22mm + 32mm + _____

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MAC wrote:

and here, for me, the higher mpxl technology changes the old technology paradigm.

that is, the 32.5 mpxl's of the m6II with the 32 f1.4 (51.2 FOV) gives me that extra cropping power -- over 18, 20, 24 mpxl's sensors) to frame looser (which for me is most often desirable, then crop in post), thus, I don't reach as often for my 85 FOV on FF

I also like my 100L with 12 inches MFD better than my 85 - and they both have IS versus the 56 has no IS and is already 89.6 FOV

With both RP and M6II, I have more portrait FOV's with prime lenses on high mpxl

32 f1.4 (51.2 FOV on M6II with lots of cropping capability)

RF 85 F2 IS (85 FOV which sits at home often times because I have the cropping power of the 51.2 FOV on 32.5 mpxl

100L with 12 inches of MFD that is 100 FOV with 4 stop IS on my 26 mpxl RP or 160 FOV on my M6II with 32.5 mpxl cropping power (which often allows me to keep my 70-200L at home - I use to use 200 mm on 20 mpxl 6d, but now I have 160 FOV on 32.5 mpxl)

so for me, 51.2 FOV, 100 FOV, 160FOV with L quality in the portrait category

I'm not one to consider 35 a portrait prime category but have the 35 f2 IS, but more often use my RF 24-105 F4L for the 35 mm FOV

all this said, the 32.5 mpxl m6II (particularly for $540 used over the holidays) was in my opinion the best accessory for the 32 f1.4 portrait, L - like - lenses first - jacket pocket application

and imo - the m200 (jacket pocket with the 32) has been replaced by the iphone 13/14 for the small jeans pocket application

YMMV

You keep talking about this magical cropping power of the 32MP sensor as if it was a quantum leap above the older 24MP sensors.

where did I say the cropping power between 24 mpxl and 32.5 mpxl (which you refuse to acknowledge and add the 0.5) was "magical"? LOL

The math simply does not support your repeated claims.

Claims of magical? LOL

To get to an 85mm filed of view (FoV) from the EF-M 32mm f/1.4, you need to crop your M6 II all of the way down to 11.7MP using an image sensor area smaller than that of a 1" sensor compact camera.

Thank you for that analysis, I shot for years with the 5d classic at 12.8 mpxl and it was fine for the intended print sizes of candids.

Your images will roughly two stops noisier than if you had used the 56mm f/1.4 and your full frame equivalent depth of field is f/4.0.

only rarely if I can't move my feet toward the subject

and on the other hand, the 56 (89.6 FOV) with a MFD of 20 inches, about twice that of the 32 mm at mfd of 9 inches and the 32 has 0.25 macro magnification vs the 56 with .12

old days when I had 5d classic and didn't have dxo PL6, I managed. New days with 2 stops improved with dxo PL6, easy to manage. BTW - I don't do landscapes with this lens - I'm talking about on the fly candids, for their intended normal print sizes, the 32 f1.4 with 32.5 mpxl cropping power works well vs having to switch lenses to the 56

The Sigma 56mm f/1.4 on the M6 II or the RF 24-105mm on the RP would both produce significantly better images.

hmm, for the intended candids, and print size, and speed of acquisition not having to switch lenses, I'm fine. For landscapes I use my RF 24-105 L or 11-22

For reference, the 24MP sensors would be cropped to 8.7MP under the same scenario.

let's see - that goes clear back to my 30d - no thanks - the size closer to my 5d mattered

If you want a minimum of 300 pixels per inch for prints, this level of cropping on the 24MP sensor limits you to 8X12 while the 32MP sensor gets you a slight increase to 9.3X14.

11x14's are as big as I'd go with these candids and I have stair interpolation.

