vs the 11-22 @ 22mm, which was the question. (When people/motion.) Yes, very limiting for the 11-22mm. 😉

And the 22mm is much smaller and lighter than the 11-22mm, so easier to have in a small pocket when out in the town at night.

it doesn't fit in a jeans pocket and my jackets have pockets that easily fit both

The 22mm fits nicely in my pockets (also in jeans).

If I am shooting outdoors at night or indoors, I always take the 22mm f/2 before the 11-22mm f/4-5.6. It will freeze any movement better and also give me more shallow depth of field (and nicer bokeh).

just to clarify -- shallow dof is not the definition of nicer bokeh

??. I never said it was.

bokeh = the aesthetic quality of blur

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in out-of-focus parts of an image.

you said the 22 had nicer bokeh than the 11-22

Yes. And it also has much more out-of-focus blur. f/2 vs f/5.6. When subject/distance is the same. Try it for yourself. The 11-22mm has almost nothing compared to the 22mm.

Or search for some of Marco Nero's posts in this forum. He has posted a lot of great examples with the qualities of these lenses.

Some examples (EF-M 22mm) in this thread .

OK guys, you’re taking whacks at both sides of the same tree here.    Continue and the tree falls twice as soon!

I think the great M lenses are small (and cheap) enough that we should just take along as many as we want whenever we want!    

It’s not like lugging around the massive RF 28-70 with the 70-200/2.8 in tow, like I’ve been doing all week (with yet another race this Saturday!).  I think my freaking arm’s gonna fall off!  Times were so much more enjoyable when I could simply grab my M6ii and go!

Wish me luck!  Happy shooting all!

R2

R2D2 wrote:

I think the great M lenses are small (and cheap) enough that we should just take along as many as we want whenever we want!

Right ?

I think it is these small sharp lenses that make the M system so outstanding !

Can carry all my M lenses in  what I would call a small bag !

Good luck and happy shooting R2 !

R2D2 wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

MAC wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

MAC wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

ScentedOrange wrote:

Hey everyone, I currently take alot of landscape, but also love to carry my camera around for some street and travel photography. I love my Canon 22mm for its low light performance but I was wondering if it would be worth having the Sigma for the extra bit of light it would let in. Of course alot of photos would be in the daylight, but I don't really want to put the camera away when walking around outside at night. Would it keep my ISO down much lower?

depends

if shooting motion, yes

if shooting stills, the 11-22 with IS is what I would use

the 16 is a big lens - you have a small m200 - many use the 16 on bigger m bodies like the m6II or m50 II

I view the 16 f1.4 as a party lens to photograph kids indoors at f1.4 - sharp in the center at f1.4

outdoors at night, for stills, use the IS on the 11-22

outdoors at night, for motion, the 16 f1.4 would give you 1 stop of light, iso 3200 versus iso 6400, over your 22 f2

Re: 22 f2 vs 11-22 f4-5.6 IS

Your saying the 11-22 would be better than the 22 outdoors at night, for stills? IS would help that much with both at 22mm?

Any chance for people in your photos? or anything that moves?

Yes? Then I would take the 22mm f/2 every night.

*my* answer to this is I would take the 32 f1.4

So between the 22mm and the 11-22mm you would take the 32mm. 🤔 Hmmm.

... the topic of the thread is to take an f1.4 lens or your beloved f2 pancake - go with f1.4 everytime if motion

OP posted a followup question about two lenses @ 22mm. (See the bold text above.) That was what I answered.

Both the 32mm and 16mm are great lenses, but very different FOV. And that was not the question this time.

why?

because for the razor sharpness I want in low light with people motion, I'd need to stop down the 22 to f2.8 to be as sharp as the 32 f1.4 is at f1.4. I don't want to sharpen high iso images but instead use razor sharp lens wide open.

that 2 stops (difference in f1.4 vs f2.8) translates to needing 4 times the light and the difference between using iso 3200 vs iso 12,800

It depends on what you shoot.

why limit taking just 1 pancake lens that with camera doesn't fit in a jeans pocket ...

