Dave Seeley

Wow, those are some great shots. I've been off my 100mmL since I shot some studio pics of models a couple of years ago, and noticed that the color rendition was markedly inferior to my 70-200/2.8L ...

In the search for low light options, after you have the M....  of course you'd give it a test drive if the option was there, even for curiosity alone....  but also of course, you wouldn't buy an ...

Yikes Marco....  so sorry to hear the nightmarish tale.  Hoping for a happy conclusion.

I took my EOS M(1) to a night time party, w low light, w my 50mm f/1.2L mounted, and it was impossible...  couldn't lock focus on very slowly moving chatting people.  Completely different ...

Not sure if you know this... I just found this out recently and didn't understand it...  but f2.0 full frame is NOT f2.0 on aps-c...  it is also subject to the 1.6x crop factor, so functions like ...

Or if you don't want to juggle, check the new yet to be officially announced G1X mark iii, whose specs are looking very M like indeed. Don't see the fnumbers on the 24-120mm ff equiv fixed lense ...

Yes...  fast prime threads make up lots of this forum... For me, the M5 HAS taken over my travel kit, and displaced my 5 series dslrs.  I tried w the M, but no love.  Alternately, the M5 has passed ...

Thanks!

So the answer on my ef M f 2.0 vs my ef 35 f2.0 is is that both lenses are effective f3.2 when mounted on the M5?  You have to multiply the focal length AND fnumber by the 1.6 crop.  That means in ...

so I think I get that...  is it also always 1.6x multiple, so f2.0 = f3.0?  Man... that means that all the current available "fast" glass on the M isn't comparably fast to my ff's.  Bummer. though ...

The M22 is the lens I'd recommend if you had only one lens...  it's fast, compact and excellent image quality.  It's a ff equivalent of 35mm, so a reasonable choice for fixed lens cameras.  It's ...

I think I finally get that we can't have smaller without some loss in performance... I always understood the crop in focal length translation between EF and EF-s...  but don't understand that there ...

Except again... looking like the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is is about the same bulk as the L offerings at that speed. http://j.mp/2uHRU2g

Here's a link to graphics illustrating the relative size of the M5 with the adapted L 2.8 zooms vs the 5Diii with the same L zooms, and the Sony equivalents mounted on the Sony A7R ii. http://j.mp/ ...

BUT.... interesting that the Sony equivalent lens, show on an A7R II, is as big as the M5 w the Canon 24-70Lii WITH the adapter. So sony isn't able to be any more compact than Canon for these high ...

RIGHT!... even if you took the adapter off (for a comparison of "if Canon made this lens w an M mount") it looks way too big.

amen....  but w those two beautiful lenses, the system is no longer portable...  so again, I'd punt on the M5 and add my 5diii or 5dsr.

Not sure on the 24-70.... but the Sony 70-200 2.8 is almost identical to the Canon 70-200 L 2.8 is ii in size and weight. (I was surprised when I checked the specs) On the M5, you need the adapter ...

Thanks Dave.... THAT is pretty instructive. I was inclined to agree with faster meant ~too big~.... but hey, maybe not.  Can you add the ef 24-70L ii for comparison?

I grew up manual focus ...  Had the Canon T90 with fd lenses.  My last film camera was the eos3.... which I loved... and the autofocus of the eos system was such a watershed for me, that I ...