Even cropping the 100mm L macro has fairly significant impacts. To get a 200mm equivalent FoV, you need to crop the M6 II down to 20MP on an area a bit smaller than micro 4/3

thanks for this info - it is why I take the 100L on m6II to shoot candids and awards at the podium at 200 mm vs taking my heavy non IS 70-200 L on my 20 mpxl 6d . I get lighter weight, I can handhold, and I have dxo PL to process the raws

Sure, more megapixels are always welcome,

yep

but the suggestion that the 32MP sensor now allows for incredible levels of cropping

where did I say magical or incredible?

that were never before possible with the older sensors is simply not true.

significant cropping power for the intended candid application is important to me

Yes, the M6 II sensor is better than the M200 sensor, but the difference is nowhere near as dramatic as you keep suggesting.

who's making this into drama here

Cropping the 32mm f/1.4 lens is a terrible substitute for the 56mm f/1.4 lens.

as I said, I'm not talking landscapes here

I can even move my feet a bit

I'm talking traveling light and not having time to switch leenses

I'm talking candid shooting within the print sizes needed

it is a good thing for me

PL6 likes a lot of pixels.

And that grain PL makes with the 32mp sensor raw files ?

That is why I sold all my 24mp stuff.

I didn’t say the extra cropping power was magical, but it is significant, but I will say dxo PL is magical the way it uses AI to handle NR.

in your case, you have two M6II’s and I’d send you into the event as my second shooter with the 32 f1.4 on one camera and also your 56f1.4 on your second body

Thanks ! I need to practice with that combo.

I think I could carry them ok.

but also have the 100L on you

blackrapid strap for m6II and 100L

optek shoulder strap for m6II and 32 f1.4

56 in a belt bag that can handle a swap out with the 100L

but my guess is you’ll not swap out the 100L for the 56 much

I could stay very busy and be out of the way with the 100L

The 32 F1.4 and the 100L are my favorite all time lenses!

They are fun, fun, fun!!

Busy, Busy, Busy for sure!!!

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MAC wrote:

and here, for me, the higher mpxl technology changes the old technology paradigm.

that is, the 32.5 mpxl's of the m6II with the 32 f1.4 (51.2 FOV) gives me that extra cropping power -- over 18, 20, 24 mpxl's sensors) to frame looser (which for me is most often desirable, then crop in post), thus, I don't reach as often for my 85 FOV on FF

I also like my 100L with 12 inches MFD better than my 85 - and they both have IS versus the 56 has no IS and is already 89.6 FOV

With both RP and M6II, I have more portrait FOV's with prime lenses on high mpxl

32 f1.4 (51.2 FOV on M6II with lots of cropping capability)

RF 85 F2 IS (85 FOV which sits at home often times because I have the cropping power of the 51.2 FOV on 32.5 mpxl

100L with 12 inches of MFD that is 100 FOV with 4 stop IS on my 26 mpxl RP or 160 FOV on my M6II with 32.5 mpxl cropping power (which often allows me to keep my 70-200L at home - I use to use 200 mm on 20 mpxl 6d, but now I have 160 FOV on 32.5 mpxl)

so for me, 51.2 FOV, 100 FOV, 160FOV with L quality in the portrait category

I'm not one to consider 35 a portrait prime category but have the 35 f2 IS, but more often use my RF 24-105 F4L for the 35 mm FOV

all this said, the 32.5 mpxl m6II (particularly for $540 used over the holidays) was in my opinion the best accessory for the 32 f1.4 portrait, L - like - lenses first - jacket pocket application

and imo - the m200 (jacket pocket with the 32) has been replaced by the iphone 13/14 for the small jeans pocket application

YMMV

You keep talking about this magical cropping power of the 32MP sensor as if it was a quantum leap above the older 24MP sensors.

where did I say the cropping power between 24 mpxl and 32.5 mpxl (which you refuse to acknowledge and add the 0.5) was "magical"? LOL

The math simply does not support your repeated claims.

Claims of magical? LOL

To get to an 85mm filed of view (FoV) from the EF-M 32mm f/1.4, you need to crop your M6 II all of the way down to 11.7MP using an image sensor area smaller than that of a 1" sensor compact camera.

Thank you for that analysis, I shot for years with the 5d classic at 12.8 mpxl and it was fine for the intended print sizes of candids.

