June 22, 2018, 09:13:38 PM

Author Topic: OpticalLimits reviews the Canon EF-M 18-55 STM IS and EF-M 55-200mm STM IS  (Read 5194 times)

dak723

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 823
I am a long time Canon DSLR user. I believe the entire Canon M system is substandard- when compared to the competition. Fuji has both a small form factor and a killer lineup of lenses. Sony has the best sensors in the business ( just ask Nikon and fuji) but terrible menus and a limited offering of very vey lenses. Canon's M5 bodies are coming of age with the M5 but they have a limited lens offering. The original offering came with an 18-55 f 3.5-5.6 which was adequate. The f22 pancake is good as is the 11-22. Why Canon discontinued the 18-55 and replaced it wit a slower 45 mm f6 in inexplicable. Sure Canon has a converter but, lets get serious, the M series have very small bodies and Eos simply do not fit the form factor of the M bodies. I would like to buy an M system but will refrain from doing so until they offer some fast  zooms and prime lenses that fit the form factor. Good heavens if Fuji can create s slew of well regarded lenses why can't Canon.

Yes, petty much every post you make trashes Canon, so your bias makes your opinion essentially worthless.  You mention Fuji's killer lineup of lenses.  You must have missed the post in another thread by someone who has actually used the lenses who says they are pretty awful optically and way over-priced.  You have reviewed the M system lenses based on what exactly as you do not own a camera in the system.  Having owned Ef-S lenses and EF-M lenses, I would say the M lenses in general are superior in the same price range.  I would categorize the 18-55 as very good, the 18-150 as very good and the 11-22mm as excellent (far better optically that the EF "L" wide angle lenses).  Since you are looking for primes, it is understandable that the system is not for you at present (or perhaps ever) but availability of lenses is a different issue.

canon rumors FORUM


bholliman

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1472
    • [color=blue]Flick[/color][color=red]r[/color]
I owned all 5 of the EF-M zoom lenses for several months last year and decided to just keep the 18-150. 

I loved the 11-22, but sold it in favor of a Rokinon 12mm f/2 since about the only UWA shooting I was doing with my M5 was astro.  I may reacquire an 11-22 at some point if I start doing some landscape with the M5.

My copy of the 15-45 was the poorest optically of all the zooms.  My 18-150 was as good at most focal lengths as the 18-55 and 55-200, so I decided to keep it and sell the others.  Only at the long end did my 18-150 not perform quite as well as the 55-200.

I think all of us are seeing some copy variation that effects our opinions and lens decisions.  If my 18-150  was as terrible as the copy tested by TDP, I would have unloaded it in a heartbeat.

In addition to reacquiring a 11-22, I may try another 15-45 at some point.  I liked the size and focal range, going down to 15mm is a big plus.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 06:06:09 AM by bholliman »
5DsR, EF Lenses: 35mm f/2IS, Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC, 300mm f/2.8L II IS, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-70mm f/2.8LII, 70-200mm f/2.8LII
M5, EF-M lenses: 22mm f/2, 18-150mm
https://www.flickr.com/photos/68928679@N05

dak723

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 823
Not sure why people care so much about these internet review sites.  Numerous people who have used the lenses in real life situations have given opinions that are worth far more, in my opinion.  One person reviewing one lens is pretty much meaningless.  There are always variations in lenses (and cameras, too) and nobody really knows if that one (or perhaps more) person knows what they are doing.  But, hey, it's the internet,so they must all be experts and the results must be truth, right?

Woody

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1058
I loved the 11-22, but sold it in favor of a Rokinon 12mm f/2 since about the only UWA shooting I was doing with my M5 was astro.

Rokinon 12mm (equiv. 19.2 mm) f/2 is a good suggestion. I'm deciding between that and the upcoming Laowa 9mm (equiv. 14.4 mm) f/2.8. Both are suitable for astrophotography.

bf

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 211
My copies to my eye: 18-55 and 55-200 are similar but I use the latter far more due to its reach. 11-22 is the sharpest in the platform.
EOS M+6

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3562
My copies to my eye: 18-55 and 55-200 are similar but I use the latter far more due to its reach. 11-22 is the sharpest in the platform.

The sharpest in my platform is the 22mm f/2 at f/4, and that would be the consensus also of review sites.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22706
My copies to my eye: 18-55 and 55-200 are similar but I use the latter far more due to its reach. 11-22 is the sharpest in the platform.

The sharpest in my platform is the 22mm f/2 at f/4, and that would be the consensus also of review sites.

IMO, the M28/3.5 Macro is slightly sharper than the M22/2. But I don't know that any testing sites have reported data on the M28/3.5.
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM


gcl

  • Canonflex
  • *
  • Posts: 2
I agree with all those who have said we are seeing sample-to-sample lens variation.  For example, my copy of the EF-M 55-200mm lens may be the sharpest of the M lenses I have (those also include the 11-22mm, the 22mm, and the 18-55mm).  I have tested it against my EF 70-200mm f4 IS on a 6DII and it takes pixel peeping to see any difference when each is stopped down a stop or two from maximum aperture.  I just got lucky with this particular lens, I guess.

canon rumors FORUM