56/2.0 and 80/2.8 is from light gathering point of view, not background burling effect. that is the same reason why Canon call the 22mm as 2.0 not 3.2.
My intention is to use my "good old lens" along side with the 22/2.0 and the 18-55mm for the EOS-M. Never have any thought of replace them and going back to "stone age".With the Summiron, I will have a 56/2.0 ( 35mmm equivalent). With the Elmar, I will have a 80/2.8 ( 2 stops faster than the zoom). Together, with an adapter on each lens it will only take up 3.5 inches of space. Leica have a ring that allows you to put two lenses together in back to back position. The Elmar is collapsible. That will make a very small travel outfit. I do not even need to buy the two lenses. Another reason is the Bokeh on both lenses are excellent due to the perfectly round aperture with 10 0r 12 blades.
Too bad this idea does not plan out.
That would be a nice "stone age" travel kit .
Actually, you have 56/3.2 with the Summicron on EOS-M, and 80/4.5 with the Elmar. The bokeh would still be nice, but nothing like FF. That's the price of the crop.
Not really. There is no "point of view" for it to be 56/2 and 80/2.8, it doesn't work that way. Crop is affecting everything - the light (1.6x APS-C gathers 2.5 times less light, simply because it has 2.5 times smaller sensor area), the bokeh and perspective (because of the longer distance) and overall image quality (stronger aberrations, diffraction and noise; less sharpness and contrast).
Canon calls it 22/2 because it is 22/2, but its FF equivalent is 35/3.2, not 35/2.