Your images will roughly two stops noisier than if you had used the 56mm f/1.4 and your full frame equivalent depth of field is f/4.0.

only rarely if I can't move my feet toward the subject

and on the other hand, the 56 (89.6 FOV) with a MFD of 20 inches, about twice that of the 32 mm at mfd of 9 inches and the 32 has 0.25 macro magnification vs the 56 with .12

old days when I had 5d classic and didn't have dxo PL6, I managed. New days with 2 stops improved with dxo PL6, easy to manage. BTW - I don't do landscapes with this lens - I'm talking about on the fly candids, for their intended normal print sizes, the 32 f1.4 with 32.5 mpxl cropping power works well vs having to switch lenses to the 56

The Sigma 56mm f/1.4 on the M6 II or the RF 24-105mm on the RP would both produce significantly better images.

hmm, for the intended candids, and print size, and speed of acquisition not having to switch lenses, I'm fine. For landscapes I use my RF 24-105 L or 11-22

For reference, the 24MP sensors would be cropped to 8.7MP under the same scenario.

let's see - that goes clear back to my 30d - no thanks - the size closer to my 5d mattered

If you want a minimum of 300 pixels per inch for prints, this level of cropping on the 24MP sensor limits you to 8X12 while the 32MP sensor gets you a slight increase to 9.3X14.

11x14's are as big as I'd go with these candids and I have stair interpolation.

Even cropping the 100mm L macro has fairly significant impacts. To get a 200mm equivalent FoV, you need to crop the M6 II down to 20MP on an area a bit smaller than micro 4/3

thanks for this info - it is why I take the 100L on m6II to shoot candids and awards at the podium at 200 mm vs taking my heavy non IS 70-200 L on my 20 mpxl 6d . I get lighter weight, I can handhold, and I have dxo PL to process the raws

Sure, more megapixels are always welcome,

yep

but the suggestion that the 32MP sensor now allows for incredible levels of cropping

where did I say magical or incredible?

that were never before possible with the older sensors is simply not true.

significant cropping power for the intended candid application is important to me

Yes, the M6 II sensor is better than the M200 sensor, but the difference is nowhere near as dramatic as you keep suggesting.

who's making this into drama here

Cropping the 32mm f/1.4 lens is a terrible substitute for the 56mm f/1.4 lens.

as I said, I'm not talking landscapes here

I can even move my feet a bit

I'm talking traveling light and not having time to switch leenses

I'm talking candid shooting within the print sizes needed

it is a good thing for me

PL6 likes a lot of pixels.

And that grain PL makes with the 32mp sensor raw files ?

That is why I sold all my 24mp stuff.

I didn’t say the extra cropping power was magical, but it is significant, but I will say dxo PL is magical the way it uses AI to handle NR.

in your case, you have two M6II’s and I’d send you into the event as my second shooter with the 32 f1.4 on one camera and also your 56f1.4 on your second body

Thanks ! I need to practice with that combo.

I think I could carry them ok.

but also have the 100L on you

blackrapid strap for m6II and 100L

optek shoulder strap for m6II and 32 f1.4

56 in a belt bag that can handle a swap out with the 100L

but my guess is you’ll not swap out the 100L for the 56 much

I could stay very busy and be out of the way with the 100L

The 32 F1.4 and the 100L are my favorite all time lenses!

They are fun, fun, fun!!

Busy, Busy, Busy for sure!!!

^I second this!

on my end, I use the 32/1.4 on the M5 and the 100L on a 6D2 for wedding/event work.  the 35/2 IS attaches to the 6D2 during the hotel preps but from the ceremony to the reception, it's just the 32 and 100L.

