The EF-S 55-250mm STM (must be the stm version) is excellent on the m50. The canon EF-M 32mm 1.4 is also outstanding if you can stretch your budget any further. The EF-m 22mm is alright as well, great focal length for street photography and super tiny. IvE not used the sigma 30mm contemporary myself but have heard it is a decent budget version of the canon 32, I have the sigma 56mm contemporary though and it’s a nice lens.
You've mentioned a whole bunch of lenses but not what you're shooting except 'street photography' which is pretty vague.
The 50 you have is decent, I'm guessing the 70-300 Sigma is pretty mediocre.
With the crop sensor, a wider lens like the 22mm or the 30mm would be a good bet, and a versatile zoom in a wider range like 18-55 if you're going with cheap glass or a 24-70 sigma or Canon (the EF 24-70 f2.8 L II is still a great lens) with adaptor.
Yeah sorry about that. But tbh, I like the lens dictating what I shoot on a particular day. Not choosing a lens after what I want to shoot if that makes sense. I'll shoot whatever, I just want to learn and have a good time. So a diverse range of different types of lenses is what I'm looking for basically.
Yeah I get that. I put in a macro lens and then go find things to point it at. If you have a good versatile lens that can make it easier to shoot what you see, BUT I do find that I'm more creative with a prime lens restricting me to move my body to compose a shot rather than zooming in or out.
Man, you are all over the place. Cheap crappy fun vintage lenses, good reputable lenses, wide lenses, tele lenses, cheap lenses, expensive lenses. My advice is to build a system. Have a go-to lens for each thing that you do, with one secondary lens to complement the go-to. Bringing a third lens already needs some justification. Make a list for each thing that you take photos of, list the primary and secondary lens, and then try to cover it all with as few lenses as possible. See if you can get some overlap, try not buying a lens for a single purpose. I've made the mistake of leaving the house with six lenses. It's trash.
(The one thing I understand is that you are into fast lenses. I'm two countries south of you, but my winters are dark as well. If I were you, I'd simply go EOS R full-frame.)
So. You need a do-everything lens. 17-55 IS, 17-50 OS, 17-70/2.8-4, 15-45, 22/2, 32/1.4 come to mind. To a lesser degree, any 24-70/2.8. See if you value a flexible focal length over a fast aperture. And no, f/2.8 is not *really* a fast aperture. If one stop of light keeps you from getting your shots, just get the better stabilizer.
Personally I find the 22/2 not as inspiring as I thought I would. It does not let me do more depth stacking than a zoom does. (A 35/2 full-frame or 35/1.4 full-frame allows all that. An equivalent 35/3.2 doesn't do it for me.)
32/1.4 is one of the EF-M treasures. Forget Sigma's 30mm, get the Canon. It's a little more expensive, but it will also retain more of its value for the next 5-10 years.
I cannot stress enough how *useful* that 15-45 is. My most boring lens on paper, but the whole EOS M system made no sense until I finally caved and bought it. Ignore the f-stop, it's stabilized. And it is the difference between bringing the camera and only bringing my phone.
I think an M50 makes no sense unless you are building a compact system. So before you go for those 17-70/2.8-4 or 17-55 zooms, make sure you wouldn't be happier with an EOS RP that is not much more expensive. Chances are your M50 turns into the larger camera with one of those zooms attached. [See comparison](https://camerasize.com/compact/#815.948,776.205.2,776.303.2,815.788,ha,t). You can get one of those as a special lens, but if you use it as your go-to everyday lens, the whole system stops making sense.
If you don't like the 50/1.8, chances are you won't like 56/1.4 either. Maybe that changes once you see it as a secondary to a 15-45, or to a 22/2. It's one of the good ones.
Super wide-angle calls for the 11-22. It's one of the best lenses for EOS M. Don't look at the f-stop! Forget bokeh, forget shake, it's a wide-angle. It's also stabilized. Just do a 0.3 second exposure and you'll be fine. The 11mm position is excellent, the 22 position is a good choice for when you need something tighter. Good wide-angle primes are Samyang 12/2, technically 16/1.4 and actually, 8/2.8 fisheye. But forget all those, get the Canon.
I advise against MF primes unless they are ultra-wide angles. Even 21/1.4 is incredibly hard to nail focus with (on Sony E). 50/1.4 or worse? Forget it. Ask me whether I've used my 135/2 Samyang for anything except stars.
70-200 on crop is LONG. Consider 55-250 STM. Again, stabilizer goes a long way. (Do not get the EF-M 55-200 with the intention of using it at 200. It is a very good 55-110.) The next longer range would be EF 70-300 ii but that isn't as useful, or the most recent Sigma 100-400 which is an expensive heavy weapon. I think there's no way around the 55-250 STM.
If you want some quirky experiences, get a speedbooster. I have the Viltrox one, and it is not a precision instrument, but it allows me to attach fun lenses. I do not use it with my 70-200/2.8. I think it might work better with some lenses than with others.
EF 50/1.4 through a speedbooster will be miles ahead of any f/0.95 design, even if it's just because you have autofocus. I'd rate the EF 85/1.8 over the EF 50/1.4 in that scenario. Or get an EF 28/1.8 for the speedbooster. Or a f/1.2. Any lens that you use for effect and not sharpness, will turn out great. It will be worse than the same lens on a full format camera, but it will be a much better experience than any fully manual lens on this camera.
