Photo Lens question

[FortTom]

I just purchased a Canon M50 and could use a little help and advise. I'm looking for a great "walking around" lens. I've hear that prime lenses in 35mm to 50mm. Does any of the many photographers weigh in on this? Thank you for your advice in advance, If it helps, I'm a complete Newb at this. Am studying books and manuals. It's a lens that I could focus and shoot, as a newb.

Anyway, this is getting fun, but I'm still a dumbass on the subject. Damn, even working out of the of the Newb books, it's a bitch, but I think I can make it with all of the cool photog folks here. I guess I'm not running, but going at supersonic speeds down the rabbit hole.

Thanks for all of your support and help, trying to get over this major hump from a total ignoramus, to at least knowing the basics.

Thanks,

FT

[Jerry R]

FT, I know the pros on here will correct me, but ...

Think back to 35mm film cameras. The film frame was 35mm x 50mm. Held in the "normal" position, 50mm was the long edge of the film. That meant a 50mm lens was "What you see is what you get" that is, no reduction or magnification. Now, bring that out of the 14th century to modern day digital cameras. My understanding is that when using a crop frame camera (APS-C like the Canon M50), 35mm is now the "what you see is what you get", and a full frame camera it would be back to the 50mm for normal viewing/capturing. I could be way off base there, but.

For a Canon APS-C camera, Canon offers several variable lens that cover that spectrum with room on either side. I don't know if you want to spring for an "L" series lens which would work on full frame or APS-C, but in their EF-S line they have a 17-85MM and an 18-135mm. Street price for either is under $400

For convenience when just out shooting photos, a single lens is not a bad idea. A variable allows you to get multiple perspectives on a subject, or frame the subject "in the camera".

Based on your question though, if you are looking for a prime lens, and you want "what you see is what you get" I believe the 35mm is what you are looking for.

I'm sure the photographers on here will chime in, and hopefully correct any mis-statements I have provided.

Hope this helps a little.

[BoilerUp]

I'm on the Fuji X mirrorless system, which I believe is similar to the Cannon M50, in which case the 35mm equivalent lens is 22mm.

My "walking around" lense for when I care about compactness is a 22mm f2.8 pancake lense. Very small / light and considered a good balance between 35mm and 50mm equivalents. When I don't mind having a bit more weight and bulk, I carry an 18-55 f2.8 lens with image stabilization. Again, those are Fuji mirrorless lenses, but I believe Canon has competing lenses in those same ranges.

Note that I'm still learning, and am probably less than a year ahead of you on a similar journey so my decisions reflected above are the result of research like you are currently doing instead of a life of photography experience.

[alamo5000]

Everyone is on it but I will pile on to try and make things make sense my own way.

The sensor in your camera is smaller so it in effect 'sees less area'. Please do not mistake focal length for angle of view.

Just for a rudamentary experiment look at a scene with both eyes open. Then put your hands up to the side of your face like you have horse blinders on. Your peripheral vision is less is it not? This is the difference between angle of view. With the smaller sensor you get less angle (like having the horse blinders on) so you need a wider lens to cover the same scene.

To keep it simple if you look for a zoom lens in the 17-85mm or thereabout range (for your sensor) this will be a really good and really handy walk around lens. If you want longer zoom go with what Jerry mentioned about the 18 to 135.

[RiverRat]

FT,

There aren't many lenses that are native to the EF-M mount - maybe 8 or so. For your first lens, I really recommend staying within something in that product family. You CAN mount EF and EF-S series lenses on your EF-M system, but it requires an adapter and kinda defeats the purpose of having a mirrorless system in the first place (small size).

When I'm walking around with the same crop factor as yours (1.6x), I am almost never using anything shorter than 18 mm or longer than 70 mm. It's a zoom on the camera, not prime lens at that point. I'll still often carry a backpack full of specialty and prime lenses ranging from 10 to 400 mm, but the camera usually starts in the bag with a 24-70 mm zoom.

So wanting to stay with native EF-M lenses and play in that focal length range, I think your 2 best options are:
- ZOOM: the $300 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6. Reasonable focal length for general use, decent images.
- PRIME: the $480 32 mm f/1.4 mm. From the images I've seen, this is the hands-down best of all the EF-M lenses - by far. It's a 50 mm equivalent lens - so it's what most consider the sweet spot for a general use prime.

The best other option is the 22 mm pancake, which would offer a very compact size and good image quality. If you want to take macro shots, you give up flexibility and are stuck with either a 15-45 mm zoom or a 28 mm prime. Neither of these lenses are fast enough that I would recommend them unless you are specifically buying them for macro shots - and at that point you should probably be looking at EF-mount lenses and an adapter.

[Jerry R]

FT, There aren't many lenses that are native to the EF-M mount - maybe 8 or so.

Thanks ... totally unfamiliar with the mirrorless system from Canon. Did not know it was a different mount. Good info

[FortTom]

Thanks ... totally unfamiliar with the mirrorless system from Canon. Did not know it was a different mount. Good info

I forgot to mention that I bought a Canon adapter that let's me convert from EF-M lenses and use EF-S lenses, If I want. I thought it might be good for a larger zoom lens if I get to the point that I need one, without having to buy another body.

But, as RiverRat say's, it sort of defeats the purpose of having a compact, lightweight setup.

Thanks to all,

FT