Help me pick my first lens.. do I stick with EF-M or adapt EF in anticipation of moving to R series

[speg]

Friends, I find myself looking in multiple directions at once. Let your collective wisdom guide me!

I currently have an M50 with just the kit 15-45 lens.
I also have an EF 50mm 1.8.

I do want to upgrade my body soon, to something more ergonomic and with fancy eye tracking. The M50 has been a great first camera, but I find it a bit too small in the hands, and the tech enthusiast in me craves some advanced features.

I'm mostly concerned with photography, and my video needs would be limited to a few small clips here and there. With two small kids, they are probably going to be the primary subject most of the time.

My current line of thinking was to get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4; as I'd like to be able to get some indoor shots over the holidays.

But with Canon's lack of activity in the M series, I'm not sure I should start buying EF-M lenses...
What about the EF 35MM F2 IS? And then bring it with me to an eventual R series.

Maybe it doesn't matter if I eventually want to replace EF with RF lenses anyway. Hmm!

 

[SteveC]

If you really think you're going to get out of M entirely and go into R, there's no reason to buy EF lenses, unless RF just doesn't offer what you want. (Well, there's one possible reason, which I will get to below.)

If, on the other hand there are things you like about M, you could consider the M6-II which has plenty of advanced features on it, but for which you will definitely want some EF glass.

So I guess the first question you have to answer is that one. And if the answer is you definitely want to completely ditch M, the next question is WHEN. If you don't expect to be able to jump out for a couple of years, then I'm thinking you're in the position of wanting a good lens now and an RF body later, so in that case, you should probably break down and buy an exceptional EF lens, one you won't mind using on the RF. (I would not waste any time on EF-S.) For me, that was the 100-400 EF II L (maybe I didn't get the alphabet soup in the right order), but of course I had an extra incentive; I have no intention of abandoning the M series and have in fact put that lens on my M6-II. For you, the lens in question might differ due to differing interests. I'm really not that far ahead of you but I chose to bring that lens over, and then buy the 24-105 f/4 and the 15-35 as RF lenses. (And my wallet still hurts, but that's another matter!)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Since you say you are going to upgrade your body soon and want more ergonomic with eye tracking, consider a good used EOS R. It meets both of those factors, and is a bit larger as well. There are great prices on them from owners who have bought R5's. A EF24-105mm L goes with one and your EF 50mm too. Then, you can start to get RF lenses or keep on buying used EF lenses.

 

[SteveC]

Since you say you are going to upgrade your body soon and want more ergonomic with eye tracking, consider a good used EOS R. It meets both of those factors, and is a bit larger as well. There are great prices on them from owners who have bought R5's. A EF24-105mm L goes with one and your EF 50mm too. Then, you can start to get RF lenses or keep on buying used EF lenses.

Kudos, Mt. Spokane, for reminding me of something I had forgotten! (I guess it was because I rarely buy used.)

Yet another reason to buy EF lenses is, in the used marketplace, they're going to be cheap as the early/fast adopters dump them to move to RF. You might even be able to buy them and then sell them a few years down the road for a minimal loss (which you can think of as the cheapest lens rental ever) when something more appealing comes out in RF.

 

[speg]

If you really think you're going to get out of M entirely and go into R, there's no reason to buy EF lenses

Is there an issue with EF lenses on R bodies? I was under the impression they worked without issue. Most of the RF models lenses out there now are slightly too high end for me anyway. The M6ii is indeed another option I'm considering, if only it had a built viewfinder! Maybe M5ii or M7

 

[SteveC]

Is there an issue with EF lenses on R bodies? I was under the impression they worked without issue. Most of the RF models lenses out there now are slightly too high end for me anyway. The M6ii is indeed another option I'm considering, if only it had a built viewfinder! Maybe M5ii or M7

There's no issue like that. They work fine, and if you have EF lenses you can keep them and should continue to use them (unless the RF is a good enough upgrade for you to be worth the money spent all over again). They will work as well as they did before. (Only you can answer the question of whether that is good enough, given the option to upgrade.)

I did start out saying there was no reason to buy an EF lens if you're not expecting to own an EF or EF-M body but later posters caused me to partially change my mind. So now my take is:

If you're buying new (which is the situation the OP is describing) there might be good reason to buy the RFs instead. On the one hand the RF will tend to be better than the corresponding EF. On the other hand EFs are less expensive (maybe considerably less so if used), or there might not be an RF of a certain type yet. Or, in some cases (maybe including the OP), it might be desirable to be able to mount the lens on an EF-M or EF camera someday, in which case an RF is not the lens to get.

Or to put it another way, there's absolutely no reason to throw out your EF lenses, unless you want to, but there might be reasons not to buy new ones.

 

[PeteH]

Depends on your budget and your upgrade plans, but I'd be tempted to grab a used Sigma 30/1.4, enjoy using it straight away, and worry about full-frame lenses when you have a full-frame camera.

I've happily used the EF-S Sigma 30 1.4 EX with crop bodies for years (first a 500D, then a 7D2) and wouldn't be without it. It's my go-to for family/domestic use. Sharp enough wide open (at least in the centre), nice bokeh, decently fast autofocus, and with Dual Pixel you shouldn't have the AF accuracy issues that some DSLR users encounter though-the-viewfinder (anecdotally I find it OK close up but a bit prone to randomly missing at longer focus distances).

In ways a 35/f2 would be a more "sensible" choice. It depends on how much you'd miss having 1.4 (speaking for myself, that'd gnaw at me disproportionately to the practical difference) and whether you're likely to want / use the IS (personally I hardly ever use the 30/1.4 slower than 1/250 anyway).

You might also consider the 18-35/1.8 if budget permits and it's not too big.