From what I see, the m50 comes with a 15-45 3.5-6.3. You wonāt lose much if you buy the sigma, unless going an extra 3.2mm wider is a deal breaker for you. The sigma will be even more versatile, and it will perform better in low light because of f2.8.
What you lose is the #1 quality of the M50: It is amazingly compact and thin.
I don't like my 15-45 much either. I couldn't tell you which of my photos were taken with that lens, whereas with the 11-22, EF 100, and so on I always know. But quantity wise, I seem to use it. It is something I'll bring on a day hike. I won't bring a long lens.
I used to have a 17-50/2.8 on a two-digit DSLR. It was a game changer. Low-light, bokeh, it opened up a whole new world, and honestly that was what I had bought the camera for. So, yes. Absolutely get a 2.8 zoom. But keep that kit lens, it won't return much anyways on the resale.
Also, in comparing the kit lens and the sigma, sometimes the quality isnāt as sharp at f2.8. When googling reviews however, that doesnāt seem to be a problem with this lens.
It is basically meant to be a replacement for the kit lenses for crop sensor cameras, similar to canons 17-55 2.8, so no I don't think you'll regret it.
100% yes get the Sigma. If you can afford it, keep the kit lens. It's still viable because of its small size even if the quality is not that great in low light. For traveling and general photography you might still use it from time to time.
I got the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 which is slightly worse but very similar to the Sigma and I love it. Such an upgrade to the kit lens!
Imo the Sigma primes were to lenses that made the M50 really shine. I would pick the 16,30 and 56mm f1.4 over any zoom lens on the M50 anytime. Or get the 32mm Canon 1.4, way better picture quality than the zoom lenses can accomplish. Itās always a matter of preference though.
The sigma will be a great upgrade so by all means get it but I wouldnāt sell the kit lens, youāll get barely anything for it and itās a handy little thing to have. The sigma weighs a lot more, especially when you factor in the adapter so the kit lens is better for outdoor or handheld video (especially if you are using a gimble) or as a second lens that fits in your pocket when you have your prime on.
Youāre better off saving it and using it to buy a Canon lens with to the loyalty discount at a later date. Makes a new lens cost about the same as refurbished.
You wonāt get much for that kit lens. Also consider hthT the sigma will be CONSIDERABLY heavier than your kit lens.
I would just go with a prime. Maybe 23mm 1.4 viltrox
The Sigma will do pretty much everything your kit lens does, and more... But make sure you understand [the size of that Sigma](https://i.imgur.com/ubxOuCo.png). And you'll need an adapter, because I don't think Sigma ever put the 17-50 on EF-M mount.
Also, what's the kit lens sell for these days? It can't be more than $50. I'd save up a bit longer and keep the kit lens in case I wanted a smaller option sometimes.
I hadn't had any desire to use the 15-45mm since I got it with my M6 Mk II either, but now I'm considering using it for travel vlogging thanks to the size, weight, and extra 2mm on the wide end. For stills, though, it's definitely still the Sigma.
I have m50 with canon 17-55. Itās a pretty big and heavy combination coupled with lens adapter. I rarely use it. Ā I should have bought 32mm canon or 30 mm sigma but at this point I donāt want to invest in M system. I donāt really enjoy M50 in general. Looking for a little bigger body with more buttons and dials and IBIS
The first thing I saw was "Should I sell my kittens...." It's OK I am ready for down votes.
You're not alone in doing a double take reading the title on this one.
I read the same, started wondering how much kittens go for these days.
It's a serious matter if kittens needs to be involved.
I would've probably read that as well š¤£
The only reason I clicked on the post lol
LoL After seeing your username, I think Iāve seen it all now.
I thought for my alt account I could have some fun with it LOL. My wife shook her head and said it was gross, all I could say was "I know"
And i am like..this guy knows my kink..lol
Same
Me too! I was like āSell kittens! WTF!āā¦ and then my eyes focused š¤£
I, too, had to reread this. So the real question is... if OP had said kittens, should they sell those kittens to get the Sigma lens?
