0

Today I purchased a Canon EOS M to replace my meanwhile almost 10 year old 400d. I was under the impression that I was just buying the kit with the EF lens adapter, so I also bought two lenses. It turns out the EF-M 22mm lens was in the box as well, so I now have the following lenses:

  • Canon EF-M 22m f/2
  • Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6
  • Canon EF 40mm f/2.8

Do these lenses make sense together? Consider that the 10-18 and 40mm lenses will be used together with the adapter, I don't know if that means anything in terms of conversion?

I'm thinking the 22 or 10-18 is probably redundant but I am a total noob.

Thanks.

Update: my reasoning behind the lens choices

I chose the 10-18mm because I wanted something with a wider angle. I mainly photograph when I travel so I want wider city shots, etc.

I chose the 40mm because I thought it would make a good day-to-day lens. I value the sharpness and light of fixed length lenses over zoom capability, also the photos just look nicer when they're not zoomed imo.

I also have a 50mm f/1.8 from before which I guess is a more tradional portrait lens. Don't use it too often though because the lens itself itself kinda sucks, though the photos are nice (at least if you don't compare them to a 50mm f/1.4).

Like I said, I didn't reckon with the 22mm in the first place.

I purposely didn't choose any tradional zoom lens because I don't really like them.

  • My advice; besides all the good Techie stuff, try it out before deciding otherwise. I also left it to one side and opted for pretty much the same as you with the adaptor and EF and EFS lenses. I could not figure out when I would use it. One day I just decided to put it on and try it out. It is what the EOS M is made for! The quality of Photos is so much better with less distortion and better sharpness and colours. Its is so well balanced too that it makes you want to keep shooting. It is a great lens. try it out – Abdul Quraishi May 19 '15 at 23:17
4

I'll leave aside the issue of the adaptor and just focus on the focal lengths. In short, this is a fine set for a lot of photography. The Canon M cameras feature an APS-C sized sensor.

That means the 10-18mm is an ultrawide-to-wide zoom; if wide angle is your thing, this is pretty essential. (On the other hand, if that's not your thing, this lens might not be interesting at all.)

The 22mm, on the other hand, gives the same field of view as a traditional 35mm lens on 35mm film — a favorite for street photography, and probably the second-most-common standard prime after the "nifty 50" — the so-called "normal" focal length, or around 30mm on your system. Perhaps most importantly, note that your zoom is limited to a max aperture of f/5.6 at the 18mm end, while this lens is f/2. That's three stops faster — 8× the light, and really a huge difference. So even though 18 and 22 seem close, the 22 fits a situation the 10-18 can't cover.

The 40mm is a little narrower than that "normal" standard, but can still basically work as such. It's a very versatile focal length, which can be used for portraits or out-and-about photography and just about everything else. However, in this particular case, this lens' main selling point is compactness, something that you're giving up with an adapter.

You're also completely lacking anything longer than that, which may fit your style but can be quite limiting. It'd be nice to have something in the range of 50mm to 85mm for portraits. And if you're wanting to bring further-away subjects closer, a longer zoom would be nice.

  • Thanks for the great comment! Really helps. I updated my original post with my reasoning behind the lens choices. You said the 22mm "fits a situation the 10-18 can't cover", which situation would that be specifically? Like when would I whip out my 22mm? – Christof May 19 '15 at 14:13
  • 2
    the EF-M 22mm is 23mm long, whereas the 10-18 is 72mm long PLUS the adapter of 28 mm = 100mm. Therefore your 10-18mm lens will be nearly as long as a 75-300mm EF-S lens. Also, the 22 is f/2, so can be used inside dark churches, bars, etc that are too dark for a lens that is f/4.5. – cmason May 19 '15 at 16:15
  • 1
    Being faster, the 22mm would be useful in low-light conditions if you want to shoot without flash (around the house, in a museum, dusk/dawn) or if you want to take shots of moving objects at high shutter speeds (kids/pets/sports etc) - wider aperture lets in more light so you can have a faster exposure (8 times faster in this case) – MikeW May 19 '15 at 19:18
  • I tried them all out yesterday and I can see the difference. The 22mm will probably be my day-to-day lens because of it's size and weight. The 10-18mm makes quite a difference in terms of the angle, I'm loving it already. Thanks for your comments! – Christof May 20 '15 at 11:33
5

Yes, that set of lenses makes sense together, and I'd recommend keeping the 22mm. You already know that the 10-18 is a good ultrawide lens, and the 40/2.8 STM can do the same only-slightly-tele duty it would have on your dSLR.

But the EF-M 22mm f/2 will offer you two things neither of those other lenses can: f/2 max. aperture, and compactness. Despite the 40/2.8 STM also being a pancake lens, once you add the adapter tube length to it, it's no longer as compact as it would be on a dSLR. And you probably got the EOS-M because of its diminutive size. With the 22 mounted on the M, you can easily slip it into a jacket pocket. More convenience means that you're more liable to have the camera with you when you want to take the shot, and the 35mm equiv. field of view makes it a great all-rounder compromise lens--fast, sharp, tiny, wide enough for landscapes, long enough for portraits, and focuses close enough for near-macro. This is the main reason that a lot of the large-sensored fixed-lens cameras (like the Fuji X100 series, or the Sony RX1) sport a 35/2 equivalent prime.

  • You're right about the portability. I think I'll keep the 22mm for that reason alone. Thanks for your reply! – Christof May 20 '15 at 11:32
  • @Chris You're welcome! I shoot m4/3 and my 20/1.7 pancake is my most-used lens for the compactness, and actually inspired me to get the 40/2.8 STM for my 5DMkII. I really wish it were f/2, but, c'est la vie. – inkista May 20 '15 at 19:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.