ETA: Another thing...the IS is doing its job...it helps to make up for the slow 4-5.6 aperture when you can get away with handholding 1/15 sec...
Will be great to shoot landscape at f5.6 to f8 in the evening without tripod
Look forward to see some photos
Took it out for a field test this evening...I think I prefer this more as a walkaround lens for the M than the 18-55...before, I found many instances where 18mm wasn't wide enough and I had to either back up or cut off part of what I wanted...and I'm not even much of a wide-angle shooter.
Oh yeah...did I mention the quality is DSLR-caliber? I have only the 6D/16-35 to compare it to, and while the 6D's FF sensor resolves more detail (in the center) from long distances, the corner performance of the M/11-22 is better. However, I find the M's RAW files to not be as flexible (e.g. more blown-out highlights) as the 6D's. But that's a camera issue, not the lens. The M/11-22 seems to have a little less distortion than the 6D/16-35. 16mm on the 6D, to me, is significantly wider than 11mm on the M. Besides the 2mm difference (11 crop=18 FF) I suppose part of it is having to hold the M out in front of you as opposed to holding a DSLR to your face.
As to which combo I prefer, I think there are pros and cons to both. But I felt I had more fun with the 6D/16-35 than I did with the M and 11-22. It is wider, the 6D RAW files can be "stretched" more, and, of course, nothing beats the ergonomics/operation of a DSLR. The only tradeoff is softer corners on landscape shots. For less than half the size/weight, however, you're getting 70-90% of the quality in the M/11-22 package (depends on your subject). Not bad, I say...
I really think Canon needs to make this lens available in the US. It's a winner.