You can take as many as you want. I prefer one small one out at night. (And the M200 does fit in my jeans pocket, if I want to carry it that way.)

The EF-M22mm center quality is excellent at f/2.

center ok but limiting, 1 stop disadvantage in center is limiting, it begins to add up and be more limiting in the aggregate.

Tree stops advantage vs the 11-22 @ 22mm, which was the question. (When people/motion.) Yes, very limiting for the 11-22mm. 😉

And the 22mm is much smaller and lighter than the 11-22mm, so easier to have in a small pocket when out in the town at night.

it doesn't fit in a jeans pocket and my jackets have pockets that easily fit both

The 22mm fits nicely in my pockets (also in jeans).

If I am shooting outdoors at night or indoors, I always take the 22mm f/2 before the 11-22mm f/4-5.6. It will freeze any movement better and also give me more shallow depth of field (and nicer bokeh).

just to clarify -- shallow dof is not the definition of nicer bokeh

??. I never said it was.

bokeh = the aesthetic quality of blur

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in out-of-focus parts of an image.

you said the 22 had nicer bokeh than the 11-22

Yes. And it also has much more out-of-focus blur. f/2 vs f/5.6. When subject/distance is the same. Try it for yourself. The 11-22mm has almost nothing compared to the 22mm.

Or search for some of Marco Nero's posts in this forum. He has posted a lot of great examples with the qualities of these lenses.

Some examples (EF-M 22mm) in this thread .

OK guys, you’re taking whacks at both sides of the same tree here. Continue and the tree falls twice as soon!

Yeah. I love the whole tree (M). But it seems like not everyone do. 😉

(I have 6 M bodies and 12 EF-M mount lenses. LOL 😃 (And I love them all.))

I think the great M lenses are small (and cheap) enough that we should just take along as many as we want whenever we want!

Yes. That is what I just said to MAC. "Take as many as you want". 😃 I personally like to go very small/light when out on the town in the evening. 📷 I will take along more and different lenses/cameras when out hiking, driving, at events etc. etc..

It’s not like lugging around the massive RF 28-70 with the 70-200/2.8 in tow, like I’ve been doing all week (with yet another race this Saturday!). I think my freaking arm’s gonna fall off! Times were so much more enjoyable when I could simply grab my M6ii and go!

Wish me luck! Happy shooting all!

R2

It doesn't sound like the OP has as much funds as you do. 😃 Maybe he has to choose. (I could be wrong though.)

Good luck !

R2D2 wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

MAC wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

MAC wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

MAC wrote:

ScentedOrange wrote:

Hey everyone, I currently take alot of landscape, but also love to carry my camera around for some street and travel photography. I love my Canon 22mm for its low light performance but I was wondering if it would be worth having the Sigma for the extra bit of light it would let in. Of course alot of photos would be in the daylight, but I don't really want to put the camera away when walking around outside at night. Would it keep my ISO down much lower?

depends

if shooting motion, yes

if shooting stills, the 11-22 with IS is what I would use

the 16 is a big lens - you have a small m200 - many use the 16 on bigger m bodies like the m6II or m50 II

I view the 16 f1.4 as a party lens to photograph kids indoors at f1.4 - sharp in the center at f1.4

outdoors at night, for stills, use the IS on the 11-22

outdoors at night, for motion, the 16 f1.4 would give you 1 stop of light, iso 3200 versus iso 6400, over your 22 f2

Re: 22 f2 vs 11-22 f4-5.6 IS

Your saying the 11-22 would be better than the 22 outdoors at night, for stills? IS would help that much with both at 22mm?

Any chance for people in your photos? or anything that moves?

Yes? Then I would take the 22mm f/2 every night.

*my* answer to this is I would take the 32 f1.4

So between the 22mm and the 11-22mm you would take the 32mm. 🤔 Hmmm.

... the topic of the thread is to take an f1.4 lens or your beloved f2 pancake - go with f1.4 everytime if motion

OP posted a followup question about two lenses @ 22mm. (See the bold text above.) That was what I answered.