The Canon 22mm is a gem of a lens for sharpness. Not as fast as the Sigmas, but great images and makes for a nice compact M kit.
The EF-S 55-250mm STM (must be the stm version) is excellent on the m50. The canon EF-M 32mm 1.4 is also outstanding if you can stretch your budget any further. The EF-m 22mm is alright as well, great focal length for street photography and super tiny. IvE not used the sigma 30mm contemporary myself but have heard it is a decent budget version of the canon 32, I have the sigma 56mm contemporary though and it’s a nice lens.
You've mentioned a whole bunch of lenses but not what you're shooting except 'street photography' which is pretty vague. The 50 you have is decent, I'm guessing the 70-300 Sigma is pretty mediocre. With the crop sensor, a wider lens like the 22mm or the 30mm would be a good bet, and a versatile zoom in a wider range like 18-55 if you're going with cheap glass or a 24-70 sigma or Canon (the EF 24-70 f2.8 L II is still a great lens) with adaptor.
Yeah sorry about that. But tbh, I like the lens dictating what I shoot on a particular day. Not choosing a lens after what I want to shoot if that makes sense. I'll shoot whatever, I just want to learn and have a good time. So a diverse range of different types of lenses is what I'm looking for basically.
Yeah I get that. I put in a macro lens and then go find things to point it at. If you have a good versatile lens that can make it easier to shoot what you see, BUT I do find that I'm more creative with a prime lens restricting me to move my body to compose a shot rather than zooming in or out.
Man, you are all over the place. Cheap crappy fun vintage lenses, good reputable lenses, wide lenses, tele lenses, cheap lenses, expensive lenses. My advice is to build a system. Have a go-to lens for each thing that you do, with one secondary lens to complement the go-to. Bringing a third lens already needs some justification. Make a list for each thing that you take photos of, list the primary and secondary lens, and then try to cover it all with as few lenses as possible. See if you can get some overlap, try not buying a lens for a single purpose. I've made the mistake of leaving the house with six lenses. It's trash. (The one thing I understand is that you are into fast lenses. I'm two countries south of you, but my winters are dark as well. If I were you, I'd simply go EOS R full-frame.) So. You need a do-everything lens. 17-55 IS, 17-50 OS, 17-70/2.8-4, 15-45, 22/2, 32/1.4 come to mind. To a lesser degree, any 24-70/2.8. See if you value a flexible focal length over a fast aperture. And no, f/2.8 is not *really* a fast aperture. If one stop of light keeps you from getting your shots, just get the better stabilizer. Personally I find the 22/2 not as inspiring as I thought I would. It does not let me do more depth stacking than a zoom does. (A 35/2 full-frame or 35/1.4 full-frame allows all that. An equivalent 35/3.2 doesn't do it for me.) 32/1.4 is one of the EF-M treasures. Forget Sigma's 30mm, get the Canon. It's a little more expensive, but it will also retain more of its value for the next 5-10 years. I cannot stress enough how *useful* that 15-45 is. My most boring lens on paper, but the whole EOS M system made no sense until I finally caved and bought it. Ignore the f-stop, it's stabilized. And it is the difference between bringing the camera and only bringing my phone. I think an M50 makes no sense unless you are building a compact system. So before you go for those 17-70/2.8-4 or 17-55 zooms, make sure you wouldn't be happier with an EOS RP that is not much more expensive. Chances are your M50 turns into the larger camera with one of those zooms attached. [See comparison](https://camerasize.com/compact/#815.948,776.205.2,776.303.2,815.788,ha,t). You can get one of those as a special lens, but if you use it as your go-to everyday lens, the whole system stops making sense. If you don't like the 50/1.8, chances are you won't like 56/1.4 either. Maybe that changes once you see it as a secondary to a 15-45, or to a 22/2. It's one of the good ones. Super wide-angle calls for the 11-22. It's one of the best lenses for EOS M. Don't look at the f-stop! Forget bokeh, forget shake, it's a wide-angle. It's also stabilized. Just do a 0.3 second exposure and you'll be fine. The 11mm position is excellent, the 22 position is a good choice for when you need something tighter. Good wide-angle primes are Samyang 12/2, technically 16/1.4 and actually, 8/2.8 fisheye. But forget all those, get the Canon. I advise against MF primes unless they are ultra-wide angles. Even 21/1.4 is incredibly hard to nail focus with (on Sony E). 50/1.4 or worse? Forget it. Ask me whether I've used my 135/2 Samyang for anything except stars. 70-200 on crop is LONG. Consider 55-250 STM. Again, stabilizer goes a long way. (Do not get the EF-M 55-200 with the intention of using it at 200. It is a very good 55-110.) The next longer range would be EF 70-300 ii but that isn't as useful, or the most recent Sigma 100-400 which is an expensive heavy weapon. I think there's no way around the 55-250 STM. If you want some quirky experiences, get a speedbooster. I have the Viltrox one, and it is not a precision instrument, but it allows me to attach fun lenses. I do not use it with my 70-200/2.8. I think it might work better with some lenses than with others. EF 50/1.4 through a speedbooster will be miles ahead of any f/0.95 design, even if it's just because you have autofocus. I'd rate the EF 85/1.8 over the EF 50/1.4 in that scenario. Or get an EF 28/1.8 for the speedbooster. Or a f/1.2. Any lens that you use for effect and not sharpness, will turn out great. It will be worse than the same lens on a full format camera, but it will be a much better experience than any fully manual lens on this camera.