11-16-2020 12:43 AM
Well, this one is baffling. Would love to get your takes on it...
After playing quite a bit with the 50/1.8 I got for my new M50 and learning more about lenses, I started exploring other prime lenses and zooms through a local rental place, which has been great.
Recently I wanted to try zooms that had 50mm around the middle to make my portrait work easier.
After playing with a few, I've run back, contrite and plaintive, to my nifty begging to be taken back; I think I shan't ever stray again, my love.
Today, I tried an EF 24-70MM F2.8L II (rental) and my brother's EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. I was expecting different results due to angle of view, but what blew me away was *color*. The 24-70, which should by all accounts (not least of which is cost) be an outstanding lens, delivered these pale, insipid shots. I swapped the 50 back on there and POW- back to the love of my photographic life. Then just for fun I put on the EF-S, and it was super pale.
I don't get it. Light would make sense, perspective certainly would, sharpness, detail, any or all of it. But color??
Are the coatings that different between the lenses? Or is something else at play?
Thanks so much as always, everyone!!
11-16-2020 07:13 AM
All lenses are different. Do you install lens profiles in your camera? I would stick to native EF-M mount lenses. The EF/EF-S mount lenses are much larger, and consume a lot of battery power to focus.
One of the best lenses for the EF-M mount in my opinion is the Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. Try it. You'll love it!
11-16-2020 09:04 AM
"The 24-70, which should by all accounts (not least of which is cost) be an outstanding lens,..."
It is an outstanding lens. No way the 50mil is better. This only leaves you with something you did or are missing. A sample photo showing what you are getting would possibly help diagnosing the problem. Include the exif data, too.
I am in total agreement with my friend above to stick with ef-m format lenses. You bought an M camera so use what is purposely designed for it.