Canon EF-M 11-22mm F4-5.6 IS STM sample gallery

Fortunately, this lens gives great results with all Canon M cameras, including the M6II.

There will always be a better lens in the future. For now, this lens is probably the best Superwide Lens for the M System. Hope one day Canon will make a f/2.8 constant aperture version but then it maybe too big and expensive.

I have this lens with the M6 Mk2 and I am happy with it. For the price we need to pay, this is excellent. If you need a sharper, wider aperture, go for the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 but then, you will loose its flexibility.

So far, I like my Canon M System. I have both the M100 snd the M6 Mk2. A very good, value for money platform and easy to carry around.

This lens does not take full advantage of the 32 MP sensor, but the extra pixels do help a bit. The rule of thumb for lenses with lower resolution than the sensor (I believe from Tony Northrup, but I don't remember) is that you get 1/2 of the extra resolution from the extra pixels. So going from 24 MP to 32 MP you get about 17% more resolution.

The "what seems like the distant past" reference in this case means pre-pandemic - likely only last year. But if you view the EXIF data (the info button on the upper right of the image), you'll see that many, if not most, of these images were taken with the M6 Mark II.

why a portrait with a UWA???

Samyang 12mm f/2 isn’t huge.

I'm not saying the 1D X III sensor is good, but the overall score on DXO means absolutely nothing. The actual scores that are relevant are the individual "Portrait, "Landscape and "Sports" scores. In the case of the 1D X III those are:

Portrait: 23.4
Landscape: 13.4
Sports: 2445

It's also worth nothing that the portrait one is also pointless, it's nothing you would ever notice. The other two - those count.

For comparison, here's the A9II score:

Portrait: 26.0
Landscape: 14.0
Sports: 3434

@The Fat Fish: Actually the scores you mentioned are nothing else than the overall score and no, exactly those numbers are worthless.

Why? Because they utilize only the result at base ISO, nothing else.

And why is that bad? A camera with an average dynamic range at base ISO and world class dynamic range at higher ISOs (e.g. even at ISO100 instead of ISO50) will never score good in their rating. Even today some of the lower rated sensors catch up to the "class leaders" at a certain ISO, but nobody will notice that as everybody only looks at those three scores mentioned by you.

The actual measurement (= the whole plots) are typically pretty good. This is what you have to look at to get the whole picture, none of those silly numbers. But in case of the 1DMIII even the plots seem off, as the measured ISO does not behave like any other Canon camera before, quite strange..

And what have any of the above comments got to do with the subject of the article, i.e. the Canon EF-M 11-22mm F4-5.6 IS STM??

I test cameras and lenses for serious fun and DxO numbers rarely match what I see real world.

Often times they are just plain wrong. Such as their chromatic scores for the ef85 1.8.

It is so intermittent to DxO numbers matching real world that it becomes impossible to rely on them at all.

I talked to several multi system users who say the Canon has greater DR and latitude than the A9ii. I read an A9 user who tested the Canon say the same.
Photons to Photos also says DxO’s number are off by at least a stop.
So if that is all you have, you have nothing.

Manly man should of course be using nothing less than a 1Dxiii with a 600mm F4L as a walkabout lens, and another 1Dxiii with a 70-200mm F2.8L slung casually from the shoulder for those spur of the moment shots.

I have and SL1, and SL2, an M3, and an M5 among others. Of that group, I like the M5 the most. I have a feeling the M5 II will be awesome.

The M6 Mk2 is probably the most under-rated camera. Mount a EF-M11-22mm on it and it will become the best affordable travel camera you can have. Top it up with the EF-M32mm f/1.4 it will become quite a versatile combo.

I am hoping to get one(I have an M50 with both these lenses)but a real shame there is not a built in viewfinder. Not keen on a detachable.

Many people make a big deal about cameras without a built-in EVF. In my photography experience since I started using a compact digital camera I almost never use the EVF. AND i am coming from the days of film SLR photography when shooting with a OVF was the only choice. The advantage of using the LCD screen for framing is much quicker and more versatile than the EvF.

