# Recommendations for lens to supplement EF-M 22mm?



## murdif (Aug 31, 2014)

Hi! I'm a new member, new EOS-M owner, and longtime Canon fan who just pounced on that deal for the EOS-M with EF-M 22mm lens for $249. I also picked up a Canon EF to EF-M adapter, to make sure the other 150 people who purchased the EOS-M in the past 24 hours don't buy up all the cheap ones 

I'm (a struggling college grad who just entered) the film industry with no aspirations of becoming a professional DP. I'd like a couple fairly cheap lenses to shoot some decent-looking comedy sketches or the odd event without having to bug my DP friends for help. I plan to purchase a nice DSLR somewhere down the line and make the EOS-M my B-cam, but for now, I figure a $249 mirrorless camera is better than nothing/my phone camera. (And I am very excited to use this little guy for casual travel pics.)

Which lens would you recommend to supplement the kit 22mm? As mentioned, I have the adapter, so I can go EF-M or EF/EF-S - and I like how EF/EF-S will work on any DSLR I buy in the future. I haven't found too many comparisons between EF and EF-M lenses, so I'm curious as to how the EF-M 18-55mm stacks up against EF primes.

I'm primarily considering:

Nifty fifty EF 50mm f/1.8 II - can't beat the price, and 50mm on a 1.6 crop seems like a good length for medium closeups
EF 40mm f/2.8 STM - I like how it's light and has good AF, but I'm concerned about difficulty manually focusing and that 40mm may be awkward with the crop factor
EF-M 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM - the flexibility of a zoom would be nice, though I've heard primes have better image quality

Not looking to spend more than $200 right now, though hopefully I'll be able to afford a nicer lens by Christmas. 

tl;dr Which has better image quality at long focal lengths, the EF-M 18-55mm, the EF 50mm f/1.8, the EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake?


----------



## dcm (Aug 31, 2014)

For lenses I'd look for STM (quiet focus) and IS (especially if you plan to hand hold with no stabilizer). There are some EF-M and EF-S lenses that will fit the bill, but I'm not sure there's anything in your price range.

Also consider some time of external microphone and/or recorder for your sound.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2014)

40/2.8 and 18-55M have better IQ. I'd go with the zoom, the combo of prime and zoom offers great flexibility, IMO.


----------



## Vivid Color (Aug 31, 2014)

If you search on eBay, you can likely find a grey market EF-M 18-55 for $110 or less, often with a warranty from the seller. 

Search the Canonpricewatch site for past postings on the EOS-M specials and also their info on reputable eBay sellers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2014)

Vivid Color said:


> If you search on eBay, you can likely find a grey market EF-M 18-55 for $110 or less, often with a warranty from the seller.



eBay? I got my white-box 18-55M for $109 from B&H, with free shipping. Canon USA honors the warranty if you buy gray market.


----------



## Zv (Sep 1, 2014)

+1 for the 18-55M. It will be the most useful and it's cheap. I'd pass on the slow focusing nifty and opt for the 40mm instead. 

Also look into getting an FD adaptor (like $10) and search for good manual focus FD glass that will be useful for video where you're most manual focusing anyway. Those old lenses are still quality but go for as low as $100 each for a good copy.


----------



## surapon (Sep 1, 2014)

murdif said:


> Hi! I'm a new member, new EOS-M owner, and longtime Canon fan who just pounced on that deal for the EOS-M with EF-M 22mm lens for $249. I also picked up a Canon EF to EF-M adapter, to make sure the other 150 people who purchased the EOS-M in the past 24 hours don't buy up all the cheap ones
> 
> I'm (a struggling college grad who just entered) the film industry with no aspirations of becoming a professional DP. I'd like a couple fairly cheap lenses to shoot some decent-looking comedy sketches or the odd event without having to bug my DP friends for help. I plan to purchase a nice DSLR somewhere down the line and make the EOS-M my B-cam, but for now, I figure a $249 mirrorless camera is better than nothing/my phone camera. (And I am very excited to use this little guy for casual travel pics.)
> 
> ...



