Do I want the 22mm f/2 for the M?

[Jayson]

I have almost cut my photography expenses to nothing recently. The last time I spent money on gear was about 2 years ago and at that time it was to buy the M. I have all of the lenses I want for my DSLR and am considering selling a few of them since I don't do photography as much as I use to. So here is the dilemma...

I have found a 22mm f/2 for $95. I have been throwing around buying this lens since I initially purchased the M. I have the kit lens and recently picked up the 90ex flash for $49. I was thinking that purchasing the flash would solve the issue of having such a slow f/stop on the kit when I needed to use it indoors. Now I can't decide if I want the lens too or not...

I am going to be traveling to Disney sometime in the very near future and planned on just having the kit zoom for the trip. I use to use the 35mm f/2 with an adapter, but it is just as big as the kit lens when attached and I can't fit it all in the little bag. Now, I am wondering if I would be better suited with the 22mm. I haven't seen the 22mm for under $110 and told myself if it went under to pick it up. Now I am questioning that logic.

What do you guys think? I know it is only $100, but I have been using all of my will power over that past two years to stop my case of GAS. It was out of control. I don't know if this will open the flood gates again.

Jayson

[Haydn1971]

Great thing about a M+22 is that it covers a good range and slips into your coat pocket - I've just the 22mm on my M - I keep thinking the opposite to get a 18-55mm which can be had for less than £100 new, but then start down a 11-22 and 55-200 road and things just start looking expensive and the SL1 with some EF-S lenses starts looking a better call

[Kayaker72]

I don't see the 22/2 reinitiating a case of GAS. It is a nice lens, but, at least for me, very much a little used complimentary piece. I prefer the 18-55 on my M. The logic is simple, when I want top IQ or low light abilities, it will be with the 5diii. I use the M due to its size and convenience. I find the zoom more convenient. I use the 22/2 when I need the smallest size possible or when I am using the 5d with the 100-400L and want something small and wide. For example, if I am shooting birds while kayaking I might have the 22/2 on my M in a pocket in case I want a wide angle shot.

For Disney, it depends how small you want to go. Personally I'd favor the 18-55. But if you want the M in a large pocket I could see the 22/2.

[neuroanatomist]

Sometimes at theme parks, you find yourself indoors, and the 22/2 can be a lifesaver. Our daughters met 'Cinderella' in her (dimly lit) castle, and with f/2 I was able to keep the ISO under 3200. The rest of the time, I used the 18-55 M.

FWIW, I carry the M + 18-55 in a Lowepro Dashpoint 30 (the 20 is perfect for M+22). I put the 22/2 in a Lowepro Lens Case 8x6, which holds the M18-55 perfectly when the 22/2 is mounted.

[Dave Throgmartin]

I had the M with the 22mm and ended up selling it, but the excellent 22mm lens was not why! I think it could be an excellent value for you.

I'm kind of in the same boat. I did a big, for me anyway, sell off earlier in the year after identifying excess equipment and now have a much more manageable inventory of equipment. I ended up selling the EOS M with 22mm lens, 135L, and Zeiss 50 f/1.4 Planar.

Dave

[M_Six]

I love the 22mm f2. I rarely mount the 18-55 kit. The 22 is tack sharp and that allows for some heavy cropping if need be. And as John mentioned above, it fits perfectly in the Lowepro Dashpoint 20, which is easily belt mountable. It also fits easily in a small compartment in my main bag so I have an UWA option when out shooting with my long lenses.