I've gone to the zoo with just the M5 with 16/1.4, 32/1.4 and 100L and was very happy with the results although I do wish I had a longer lens at times but those times aren't much so I can live with a bit of cropping from the 100L.

deanmejos wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MAC wrote:

and here, for me, the higher mpxl technology changes the old technology paradigm.

that is, the 32.5 mpxl's of the m6II with the 32 f1.4 (51.2 FOV) gives me that extra cropping power -- over 18, 20, 24 mpxl's sensors) to frame looser (which for me is most often desirable, then crop in post), thus, I don't reach as often for my 85 FOV on FF

I also like my 100L with 12 inches MFD better than my 85 - and they both have IS versus the 56 has no IS and is already 89.6 FOV

With both RP and M6II, I have more portrait FOV's with prime lenses on high mpxl

32 f1.4 (51.2 FOV on M6II with lots of cropping capability)

RF 85 F2 IS (85 FOV which sits at home often times because I have the cropping power of the 51.2 FOV on 32.5 mpxl

100L with 12 inches of MFD that is 100 FOV with 4 stop IS on my 26 mpxl RP or 160 FOV on my M6II with 32.5 mpxl cropping power (which often allows me to keep my 70-200L at home - I use to use 200 mm on 20 mpxl 6d, but now I have 160 FOV on 32.5 mpxl)

so for me, 51.2 FOV, 100 FOV, 160FOV with L quality in the portrait category

I'm not one to consider 35 a portrait prime category but have the 35 f2 IS, but more often use my RF 24-105 F4L for the 35 mm FOV

all this said, the 32.5 mpxl m6II (particularly for $540 used over the holidays) was in my opinion the best accessory for the 32 f1.4 portrait, L - like - lenses first - jacket pocket application

and imo - the m200 (jacket pocket with the 32) has been replaced by the iphone 13/14 for the small jeans pocket application

YMMV

You keep talking about this magical cropping power of the 32MP sensor as if it was a quantum leap above the older 24MP sensors.

where did I say the cropping power between 24 mpxl and 32.5 mpxl (which you refuse to acknowledge and add the 0.5) was "magical"? LOL

The math simply does not support your repeated claims.

Claims of magical? LOL

To get to an 85mm filed of view (FoV) from the EF-M 32mm f/1.4, you need to crop your M6 II all of the way down to 11.7MP using an image sensor area smaller than that of a 1" sensor compact camera.

Thank you for that analysis, I shot for years with the 5d classic at 12.8 mpxl and it was fine for the intended print sizes of candids.

Your images will roughly two stops noisier than if you had used the 56mm f/1.4 and your full frame equivalent depth of field is f/4.0.

only rarely if I can't move my feet toward the subject

and on the other hand, the 56 (89.6 FOV) with a MFD of 20 inches, about twice that of the 32 mm at mfd of 9 inches and the 32 has 0.25 macro magnification vs the 56 with .12

old days when I had 5d classic and didn't have dxo PL6, I managed. New days with 2 stops improved with dxo PL6, easy to manage. BTW - I don't do landscapes with this lens - I'm talking about on the fly candids, for their intended normal print sizes, the 32 f1.4 with 32.5 mpxl cropping power works well vs having to switch lenses to the 56

The Sigma 56mm f/1.4 on the M6 II or the RF 24-105mm on the RP would both produce significantly better images.

hmm, for the intended candids, and print size, and speed of acquisition not having to switch lenses, I'm fine. For landscapes I use my RF 24-105 L or 11-22

For reference, the 24MP sensors would be cropped to 8.7MP under the same scenario.

let's see - that goes clear back to my 30d - no thanks - the size closer to my 5d mattered

If you want a minimum of 300 pixels per inch for prints, this level of cropping on the 24MP sensor limits you to 8X12 while the 32MP sensor gets you a slight increase to 9.3X14.

11x14's are as big as I'd go with these candids and I have stair interpolation.

