I want to buy the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS lens to go with my EOS M. Currently I use the 50 f/1.8 via adapter and the native 22mm f/2.0 and 18-55.
My inclination towards EF lenses is in the interest of obtaining maximum image quality, and because I may want to pick up a full frame second body at some point, likely a 6D.
BUT I ran across an article recommending against full lenses on APSC cameras. The argument made sense but I had never heard this before.
The rationale was that the amount of light reaching the sensor is greatly reduced on a crop body camera such that an f/2.0 lens ends up being almost an f/4.0!
Is this a valid argument with an adapter, on a mirror less such as the M? Would I be negating the advantage of a good EF lens by using it on a crop body? Or does the adapter itself help recover some of that light loss?
I'd appreciate the opinion of some of you with more expertise than I?
Thanks!
My inclination towards EF lenses is in the interest of obtaining maximum image quality, and because I may want to pick up a full frame second body at some point, likely a 6D.
BUT I ran across an article recommending against full lenses on APSC cameras. The argument made sense but I had never heard this before.
The rationale was that the amount of light reaching the sensor is greatly reduced on a crop body camera such that an f/2.0 lens ends up being almost an f/4.0!
Is this a valid argument with an adapter, on a mirror less such as the M? Would I be negating the advantage of a good EF lens by using it on a crop body? Or does the adapter itself help recover some of that light loss?
I'd appreciate the opinion of some of you with more expertise than I?
Thanks!