Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM Confirmed

Jul 21, 2010
31,023
12,777
dak723 said:
slclick said:
I had a similar experience with the 18-150, folks just could not believe what I was saying. I got a bad one, it happens.

Hmmm, you got a bad 22mm and a bad 18-150mm. Perhaps it just the fact that you don't like the results of the camera. Or like many folks here, that you have convinced yourself that there is a big difference between crop and FF and have developed a mental FF bias. You wouldn't be the first.

Sounds like you are conflating two posters... Your statement about a mental FF bias could apply to Woodman411.
 
Upvote 0
slclick said:
woodman411 said:
neuroanatomist said:
woodman411 said:
slclick said:
goldenhusky said:
Finally a good prime lens for EF-M mount from Canon. While I may not buy this at all I am sure this will be a good walk around lens for a quite a few folks. Since this is a leak from Nokis.... I believe this will come out soon.

Sometimes I think that Canon may completely switch to EF-M lenses even for Full Frame MILC at the same time they releasing new EF lenses puzzles me. Obviously switching to EF-M mount will please some and piss off a lot of people but in the long run Canon can sell millions of EF-M lenses. We will have to wait and see I guess.

How does the 22 f/2 not quality as a good prime lens? Not fast enough? I know I'm not alone in this query.

Good is relative. For its low price and size, it is ok as a budget prime. But I did not like how it rendered (and I had 2 copies of it), that goes for most budget pancake primes - pictures come out looking flat and lacks good contrast. I'm coming from large higher price primes.

Interesting. I find that the 22/2 renders quite well, given the limitations of an APS-C sensor. I'm coming from full frame cameras and very large, really high price primes, like the 600mm f/4L IS II.

I guess everyone is different, if you think cheap-o pancakes "renders quite well" given your full-frame and L prime background, maybe you don't need full-frame and L primes. For me, going from crop to full-frame was a very noticeable difference, and then cheap-o primes to L primes was very noticeable too. In fact, looking back at the shots I took with my m6 + efm 22, I can't really stand the pictures, makes me shudder at how bad the iq is.


I have a feeling this is a case of copy to copy variance and you got the short end of the stick. The EF-M 22 is widely regarded as a fantastic lens. No matter the size, price or quality of materials. We all know very well that every so often you get someone chiming in that they got a dud of everyone else's favorite glass, be it L or not. Sorry you haven't had the joyful experience the rest of us had. It changes nothing for those of us who have a good one.

It could be variance, or it could be that you just don't see the value of high quality primes, which is ok - I don't believe most people can tell the difference. But I do. And there's a reason why professionals never use pancakes (at least, I've never seen a pro using one). There's a reason why the best primes are very large, heavy, and expensive.
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
dak723 said:
slclick said:
I had a similar experience with the 18-150, folks just could not believe what I was saying. I got a bad one, it happens.

Hmmm, you got a bad 22mm and a bad 18-150mm. Perhaps it just the fact that you don't like the results of the camera. Or like many folks here, that you have convinced yourself that there is a big difference between crop and FF and have developed a mental FF bias. You wouldn't be the first.

Sounds like you are conflating two posters... Your statement about a mental FF bias could apply to Woodman411.

If there wasn't a big difference between crop and full-frame, why do you think pros primarily use full-frame and medium format? If by mental FF bias, you mean that I've owned many crop cameras and now my one and only 5d4, and compared hundreds of pictures at the pixel level, and come to my own conclusion that full-frame makes a noticeable difference, then ok.
 
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
dak723 said:
slclick said:
I had a similar experience with the 18-150, folks just could not believe what I was saying. I got a bad one, it happens.

Hmmm, you got a bad 22mm and a bad 18-150mm. Perhaps it just the fact that you don't like the results of the camera. Or like many folks here, that you have convinced yourself that there is a big difference between crop and FF and have developed a mental FF bias. You wouldn't be the first.

You are confusing different posts by different forum members. I was not the bad copy 22 person. Just the 18-150. I'll take a revised version of your post if you like, have a nice day.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,023
12,777
woodman411 said:
neuroanatomist said:
dak723 said:
slclick said:
I had a similar experience with the 18-150, folks just could not believe what I was saying. I got a bad one, it happens.

Hmmm, you got a bad 22mm and a bad 18-150mm. Perhaps it just the fact that you don't like the results of the camera. Or like many folks here, that you have convinced yourself that there is a big difference between crop and FF and have developed a mental FF bias. You wouldn't be the first.

Sounds like you are conflating two posters... Your statement about a mental FF bias could apply to Woodman411.

If there wasn't a big difference between crop and full-frame, why do you think pros primarily use full-frame and medium format? If by mental FF bias, you mean that I've owned many crop cameras and now my one and only 5d4, and compared hundreds of pictures at the pixel level, and come to my own conclusion that full-frame makes a noticeable difference, then ok.

