Pick up the EF-S 24mm f2.8 lens?

StrugglingforLight wrote:

I don't see it mentioned often. Which of course makes sense with the EF-M 22mm f2 and EF 24mm f2.8 IS in play. I eliminated the native EF-M 22mm because I prefer closer to the 40mm to 50mm equivalent. The EF IS version is still an option but think I'd prefer the smaller size of the EF-S on my M200.

What are some pros and cons of this lens compared to the more popular EF 24mm F2.8 IS? Well other than the obvious lack of IS.

Thank you.

On a crop sensor the ef-s lens has more contrast wide open and maybe even a tad more sharpness. The EF lens has faster AF.

Another obvious difference: the EF lens is a full frame lens covering a full frame sensor with not a whole lot of distortion. There's no RF lens providing this. This could be valuable when adding a full frame camera to the kit, especially because some RF zooms don't cover the 24mm focal length very well.

wlderdude wrote:

I'm sorry, but on an M200 sized body, I can't think of any reason to run that lens. The 22mm is faster, focuses better, ought to be at least as sharp, and is much more compact. The only thing the M200 does better than other camera bodies is be small, and it does it extremely well. The 22mm pancake is what makes that body awesome.

The little 24mm that is nearly the size of a camera body cap only works with that clunky and heavy EF-M adapter that undoes its smallness.

Perhaps it would be a good fit for an M6 ii that is being run primarily with EF and EF-S lenses. But the M200 would not fit that role well as it is really too small to wield bigger glass.

If you haven't tried the EF-M 22mm pancake or the 32mm 1.4, you really should.

The ef-s 24mm on my M100 works fine. The 22mm is smaller, but that doesn't make the 24mm big. The T-stop of the 22mm is really poor. The vignetting is crazy heavy wide open. The 24mm is also better for landscapes, as there's sharpness across the frame at f/5.6.

wlderdude wrote:

I'm sorry, but on an M200 sized body, I can't think of any reason to run that lens. The 22mm is faster, focuses better, ought to be at least as sharp, and is much more compact. The only thing the M200 does better than other camera bodies is be small, and it does it extremely well. The 22mm pancake is what makes that body awesome.

+1 . I have two copies of that lens. One of them is "glued" to my M200. The other one is always with me if I take one of my M6II's. It is either mounted or in my pocket.  It is so small and light, so no reason to not have it with me. 😀

The little 24mm that is nearly the size of a camera body cap only works with that clunky and heavy EF-M adapter that undoes its smallness.

Perhaps it would be a good fit for an M6 ii that is being run primarily with EF and EF-S lenses. But the M200 would not fit that role well as it is really too small to wield bigger glass.

If you haven't tried the EF-M 22mm pancake or the 32mm 1.4, you really should.

+2

StrugglingforLight wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

I don't see it mentioned often. Which of course makes sense with the EF-M 22mm f2 and EF 24mm f2.8 IS in play. I eliminated the native EF-M 22mm because I prefer closer to the 40mm to 50mm equivalent. The EF IS version is still an option but think I'd prefer the smaller size of the EF-S on my M200.

What are some pros and cons of this lens compared to the more popular EF 24mm F2.8 IS? Well other than the obvious lack of IS.

Thank you.

On a crop sensor the ef-s lens has more contrast wide open and maybe even a tad more sharpness. The EF lens has faster AF.

Another obvious difference: the EF lens is a full frame lens covering a full frame sensor with not a whole lot of distortion. There's no RF lens providing this. This could be valuable when adding a full frame camera to the kit, especially because some RF zooms don't cover the 24mm focal length very well.

Your post makes the decision even harder.

Sorry

It has me leaning more towards the EF now though. How good is the IS on the EF?

1/10th of a second is doable on a 24Mp crop sensor.

For the other replies like I mentioned the EF-M 22mm is already ruled out.

Sittatunga wrote:

StrugglingforLight wrote:

I don't see it mentioned often. Which of course makes sense with the EF-M 22mm f2 and EF 24mm f2.8 IS in play. I eliminated the native EF-M 22mm because I prefer closer to the 40mm to 50mm equivalent. The EF IS version is still an option but think I'd prefer the smaller size of the EF-S on my M200.

What are some pros and cons of this lens compared to the more popular EF 24mm F2.8 IS? Well other than the obvious lack of IS.

Thank you.

Have you seen the 28mm f/2.8

that one is f/3.5

IS macro? Slightly shorter and 100g lighter than the EF-S lens if you include the adapter, 45mm full-frame equivalent, very sharp with up to 1.2x life size macro. It's about the only non-L lens to come with a lens hood, and if you unscrew that it uncovers the built in lighting that lets you get in close enough to use that magnification ratio. Definitely worth a look.

StrugglingforLight wrote:

I don't see it mentioned often. Which of course makes sense with the EF-M 22mm f2 and EF 24mm f2.8 IS in play. I eliminated the native EF-M 22mm because I prefer closer to the 40mm to 50mm equivalent. The EF IS version is still an option but think I'd prefer the smaller size of the EF-S on my M200.

What are some pros and cons of this lens compared to the more popular EF 24mm F2.8 IS? Well other than the obvious lack of IS.

Thank you.

I have both the 24 IS and 24 stm

I think you will be better off with a combo of 11-22 + 32

I have both of those lenses: Samples from my gallery. They produce a decent photograph but I must say I haven't used either since these were taken. In fact I haven't used any EF or EF-s lenses in over a year. I'm getting ready to sell these and others locally. All the lenses I use are EF-M  mount, Sigma 30mm, Sigma 56 mm, EF-M 15-45, EF-M f/2 22mm, and EF-M 55-200 which I don't use much. I got tired of having to mount the lens to the adapter and then to the camera, I was always hunting for the adapter in my bag. I always felt that the EF glass and lens made the camera unbalanced and often heavy.

24mm

40mm

It's only 100 bucks at Canon Direct for a refurb. Personally I wouldn't buy any more M gear.

Like the 40mm 2.8, it doesn't have a bayonet mount for a hood. You have to rely on filter threads.

The EF lens will give you options to use on FF in future. EF-S you be limited to crop sensors.