Dear Friend murdif
Here is my New Prime lens with my EOS-M 95% of the time
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21647.0

Just set Manual Focus at 3-4 Feet and never touch the Focus again = Super sharp at all distant.
Enjoy.
Surapon


----------



## Vivid Color (Sep 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Vivid Color said:
> 
> 
> > If you search on eBay, you can likely find a grey market EF-M 18-55 for $110 or less, often with a warranty from the seller.
> ...



Buying from B&H is much better than eBay! I had no idea this lens was available from B&H. Thank you for passing this information along.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 1, 2014)

There is only one sensible choice, the 18-55mm kit lens, white box. It is a very good lens and built for the EOS-M, and versatile. At $100-150 it is a value king.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 1, 2014)

murdif said:


> EF 40mm f/2.8 STM - I like how it's light and has good AF, but I'm concerned about difficulty manually focusing and that 40mm may be awkward with the crop factor



There is *NO CROP FACTOR!* the sensor size of your Canon M is the same size as Super35, the Hollywood standard. Full Frame, AKA VistaVision, went out of style 50+ years ago.

Here's a list of Cooke's 5i Primes. 
18mm
25mm
32mm
*40mm*
50mm
65mm
75mm
100mm
135mm


----------



## andrewflo (Sep 4, 2014)

I currently have the 22mm and pack the nifty fifty attached to the EF adapter in my bag as my 2 lenses of choice for a light load w/ my EOS M.

You can never go wrong with the 50mm f/1.8. Such a great lens to have in your kit for the duration of your Canon endeavors.

But for a self-sustaining low budget shooter with no other cameras/lenses, I'd have to agree that the EF-M 18-55mm may be the way to go. Kit zoom lens with IS for anything day time. 22mm f/2 for low light.

Get a tripod and a Rode VideoMic (Go, since you're on a budget) and you have a solid HD video camera setup.


----------



## rs (Sep 4, 2014)

EF-M 18-55 (on an EOS M) vs 40 (on a 60D):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=813&Camera=812&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=810&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I can't find a similar example of the 50/1.8 on a crop camera to compare, but it will be significantly softer wide open, possibly about the same as the other two at f5.6.

The differentiating factor should be what focal length do you need? And how much sharpness do you need vs how narrow is the DoF you are after?

If narrow DoF isn't a main priority, the 18-55M wins hands down - just as sharp at the apertures it does, IS, and it zooms. If blurring the background is the main purpose of your second lens, the 50/1.8 should be the top of your priority list. A compromise between the two is the 40 - like the zoom its still very sharp at any aperture, with an in between performance for depth of field options.


----------



## Cory (Sep 4, 2014)

Any possible distant future plans for an EF-M 50mm?


----------



## Phenix205 (Sep 4, 2014)

A 35mm equivalent lens is a good one to get you started for a very wide variety of subjects. You may want to shoot with it for a while and decide whether you want to go wider or longer. The zoom 18-55 is flexible but it is not wide enough and is a slow lens. In the event that you don't like the camera after using it for a while, then you better save your money for a DSLR and good EF lenses. I personally only use mine for 5% of the time.


----------



## murdif (Sep 6, 2014)

Thanks for the recommendations, everyone! My camera just arrived today, so once the battery is charged, I'll play around with the 22mm. I'm definitely leaning toward the 18-55mm from B&H - that's a fantastic price.

And yes, audio equipment is next on my shopping list!


----------



## andrewflo (Sep 6, 2014)

Cory said:


> Any possible distant future plans for an EF-M 50mm?



If they made a EF-M 50mm (say f/2 or so) in similar size to the 22mm pancake, that would be amazing!


----------



## e17paul (Sep 6, 2014)

dcm said:


> For lenses I'd look for STM (quiet focus) and IS (especially if you plan to hand hold with no stabilizer). There are some EF-M and EF-S lenses that will fit the bill, but I'm not sure there's anything in your price range.
> 
> Also consider some time of external microphone and/or recorder for your sound.



