# 11-22EF-M or 10-18EF-S on a EOS-M



## Haydn1971 (Feb 15, 2015)

I've been pondering getting a 11-22EF-M, but then it struck me that the 10-18mm EF-S is about 20% cheaper in the UK, has anyone used the latter on an adapter ? What's the performance ? I've not got a crop body DSLR so the 10-18 wouldn't be much use other than on the EOS-M - I'm thinking a native EF-M solution would be better for numerous reasons, anyone have a different opinion ?


----------



## bf (Feb 16, 2015)

I have not used EF-S 10-18 although there are reviews online like what you see below. According to them EF-m 11-22 has superior optics. 

http://eos-m.net/lenses/canon-ef-s-10-18mm-vs-ef-m-11-22mm/

I think there is no doubt for investing in ef-m 11-22 when you consider the optimized size, weight, and the excellent sharpness of this lens. This is the only piece in my kit that I didn't buy in a white box or on sale since I could not wait for it. BTW, it was offered in one of M2's kits and you may find it cheaper "white box".


----------



## bainsybike (Feb 16, 2015)

I haven't tried the 10-18, but the EF-M is definitely better than the EF-S 10-22, especially at the edges and in the corners. I'd say that for use with the M, the native lens is worth the extra ~£80 over the 10-18 for its handling properties alone, even if the 10-18 is its optical equal (which it probably isn't).


----------



## crashpc (Feb 16, 2015)

The M lens is smaller and sharper. I would get it.


----------



## Vivid Color (Feb 17, 2015)

Thanks to the original poster and those who answered as I too have been pondering this question. Now I just have to wait for a good sale on the 11-22 mm EF-M.


----------



## dcm (Feb 17, 2015)

You might visit TDP and do a lens comparison. The EF-M was sharper than either EF-S lens last time I looked even when compared on a 7D II from what I remember.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Feb 17, 2015)

Cheers all, same here, checking 11-22mm prices regular now ;-) 

GAS meets EOS-M


----------



## ecka (Feb 19, 2015)

crashpc said:


> The M lens is smaller and sharper. I would get it.



+1


----------



## axlastro (Apr 10, 2015)

I have the 11-22 but I've tested it against the 10-18 a few times. 

11-22 is sharper, but not that much. The 10-18 has CA in the corners and sides, but lens profile corrects them very well, so in most cases you won't see much difference between both lenses. If I showed you two images with corrections applied, you won't be able to distinguish them.

The 11-22 has better contrast and flare resistance - this is importatn, as I like to shoot against the sun.
The 10-18 has better lower distortion. At 10 mm it has a lot, but at 12-14 mm it's better than the 11-22
They both focus fast, are small (the SL1 + 10-18 is not so much bigger than EOS-M + 11-22)

There is one clear advantage of the 10-18 - it will work on DSLR's with real VF and you won't have to worry when canon will release a decent M body.

The 10-18 is almost as good as the Sony 10-18 F4 OSS, which costs three times the canon. If I were thinking in perspective, I'd get the 10-18, because M's future is not very bright with the flop M3 is going to be and the fact, that canon are not devoted to the M line. 

If I knew canon was going to release a 10-18 back when I bought the 11-22 I wuld have tohught about buying it twice. At the time it was the best (and still is) canon UWA for crop bodies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2015)

crashpc said:


> The M lens is smaller and sharper. I would get it.



Me, too. In fact, I did.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 10, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > The M lens is smaller and sharper. I would get it.
> ...


I imported one from Canada and it's turned my M into a whole new camera for me. I have compared it against the 16-35 f/4 IS on a 5DIII and other than slightly less flare resistance and one aperture blade fewer, it is nearly as sharp with 100% zoom required to see any difference.


----------



## sunnyVan (Apr 10, 2015)

axlastro said:


> I have the 11-22 but I've tested it against the 10-18 a few times.
> 
> 11-22 is sharper, but not that much. The 10-18 has CA in the corners and sides, but lens profile corrects them very well, so in most cases you won't see much difference between both lenses. If I showed you two images with corrections applied, you won't be able to distinguish them.
> 
> ...



As a current M3 user, I feel more confident than before that Canon is serious about the M line. M3 is a massive upgrade from original M. Not going to elaborate on every single detail. But just to highlight a couple of upgrades: battery (same as T6, which means longer battery life), control dials that are similar to dslr, optional viewfinder (which to my surprise is pretty decent quality), decent AF speed. It's totally understandable why the M didn't sell so well. This M3 should have been released as M. M3 is ready for prime time IMO. I actually think the M lenses have a brigher future than EFs lenses. But of course Canon people haven't made up their minds. Everything depends on market trend. I personally see no reason for the existence of the Rebel line. It should be eventually replaced by M line. 

11-22 combined with my M3 (with EFV) weighs about 620g. It feels comfortable carrying it. The balance feels really nice. The 10-18 won't balance right on any M body. I tend to stay away from adapter unless I must, such as when I need to use my 100L.


----------



## mangobutter (Apr 10, 2015)

Neither of those are good options, really. They're meh at best. If you want to go wide, get the Rokinon 12mm 2.0 NCS. Not sure why a lot of people dismiss this lens. This lens is one of the grandest secrets in all of photography. The smallest, lightest, fastest and widest combo you can get when coupled with the EOS M. Not to mention the absolute sharpest and cheapest too and best built. It's a win/win/win/win/win/win/win/win/win/win. 

Compared it to my 16-35 F4 IS on a 6D @ equivalent 35mm FOV, and they're identical corner to corner. If you know anything about the 16-35 F4 IS, you'll know nothing on the planet touches it at wide focal lengths. So what does that tell you about the Rokinon?

Yes you'll have to "deal" with manual focus. So? It's soo close focusing too. Like seriously close. 3-4inches maybe? maybe a tad closer? super super sharp at f2. Such a joy of a lens to use.

http://amzn.to/1OiTLzs

Not the greatest examples but what I could gather quickly from my Flickr. Love the way i can throw the background out of focus!


----------



## ashmadux (Apr 10, 2015)

Ive been using the 10-22 with adapter on my M1 for well over a year now, with good--> spectacular result. I've even bought a think tank bag that can hold that combo in full, along with the 22/f2 in spare.

Although the combo works great, the 22/f2 is the M's real (not-so) secret. Its not the super sharpest, but it can get very, very good results. Though not as wide, it has better overall image rendering than the 10-22 (and i figure, the 10-18 as well). And the f2 comes in very handy.

I popped a 8-14L on the M also, and - well, GREAT results.

So buying the 11-22 would be a luxury for me....but i still want ;D ;D ;D


----------