I do not find the lack of an EVF a handicap at all. In fact, I preferred it. The form factor of M6 Mk2 is excellent.

I will buy an Canon R once the price drops to its initial offering or lower. It is a better camera than the RP or M6 Mk2. It will be a great buy with the filter drop-in adapter for my EF and EF-S lenses and the upcoming 100-500mm lens.

I wonder how the M6 mkii is selling...APSC outsells FF but I wonder about this new mount...will it survive/thrive?

cdembrey A EOS RP in crop mode with your EF-s lenses at 10MP will look pretty lame compared to a 32MP M and the 11-22......it will be hello 2007 ...just buy a $99 40D.... and save your self $800

Always weird when people discussing APSC lenses feel compelled to refer to them in ff focal lengths.

wjan, well that's your opinion and you're also zooming into snapshots which is never a fair assessment. But I've had the lens for several years and the extremely compact size of this lens should be taken into consideration. I'm done traveling with a 16-35mm f/2.8. I haven't had anything to complain about with this lens. It's sharp enough to make large prints and sell them - which is all that matters to me.

Here is a little gallery from my last trip to Europe. Please excuse the size as I pulled them from my Facebook and I'm currently away from home. But being able to take photos like this in an ultra compact and lightweight setup is good enough for me - your mileage and use may vary.

https://diossiphotography.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/HOSTING/G0000FfW_ScITYBE/I0000lP79Aetbm7M

It is a good quality lens for a lightweight travel setup, Ideally I'd use a full frame camera, but portability and convinience are a major factor. The M series thos where the lenses are all a similr diameter makes quite a bit of sense for a travel system as the lenses are all pocketable.

@Kevin - very nice travel photos. Thank you for sharing!

Just use hydroxychloroquine, apparently you've nothing to lose. ;-)

Nah, I prefer to drink hand sanitizer.

I think you're supposed to inject bleach, not drink hand sanitizer.

Bleach gives me gas.

I'm waiting for Godot. He was supposed to come yesterday, but he sent someone to say that he couldn't make it, so maybe today?

Francesco nobody can argue with you, my brother.

But, listen, here in these united states, it is generally seen as our patriotic duty to increase our GDP by increasing consumption. Macroeconomy as a subject is taught deep and wide. The kind of lenses we pick do not really matter.

It's all about being patriotic, and, retail therapy.

Performance... for low light ?

Yes, you can. Tokina 14-20mm f/2.0. It cost almost the same ($400) and is significantly bigger and heavier. But probably no other APS-C lens is close to it in therms of image quality.

@Passereau

Not only. The Samyang also appears better in the corners. 2 and 1/3 stops of additional light gathering is quite the difference, too.

The Samyang is missing several of the applications of the 11-22. It has no medium or long range. And you must be a lover of sunstars with 6 pretty undefined rays for landscape. It’s not for me.

However, the Samyang 12 is a great Lens, if you need that speed.

Samyang bested themself.

The cheapest best wide angle prime is the Samyang 18mm F2.8 for FF. It keeps the small size and weight, but gains autofocus, costs just 329$ and is outstandingly sharp and for FF

That said of course it's prime vs Zoom. You could argue that it's just as wide as the Canon and from 24mm up you have other kit lenses that cover the range, but still if you want an UWA zoom they are not comparable

I primarily shoot landscapes and use a ridgeline with a lone tree about 3 miles away from my home for testing.

I put my XT3 with 18-135 and M6II with 18-150 on a tripod and set both to 135mm. I tested both manual and autofocus with the tree at the center point of each. On my Fuji shots, I can always discern light between the branches and some individual limbs. On the Canon, it was just a blob (despite the 8MP difference in resolution - hence the original disappointment).

I started with the default Landscape scene settings on the Canon and adjusted the Sharpness and Fineness upward, and the Threshold down, until I was able to achieve a similar level of detail. I think I landed on 7, 5, and 2, respectively (I don't have the camera with me at the moment).

This is very much an exercise in personal taste, so you probably want to run your own test. And I know this is pixel peeping, but it bothered me after spending so much time and money. Hope it helps.

Thank you for the explanation.