+1. 
I owned the 50/1.8 mk2 before upgrading to the 50/2.5. Both have buzzy bumble bee old fashioned focus motors, not a problem for stills, but not for video. That could be overcome by switching to manual focus, but I found the 50/1.8 mk2 has a gritty and slightly wobbly focus ring compared to newer designs (and also my decades old lenses). The 2.5 has a long travel focus ring, so may be worth looking at for manual focus pulling only. 

I dont own an STM lens yet, but have tried them. They are much better ideas unless sticking to silent movies.


----------



## LovePhotography (Oct 19, 2014)

For a longer affordable prime with big aperture for easy focus go with the Konica Hexanon 135mm f/2.5. Incredible lens. Hexanon lenses were the standard upon which all other Japanese lenses were compared in the 1980's. The Zeiss of Japan.


----------



## tcmatthews (Oct 20, 2014)

I suggest getting the EF-M 18-55mm. I would also choose the 40mm over the EF50 1.8 II. I really don't like the Nifty 50. It is not sharp enough for me until stopped down. I The 40mm is sharp wide open and it is in my opinion easier to manual focus. 

I also have an old FD 50f1.8 S.C. to be honest the optical performance between the EF50 1.8 II and the FD50 1.8 is about the same. The coatings on EF50 are a little better but the manual focus of the FD is better.


----------



## surapon (Oct 20, 2014)

murdif said:


> Hi! I'm a new member, new EOS-M owner, and longtime Canon fan who just pounced on that deal for the EOS-M with EF-M 22mm lens for $249. I also picked up a Canon EF to EF-M adapter, to make sure the other 150 people who purchased the EOS-M in the past 24 hours don't buy up all the cheap ones
> 
> I'm (a struggling college grad who just entered) the film industry with no aspirations of becoming a professional DP. I'd like a couple fairly cheap lenses to shoot some decent-looking comedy sketches or the odd event without having to bug my DP friends for help. I plan to purchase a nice DSLR somewhere down the line and make the EOS-M my B-cam, but for now, I figure a $249 mirrorless camera is better than nothing/my phone camera. (And I am very excited to use this little guy for casual travel pics.)
> 
> ...



Dear friend Mr. murdif
Here is my recommendation, Super cheap Prime Lens and Super Wide angle lens for you.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21647.0

Enjoy
Surapon


----------



## dcm (Oct 20, 2014)

Filmed the grandkid with both the EF-M 22 and EF-M 18-55 in the last year. The 18-55 with IS wins hands down when going handheld for movies. I'd only shoot the 22 with a fluid head on my tripod - my wife get nauseus easily. I do have a fluid head for my FF rig but that defeats the purpose of using the M for me. 

Did some quick experiments in my office panning the walls and moving from near to far objects and back with a few lenses. Nothing definitive, just a quick look to see how they did through the viewfinder. 

The EF-M 18-55 was the best. The IS on the EF-M 11-22 and EF-M 55-200 smoothed the motion. AF on the 11-22 was quick and accurate, but seems to hunt more on the 55-200 as you might expect. The AF on the 22 was good, but the motion was a bit jerky with no IS.

I also have an old FD 35-105 converted to EF mount. It works well if you can handle manual focus since it has 180 degree throw. At 35mm and f/3.5 it has lots of DOF so pre-focus is possible. No IS so a tripod would be good. My quick test was ok at 35, pretty jumpy at 105. This is probably representative of any old MF lens mounted with an adapter since they don't have IS.

Did a similar test with my EF 24-105L which I have used on my 6D. Autofocus is pretty jumpy and noisy - the internal mic picks it up in my past experience so I use an external mic. However, the IS makes all the difference, smooth movement, no jerkiness so I just turned off the AF and manual focused in these tests. It doesn't have quite the focus throw of the FD lens so it might be harder to nail focus. The new 24-105 IS STM would be something to consider for video. 

