>>3844314>M mount lenses aren't expensive, Actually, yeah, I've never actually checked for sure, I was just basing this on my experience with E and X mount mirrorless lenses.
Okay, so, different niches:
1. Something for low light. For the DSLR, you can pick up a 50/1.8 II for about $70 (and I was able to get an original 50/1.8 once at a flea market for five bucks). For mirrorless, the EF-M 22/2 is probably the best bet. Lowest eBay price is $160 at the moment. The EF-M does definitely have the advantage that it's wider, though--50 is pretty tight on a crop sensor, and wider options like the EF 35mm f/2 are significantly more expensive. There’s also the Yongnuo 35/2 for EF, which is pretty cheap (only about $100 brand new), but which also kinda sucks.
2. For wide, the EF-S has the 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 for about $250 used. EF-M, the 11-22 is about $370
3. Kit lens is kit lens; not gonna bother checking the 18-55 prices since that’ll come with the camera either way he goes
4. Telephoto: EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM for around $150 used vs EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM for around the same (but a little shorter and slower). That being said, there’s also really cheap options like the wealth of old Sigma 70-300s or the old Canon 75-300s that you can get for under a hundred bucks for the DSLR.
5. Macro, EF 50/2.5 compact macro is a bit cheaper than the EF-M 28/3.5 (about $100 vs $250), but the EF-M’s macro *is* much cooler. You need to drop another $100 or so on the life-size-converter for the 50/2.5 to get 1:1 macro while the 28/3.5 has 1:1.2 built in plus its own ring light.
I guess EF-M lenses aren't super expensive in the grand scheme of things, but they're a little pricier than what you can get from EF just because there's so much used EF gear in the world. EF-M hasn't been around as long, and has never been as popular.
(And yeah, you can adapt EF to EF-M, but that ads the price of an adapter)