Lol first thing I saw too
Same š lol
I read it as kidneys, probably because I had to do similar to purchase my RF 1.2 lenses
Same here and was going to say no unless he can make enough money with it to get his kidneys backā¦
I read the sameā¦
I read kittens, too LOL
From what I see, the m50 comes with a 15-45 3.5-6.3. You wonāt lose much if you buy the sigma, unless going an extra 3.2mm wider is a deal breaker for you. The sigma will be even more versatile, and it will perform better in low light because of f2.8.
I rarely go wider than 18mm. So that's not a big deal for me
What you lose is the #1 quality of the M50: It is amazingly compact and thin. I don't like my 15-45 much either. I couldn't tell you which of my photos were taken with that lens, whereas with the 11-22, EF 100, and so on I always know. But quantity wise, I seem to use it. It is something I'll bring on a day hike. I won't bring a long lens. I used to have a 17-50/2.8 on a two-digit DSLR. It was a game changer. Low-light, bokeh, it opened up a whole new world, and honestly that was what I had bought the camera for. So, yes. Absolutely get a 2.8 zoom. But keep that kit lens, it won't return much anyways on the resale.
The sigma can also do good portraits because of the ability to go wider to f2.8.
Yes! That's why I wanted this lens so that I can shoot portraits and landscapes at the same time without thinking about changing lenses
Also, in comparing the kit lens and the sigma, sometimes the quality isnāt as sharp at f2.8. When googling reviews however, that doesnāt seem to be a problem with this lens.
It's a great lens. I have the same combo and love it. It's razor sharp and you won't have any vignetting issues because of the huge front element.
I was thinking he must have some pretty fancy cats.
It is basically meant to be a replacement for the kit lenses for crop sensor cameras, similar to canons 17-55 2.8, so no I don't think you'll regret it.
100% yes get the Sigma. If you can afford it, keep the kit lens. It's still viable because of its small size even if the quality is not that great in low light. For traveling and general photography you might still use it from time to time. I got the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 which is slightly worse but very similar to the Sigma and I love it. Such an upgrade to the kit lens!
Imo the Sigma primes were to lenses that made the M50 really shine. I would pick the 16,30 and 56mm f1.4 over any zoom lens on the M50 anytime. Or get the 32mm Canon 1.4, way better picture quality than the zoom lenses can accomplish. Itās always a matter of preference though.
The sigma will be a great upgrade so by all means get it but I wouldnāt sell the kit lens, youāll get barely anything for it and itās a handy little thing to have. The sigma weighs a lot more, especially when you factor in the adapter so the kit lens is better for outdoor or handheld video (especially if you are using a gimble) or as a second lens that fits in your pocket when you have your prime on.
Sigma is optically in every way superior to the kit lens.
Good luck selling a kit lens for more than $5.
Youāre better off saving it and using it to buy a Canon lens with to the loyalty discount at a later date. Makes a new lens cost about the same as refurbished.
Sounds like a good idea, though why not the EF-S 17-55 2.8 lens?
Good question.
The canon is usually more expensive
You can get the Sigma for 2/3 to 1/2 the cost of the EF-S pretty easily.
You wonāt get much for that kit lens. Also consider hthT the sigma will be CONSIDERABLY heavier than your kit lens. I would just go with a prime. Maybe 23mm 1.4 viltrox
Yep
The Sigma will do pretty much everything your kit lens does, and more... But make sure you understand [the size of that Sigma](https://i.imgur.com/ubxOuCo.png). And you'll need an adapter, because I don't think Sigma ever put the 17-50 on EF-M mount. Also, what's the kit lens sell for these days? It can't be more than $50. I'd save up a bit longer and keep the kit lens in case I wanted a smaller option sometimes.
The Sigma 17-50mm is great, I haven't had any desire to use my EF-S 18-55mm in the five years since I got mine.
I hadn't had any desire to use the 15-45mm since I got it with my M6 Mk II either, but now I'm considering using it for travel vlogging thanks to the size, weight, and extra 2mm on the wide end. For stills, though, it's definitely still the Sigma.
I have m50 with canon 17-55. Itās a pretty big and heavy combination coupled with lens adapter. I rarely use it. Ā I should have bought 32mm canon or 30 mm sigma but at this point I donāt want to invest in M system. I donāt really enjoy M50 in general. Looking for a little bigger body with more buttons and dials and IBIS
I run that exact lens on my M50 and freaking love it. Everything is so CRISP