Also tried the EF 40. Autofocus was a bit quieter and smoother than the 24-105, but it seemed to hunt more in my simple test panning around the room and was a bit jumpy to watch. The lack of IS might also affect AF. I also tried my EF 35L and found it did better than the 40. AF noise was low and it didn't seem to hunt near as much. Seemed less jumpy, but that may be inertia from the extra mass ;-).

The EF 17-40L with no IS was ok at 17, but lots of hunting at 40. I wouldn't use it for video on my FF either. I may someday consider the new wide angle zooms like the 16-35 f/4L IS if I do more FF video, but the M seems to be my primary video camera for now. 

So I'd suggest a lens with IS if you plan to handhold at all. If you want to use autofocus then I'd stick with EF-M or EF STM lenses for the silence, even with an external mic. The EF-M 18-55 sure seems like the best bet in your price range at this time. The other option would be an adapter with a good manual focus lens to get some experience with manual focus and no IS on a tripod.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 40/2.8 and 18-55M have better IQ. I'd go with the zoom, the combo of prime and zoom offers great flexibility, IMO.


+1, EF-M is a good lens and an additional all-around zoom will help you


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 22, 2014)

before the sigma 50 art came out i was using the sigma 35 art alot on the eos m as a 56mm option its amazing wide open and corner to corner sharp


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 25, 2014)

I just got through reviewing the Rokinon 12mm f/2 lens in an EOS M mount. If you want a great wide angle lens with a very useful large aperture, take a look: Here's some linkage:


The written review is here: http://bit.ly/1uEJNwl
The video review is here: http://bit.ly/1otFd7L

Both have a lot of sample images and real world observations. The written review also has linkage a gallery with a lot of images, including some full size samples for download. Take a look!


Lens Image Gallery: http://dustinabbott.net/2014/10/rokinon-12mm-f2-ncs-lens-gallery/


*My Conclusion:* In summation, this lens is (at least to me) one of the most exciting options available in the EF-M mount. It is a lens well situated for producing some “WOW” pictures from this compact system (along with the other camera systems that it is produced for). It has a very nice build quality, well-functioning manual controls, and has exceptional image quality even wide open. It’s a great focal length, has great color rendition, and is a lot of fun to use. It’s greatest challenge is that Canon makes a great compact wide angle zoom that has AF, IS, and costs no more. But it’s greatest asset is a fully usable f/2 aperture that is 2+ stops faster than the Canon zoom. That made the difference for me; I added this lens to my own kit at the end of the review period. It really boils down to your own personal priorities. The good news: I don’t think you can really make a bad choice here. Just be prepared to do your own focusing if you choose the Rokinon.




Partly Sunny by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## bf (Oct 26, 2014)

Your review could be more interesting if you had an EF-m 11-22 in hand and you could have some side by side comparisons. At the wide range I'm personally happy with my EF-m 11-22 for my shooting style and what I bought EOS-m for; however, I see the same comparison trickier at the tele end (the native zoom versus and adopted wide aperture manual prime).


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 27, 2014)

the 11-22 is pretty awesome its at least equal to if not better than the 16-35 on a 5dmk3 with the exception of the crop sensor limitations vs FF and of course i'm talking about both being stopped down to f8 and not being shot wide open either. for me its a wonderfull lens and work on my IR converted EOS-M too


----------



## gshocked (Jan 16, 2015)

Hi,

Have you considered the new EF-S 24mm 2.8? This will give you 40mm full frame equivalent.
The 50mm 1.8 will be a 80mm ff equivalent and isn't as wide. Also the 24mm is an STM lens.


----------



## HaroldC3 (Jan 18, 2015)

gshocked said:


> Hi,
> 
> Have you considered the new EF-S 24mm 2.8? This will give you 40mm full frame equivalent.
> The 50mm 1.8 will be a 80mm ff equivalent and isn't as wide. Also the 24mm is an STM lens.



Why get the 24mm when the 22mm ef-m is so stellar and close to the same focal range?

When I first had the M I didn't have the 18-55mm but the second time around I got it and I'm really glad I did.


----------