Of course there's a difference between crop and FF...but sometimes, that difference is not noticeable. Same for prime lenses. Consider that if you compare the 50/1.8 to the 100/2.8L, the former is sharper at f/8.

Regardless, unless you got two bad copies of the M22/2, 'shuddering at the bad IQ' seems simple hyperbole. In capable hands, it performs quite well. No, it doesn't deliver the wide open IQ of My 85/1.4L IS, or my TS-E 24L II. But for the price, that would be a foolish expectation.
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
woodman411 said:
neuroanatomist said:
dak723 said:
slclick said:
I had a similar experience with the 18-150, folks just could not believe what I was saying. I got a bad one, it happens.

Hmmm, you got a bad 22mm and a bad 18-150mm. Perhaps it just the fact that you don't like the results of the camera. Or like many folks here, that you have convinced yourself that there is a big difference between crop and FF and have developed a mental FF bias. You wouldn't be the first.

Sounds like you are conflating two posters... Your statement about a mental FF bias could apply to Woodman411.

If there wasn't a big difference between crop and full-frame, why do you think pros primarily use full-frame and medium format? If by mental FF bias, you mean that I've owned many crop cameras and now my one and only 5d4, and compared hundreds of pictures at the pixel level, and come to my own conclusion that full-frame makes a noticeable difference, then ok.

Of course there's a difference between crop and FF...but sometimes, that difference is not noticeable. Same for prime lenses. Consider that if you compare the 50/1.8 to the 100/2.8L, the former is sharper at f/8.

Regardless, unless you got two bad copies of the M22/2, 'shuddering at the bad IQ' seems simple hyperbole. In capable hands, it performs quite well. No, it doesn't deliver the wide open IQ of My 85/1.4L IS, or my TS-E 24L II. But for the price, that would be a foolish expectation.

I guess I'm not that capable then. I shoot mostly indoor candid portraits without flash, something that crop already struggles with, and pancakes can't deliver the 3d effect and micro-contrast of large primes. If I was shooting landscapes, I probably wouldn't be as picky.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
personally i dont see any need for faster EF-M crop lenses.
Rather than buying expensive and clunky crop f/1.4 lenses i am happy to use f/1.8 lenses on FF-sensored cameras. Gives me more imaging possibilities and better IQ at considerably lower cost and with less bulk. Especially once ultra-compact mirrorless FF camera bodies are widely available. Thinking Sony RX-1R II form factor ... with a "really right" FF lens mount up front ... :)
 
Upvote 0
I wonder why they didn't put IS in this. I owned the 22mm and due to nice IQ sometimes an IS would have helped saving some minimal blurry shots. With a longer focal range an IS would have been a nice addition. At the moment the 11-22 and 15-45 are the ones I kept, the 22 had to go... lucky I can use the EF 35/2 IS until they release a decent equivalent lens for the M system.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 30, 2013
123
14
EF-M primes are now 22-28-32 mm...will the next one be 34mm? :p

Good maths question for my 7 year-old. A 34mm would keep the sequence going, but not much hope after that.

+6 +4 +2 +0

A Fibonacci sequence might work better for a lot of forum members.

22mm 28mm 50mm 78mm 128mm .....

Round up 78mm to 85mm and 128mm to 150mm and it could end up being quite close eventually.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 26, 2013
1,140
426
slclick said:
dak723 said:
slclick said:
I had a similar experience with the 18-150, folks just could not believe what I was saying. I got a bad one, it happens.

Hmmm, you got a bad 22mm and a bad 18-150mm. Perhaps it just the fact that you don't like the results of the camera. Or like many folks here, that you have convinced yourself that there is a big difference between crop and FF and have developed a mental FF bias. You wouldn't be the first.

You are confusing different posts by different forum members. I was not the bad copy 22 person. Just the 18-150. I'll take a revised version of your post if you like, have a nice day.

I have edited my post. Sorry I confused you with another poster. Asked the Admin if they can delete my comments from the chain that follows. Don't know if they can do that.

Again, my apologies.
 
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
dak723 said:
slclick said:
dak723 said:
slclick said:
I had a similar experience with the 18-150, folks just could not believe what I was saying. I got a bad one, it happens.

Hmmm, you got a bad 22mm and a bad 18-150mm. Perhaps it just the fact that you don't like the results of the camera. Or like many folks here, that you have convinced yourself that there is a big difference between crop and FF and have developed a mental FF bias. You wouldn't be the first.

You are confusing different posts by different forum members. I was not the bad copy 22 person. Just the 18-150. I'll take a revised version of your post if you like, have a nice day.

I have edited my post. Sorry I confused you with another poster. Asked the Admin if they can delete my comments from the chain that follows. Don't know if they can do that.

Again, my apologies.

You're fine, nice of you to write that.
 
Upvote 0