Even cropping the 100mm L macro has fairly significant impacts. To get a 200mm equivalent FoV, you need to crop the M6 II down to 20MP on an area a bit smaller than micro 4/3

thanks for this info - it is why I take the 100L on m6II to shoot candids and awards at the podium at 200 mm vs taking my heavy non IS 70-200 L on my 20 mpxl 6d . I get lighter weight, I can handhold, and I have dxo PL to process the raws

Sure, more megapixels are always welcome,

yep

but the suggestion that the 32MP sensor now allows for incredible levels of cropping

where did I say magical or incredible?

that were never before possible with the older sensors is simply not true.

significant cropping power for the intended candid application is important to me

Yes, the M6 II sensor is better than the M200 sensor, but the difference is nowhere near as dramatic as you keep suggesting.

who's making this into drama here

Cropping the 32mm f/1.4 lens is a terrible substitute for the 56mm f/1.4 lens.

as I said, I'm not talking landscapes here

I can even move my feet a bit

I'm talking traveling light and not having time to switch leenses

I'm talking candid shooting within the print sizes needed

it is a good thing for me

PL6 likes a lot of pixels.

And that grain PL makes with the 32mp sensor raw files ?

That is why I sold all my 24mp stuff.

I didn’t say the extra cropping power was magical, but it is significant, but I will say dxo PL is magical the way it uses AI to handle NR.

in your case, you have two M6II’s and I’d send you into the event as my second shooter with the 32 f1.4 on one camera and also your 56f1.4 on your second body

Thanks ! I need to practice with that combo.

I think I could carry them ok.

but also have the 100L on you

blackrapid strap for m6II and 100L

optek shoulder strap for m6II and 32 f1.4

56 in a belt bag that can handle a swap out with the 100L

but my guess is you’ll not swap out the 100L for the 56 much

I could stay very busy and be out of the way with the 100L

The 32 F1.4 and the 100L are my favorite all time lenses!

They are fun, fun, fun!!

Busy, Busy, Busy for sure!!!

^I second this!

others milage may vary

my second shooters for weddings were pros, and they shot Nikons and carried pj zooms, so I'm open to other solutions for others

on my end, I use the 32/1.4 on the M5 and the 100L on a 6D2 for wedding/event work. the 35/2 IS attaches to the 6D2 during the hotel preps but from the ceremony to the reception, it's just the 32 and 100L.

I also have the 35 F2 IS and 24 F2.8 IS

two bodies and 50 mm (FOV) apart in the portrait range, and zoom when you can with your feet is indeed a good formula

I've gone to the zoo with just the M5 with 16/1.4, 32/1.4 and 100L and was very happy with the results although I do wish I had a longer lens at times but those times aren't much so I can live with a bit of cropping from the 100L.

I have the 70-200 L but it is heavy.  The 55-250 stm I have is inexpensive but for outdoors.

best wishes to you!

deanmejos wrote:

a lot of people say that the 35/85 combo (on FF) is a great if not ideal lens combo and that the 50mm (on FF) acts like a compromise between those two (not as wide and not as tight). still, there are people who have the 35/50/85 trio in their kit with that said, the 56/1.4 seems like a no-brainer to go with your 22 so you pretty much get the 35/85 setup on your M200 (except the 56/1.4 is equivalent to an 89.6mm). if you feel/think that you still need an in-between your 22/56 combo, then spring for the 32mm

I dont like lens decisions based on math

Obv trying a bunch of lenses might not be practical/possible for everyone, but I got to use pretty much every prime FL from 14mm to 135mm. My experience taught my my preferences are for primes in the 35-45mm range. I learned I really hate changing lenses, and with FF that 35-45mm range is the only place I need speed (any wider and I'm generally not shooting in low light; any longer and FF zooms have enough subject isolation for me)

So I would discount any "one size fits all" equations.... for me a 35/50 is a better pairing than 35/85 because I really have no use for 85. Could be 50/85 for someone else. I know lenses are expensive but the only way to really know what works is to use it.

sportyaccordy wrote:

deanmejos wrote:

a lot of people say that the 35/85 combo (on FF) is a great if not ideal lens combo and that the 50mm (on FF) acts like a compromise between those two (not as wide and not as tight). still, there are people who have the 35/50/85 trio in their kit with that said, the 56/1.4 seems like a no-brainer to go with your 22 so you pretty much get the 35/85 setup on your M200 (except the 56/1.4 is equivalent to an 89.6mm). if you feel/think that you still need an in-between your 22/56 combo, then spring for the 32mm

