This is definitely a good budget option of the holy trinity for someone who's just getting started. I haven't thought of these as a "holy trinity", but when I watched the video I thought "of course it is" 😊 Good video as always 😊👍🏼
The f2.8 and f4 are just way too expensive (for me). You either pay for low light performance and blurry backgrounds or pay more attention to your subject and the background. One costs money the other costs time. Right now I'll put in the time and save up the money.
@@faspete2nd ooo I like that actually, how is your experience with the R5 + 18-35mm I'm curious about the stabilization I'm shooting with he Eos M with magic lantern raw 2.8k raw and I depend on image stabilization because I don't have a gimbal
@@LouisLuzuka I really like the stabilization, but the 18-35 is for crop sensor camera and I have not tested it yet on the R5 to see if there is a bad vignetting.
Thanks for making time to whip up this informative video. This is helpful. I have a Sigma 16mm F/1.4, 7artisans 55mm F/1.4 and the Meike 25mm F/1.8 as my trio primes. Yeah, I shoot manual and fortunately for me the manual lens are cheap with a capital C. 😂
Great video. I also have an M6 Mkii, and for travel purposes, all round versatility, I have a Tamron 18-400 F3.5-5.6 Di VC HLD (model B028). It is an absolute beast of a lens, and means I don't have to carry or change multiple lenses when traveling. Cheers.
@@LouisLuzuka I do have the Sigma. I got it a few years ago when I got the M50. I sold the M50 but kept the Sigma for the M6 Mark II. I like the M6 a lot. It's not perfect, but does a good job for what I need right now. Looking forward to the Canon RF APS-C. Here is a link to a lens comparison that's real good. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T3UfbsdfUu8.html
I like you, Pete - I really do... (I don't care that my wife thinks you're a bad influence - see "Time Lapse" video comments). However, I sort of disagree with one or two of your choices. I'll start with the premise that the main reason for buying an APS-C camera is that it does some great things but doesn't need a Tibetan Sherpa to lug everything about. The camera shouldn't be a burden or it won't get out and about as much as it should. Yes, I agree with a lens trinity but remember, a 35mm has always been a must have lens, for good reason. The EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 is pretty slow, and the EF-S 50mm f/1.8 (whilst fast) is the equivalent of a 80mm full frame lens. The first needs some 1/15th TLC (or a flash) in low light - and the second gets rid of half the family at a birthday party table... A (no adapter) Canon EF-M 22mm F/2 (ie a 35mm full frame equivalent) is about the thickness of a couple of beer mats, will be happy in lower light and moves us into bokeh territory in normal light. Not expensive either. Need I say more...? PS - I like your EF-S 55-250mm idea. I have an EF-M 55-200mm which, if it slipped out of the bag and rolled under a truck's wheels, I wouldn't shed a tear as I filled in the insurance form. What do you/ everyone think of the Viltrox Speed Booster in stead of a normal EF adapter? Is it a gimmick?
Thanks for feedback. Very entertaining to read with valid points. Tell your wife I said I am sorry. I am not intending to be a bad influence. I really am a good guy with good intentions. In addition, I hope I did not come across as not liking the ef-m lenses. There is nothing wrong with them. When I owned my M50 I had the 22mm, 15-45mm, and the Viltrox speed booster. They all worked great and the speed booster lived on the M50. It's not a gimmick and it gave you an extra stop of light to help with low light performance.
Over the years I've bought a few lenses for my Canon APS-C cameras (40D, 60D, 80D). My absolute favorite on the EOS M6 Mark II is the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art. It's just as expensive as the M6 body, but it's worth every penny. Right now this is my standard lens for city, street and architecture photography. I love it :-) For wide angle I use the TOKINA ATX-i 11-16mm F2.8 and for telephoto an almost 20 year old Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM. Actually, these lenses are all much too big and heavy for the Canon M system, but the results achieved with them speak for themselves.
@@faspete2nd Indeed a great lens, even if it doesn't quite fit the price range of your video. Surprisingly, the lens works better on my EOS M6 Mark II than on my EOS 90D, even both cameras have the same sensor. Do you have an explanation for this?
This is a tough one to answer because there are so many factors at play. Budget, type of landscape, depth of field, weight of the kit you carry, native lens or not, and much more. If you have the 15-45 kit lens that's a good start. If not and you have budget for a lens then I would suggest any wide angle zoom. Maybe the EF-M 11-22 or the Sigma 18-35, but you'll need the adapter of you go with Sigma. So many options, but I would stick with wide angle zoom.
Here's a budget conscious suggestion: One camera, one lens, a fast enough memory card and a speedlight. Buy them all used if possible. It may not cover the focal range as the holy three, but you'll be able to work in any lighting condition. I still remember the silly smile I had on my face when I first tried bounce flash 📸 🙂
I hear you. I know lens options can be expensive, but I think these 4 are the best quality for the money. You can go native M-glass but you will still pay the same amount minus the adapter. There's no getting around the price of lenses. Trust me. My bank account is suffering as well. This hobby will drain funds fast. Shit gets expensive fast!