Both the 32mm and 16mm are great lenses, but very different FOV. And that was not the question this time.

why?

because for the razor sharpness I want in low light with people motion, I'd need to stop down the 22 to f2.8 to be as sharp as the 32 f1.4 is at f1.4. I don't want to sharpen high iso images but instead use razor sharp lens wide open.

that 2 stops (difference in f1.4 vs f2.8) translates to needing 4 times the light and the difference between using iso 3200 vs iso 12,800

It depends on what you shoot.

why limit taking just 1 pancake lens that with camera doesn't fit in a jeans pocket ...

You can take as many as you want. I prefer one small one out at night. (And the M200 does fit in my jeans pocket, if I want to carry it that way.)

The EF-M22mm center quality is excellent at f/2.

center ok but limiting, 1 stop disadvantage in center is limiting, it begins to add up and be more limiting in the aggregate.

Tree stops advantage vs the 11-22 @ 22mm, which was the question. (When people/motion.) Yes, very limiting for the 11-22mm. 😉

And the 22mm is much smaller and lighter than the 11-22mm, so easier to have in a small pocket when out in the town at night.

it doesn't fit in a jeans pocket and my jackets have pockets that easily fit both

The 22mm fits nicely in my pockets (also in jeans).

If I am shooting outdoors at night or indoors, I always take the 22mm f/2 before the 11-22mm f/4-5.6. It will freeze any movement better and also give me more shallow depth of field (and nicer bokeh).

just to clarify -- shallow dof is not the definition of nicer bokeh

??. I never said it was.

bokeh = the aesthetic quality of blur

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur produced in out-of-focus parts of an image.

you said the 22 had nicer bokeh than the 11-22

Yes. And it also has much more out-of-focus blur. f/2 vs f/5.6. When subject/distance is the same. Try it for yourself. The 11-22mm has almost nothing compared to the 22mm.

Or search for some of Marco Nero's posts in this forum. He has posted a lot of great examples with the qualities of these lenses.

Some examples (EF-M 22mm) in this thread .

OK guys, you’re taking whacks at both sides of the same tree here. Continue and the tree falls twice as soon!

Right, let's save the trees, hmm, but will Canon save the small beauties

I think the great M lenses are small (and cheap) enough that we should just take along as many as we want whenever we want!

Right, these small puppies are liberating.

It’s not like lugging around the massive RF 28-70 with the 70-200/2.8 in tow, like I’ve been doing all week (with yet another race this Saturday!). I think my freaking arm’s gonna fall off! Times were so much more enjoyable when I could simply grab my M6ii and go!

I sense you are taking on a lot...

those two are in my view the two that are some of the best on the planet that will get you even more business...

but biz isn't always fun is it - I'm a bit jealous... but then I think back to some tiring, aching moments, and MOB moments, and sometimes lack of appreciation by others on what is involved, and then I realize it is a good place to be in retirement and drink wine and watch others carry all that stuff - actually at one wedding as a guest I created some video clips and pics combined into a multimedia show with music on social media within two days that the family enjoyed more than the stuff the official tog did that took months to get them their pics -- and one of my hands was occupied a good bit of that time by a glass of wine

I can confirm also that hauling three dslr's on my body for weddings all day long in the old days was less enjoyable and even painful by the end of the day than the pleasure of shooting my lightweight stuff for myself and family.

Wish me luck!

as always, best wishes!

Happy shooting all!

you too!

R2

MyM6II wrote:

It doesn't sound like the OP has as much funds as you do. 😃 Maybe he has to choose. (I could be wrong though.)

Good luck !

I am kinda rich on the M forum and kinda poor on the R forum. 

m100 wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

It doesn't sound like the OP has as much funds as you do. 😃 Maybe he has to choose. (I could be wrong though.)

Good luck !

I am kinda rich on the M forum and kinda poor on the R forum.

LOL. 👍🤣 That is so true. For many of us, I think.

m100 wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

It doesn't sound like the OP has as much funds as you do. 😃 Maybe he has to choose. (I could be wrong though.)

Good luck !

I am kinda rich on the M forum and kinda poor on the R forum.

LOL

so true

yet you got the power per pound we like