I dont like lens decisions based on math

Obv trying a bunch of lenses might not be practical/possible for everyone, but I got to use pretty much every prime FL from 14mm to 135mm. My experience taught my my preferences are for primes in the 35-45mm range. I learned I really hate changing lenses, and with FF that 35-45mm range is the only place I need speed (any wider and I'm generally not shooting in low light; any longer and FF zooms have enough subject isolation for me)

So I would discount any "one size fits all" equations.... for me a 35/50 is a better pairing than 35/85 because I really have no use for 85. Could be 50/85 for someone else. I know lenses are expensive but the only way to really know what works is to use it.

but you are over here in crop m land where bright native zooms are non-existent

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

MAC wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MAC wrote:

and here, for me, the higher mpxl technology changes the old technology paradigm.

that is, the 32.5 mpxl's of the m6II with the 32 f1.4 (51.2 FOV) gives me that extra cropping power -- over 18, 20, 24 mpxl's sensors) to frame looser (which for me is most often desirable, then crop in post), thus, I don't reach as often for my 85 FOV on FF

I also like my 100L with 12 inches MFD better than my 85 - and they both have IS versus the 56 has no IS and is already 89.6 FOV

With both RP and M6II, I have more portrait FOV's with prime lenses on high mpxl

32 f1.4 (51.2 FOV on M6II with lots of cropping capability)

RF 85 F2 IS (85 FOV which sits at home often times because I have the cropping power of the 51.2 FOV on 32.5 mpxl

100L with 12 inches of MFD that is 100 FOV with 4 stop IS on my 26 mpxl RP or 160 FOV on my M6II with 32.5 mpxl cropping power (which often allows me to keep my 70-200L at home - I use to use 200 mm on 20 mpxl 6d, but now I have 160 FOV on 32.5 mpxl)

so for me, 51.2 FOV, 100 FOV, 160FOV with L quality in the portrait category

I'm not one to consider 35 a portrait prime category but have the 35 f2 IS, but more often use my RF 24-105 F4L for the 35 mm FOV

all this said, the 32.5 mpxl m6II (particularly for $540 used over the holidays) was in my opinion the best accessory for the 32 f1.4 portrait, L - like - lenses first - jacket pocket application

and imo - the m200 (jacket pocket with the 32) has been replaced by the iphone 13/14 for the small jeans pocket application

YMMV

You keep talking about this magical cropping power of the 32MP sensor as if it was a quantum leap above the older 24MP sensors.

where did I say the cropping power between 24 mpxl and 32.5 mpxl (which you refuse to acknowledge and add the 0.5) was "magical"? LOL

The math simply does not support your repeated claims.

Claims of magical? LOL

To get to an 85mm filed of view (FoV) from the EF-M 32mm f/1.4, you need to crop your M6 II all of the way down to 11.7MP using an image sensor area smaller than that of a 1" sensor compact camera.

Thank you for that analysis, I shot for years with the 5d classic at 12.8 mpxl and it was fine for the intended print sizes of candids.

Your images will roughly two stops noisier than if you had used the 56mm f/1.4 and your full frame equivalent depth of field is f/4.0.

only rarely if I can't move my feet toward the subject

and on the other hand, the 56 (89.6 FOV) with a MFD of 20 inches, about twice that of the 32 mm at mfd of 9 inches and the 32 has 0.25 macro magnification vs the 56 with .12

old days when I had 5d classic and didn't have dxo PL6, I managed. New days with 2 stops improved with dxo PL6, easy to manage. BTW - I don't do landscapes with this lens - I'm talking about on the fly candids, for their intended normal print sizes, the 32 f1.4 with 32.5 mpxl cropping power works well vs having to switch lenses to the 56

The Sigma 56mm f/1.4 on the M6 II or the RF 24-105mm on the RP would both produce significantly better images.

hmm, for the intended candids, and print size, and speed of acquisition not having to switch lenses, I'm fine. For landscapes I use my RF 24-105 L or 11-22

For reference, the 24MP sensors would be cropped to 8.7MP under the same scenario.

let's see - that goes clear back to my 30d - no thanks - the size closer to my 5d mattered

If you want a minimum of 300 pixels per inch for prints, this level of cropping on the 24MP sensor limits you to 8X12 while the 32MP sensor gets you a slight increase to 9.3X14.

11x14's are as big as I'd go with these candids and I have stair interpolation.

Even cropping the 100mm L macro has fairly significant impacts. To get a 200mm equivalent FoV, you need to crop the M6 II down to 20MP on an area a bit smaller than micro 4/3

thanks for this info - it is why I take the 100L on m6II to shoot candids and awards at the podium at 200 mm vs taking my heavy non IS 70-200 L on my 20 mpxl 6d . I get lighter weight, I can handhold, and I have dxo PL to process the raws

Sure, more megapixels are always welcome,

yep

but the suggestion that the 32MP sensor now allows for incredible levels of cropping

where did I say magical or incredible?

that were never before possible with the older sensors is simply not true.

significant cropping power for the intended candid application is important to me

Yes, the M6 II sensor is better than the M200 sensor, but the difference is nowhere near as dramatic as you keep suggesting.

who's making this into drama here

Cropping the 32mm f/1.4 lens is a terrible substitute for the 56mm f/1.4 lens.

as I said, I'm not talking landscapes here

I can even move my feet a bit

I'm talking traveling light and not having time to switch leenses

I'm talking candid shooting within the print sizes needed

it is a good thing for me

PL6 likes a lot of pixels.

And that grain PL makes with the 32mp sensor raw files ?

That is why I sold all my 24mp stuff.

I didn’t say the extra cropping power was magical, but it is significant, but I will say dxo PL is magical the way it uses AI to handle NR.

in your case, you have two M6II’s and I’d send you into the event as my second shooter with the 32 f1.4 on one camera and also your 56f1.4 on your second body

Thanks ! I need to practice with that combo.

I think I could carry them ok.

but also have the 100L on you

blackrapid strap for m6II and 100L

optek shoulder strap for m6II and 32 f1.4

56 in a belt bag that can handle a swap out with the 100L

but my guess is you’ll not swap out the 100L for the 56 much

I could stay very busy and be out of the way with the 100L

The 32 F1.4 and the 100L are my favorite all time lenses!

They are fun, fun, fun!!

Busy, Busy, Busy for sure!!!

Right !

I don't mind changing lenses either !

Don't mind cleaning sensors either.

Had to clean my M6II sensor.  Not because of dust though.

I dropped it with no lens on the body and caught it.  Got a big fingerprint right on the sensor.

sportyaccordy wrote:

deanmejos wrote:

a lot of people say that the 35/85 combo (on FF) is a great if not ideal lens combo and that the 50mm (on FF) acts like a compromise between those two (not as wide and not as tight). still, there are people who have the 35/50/85 trio in their kit with that said, the 56/1.4 seems like a no-brainer to go with your 22 so you pretty much get the 35/85 setup on your M200 (except the 56/1.4 is equivalent to an 89.6mm). if you feel/think that you still need an in-between your 22/56 combo, then spring for the 32mm

I dont like lens decisions based on math

Obv trying a bunch of lenses might not be practical/possible for everyone, but I got to use pretty much every prime FL from 14mm to 135mm. My experience taught my my preferences are for primes in the 35-45mm range. I learned I really hate changing lenses, and with FF that 35-45mm range is the only place I need speed (any wider and I'm generally not shooting in low light; any longer and FF zooms have enough subject isolation for me)

So I would discount any "one size fits all" equations.... for me a 35/50 is a better pairing than 35/85 because I really have no use for 85. Could be 50/85 for someone else. I know lenses are expensive but the only way to really know what works is to use it.

Yeah, debating focal lengths is pretty much a pointless exercise, as everybody has different needs.  The important thing is simply that they match up! 

R2