Not really, and I'm talking about personal experience, I certainly didn't have a clue what they meant when I got my first SLR back in the 90s. I knew that if I had a 35-80 lens then I needed a 75-300 to get greater reach, but I'd have thought a 50 unnecessary as my 35-80 had that coveredFocal length and aperture are the defining properties of a lens. Without knowing anything about them, purchasing a new lens seems impossible.
Big damn difference, IMO. Slower apertures with longer focal length zooms are a lot more acceptable, like the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6 vIIyeah...the sigma and tamron 150-600 are such fails...
you missed the fact (as have I) that these are FF zooms and start at 16/17mm all the way to 60/70. i'll just wait until you show us another zoom which does that
I own all current EF-M lenses except the new 32mm. The 18-150 in particular is a super zoom lens. The 55-200 is the lens I use the least.i cannot see Canon adding f/6.3 lenses to EF portfolio all of a sudden, when they have avoided this for 30 years. For good reason: AF limitations beyond f/5.6 on most EOS DSLRs.
i could imagine f/6.3 lenses for R mount, because mirrorfree EOS R series cameras will/should be able to AF to f/11.
Whether or not f/6.3 is a "desirable open aperture" at 60 or 70mm focal length is for each potential user to decide. I don't think the difference in size, weight and price between a 16-60/3.5-6.3 and a f/3.5-5.6 are so huge to make it worthwile.
this said, i currently do own and use one Canon f/6.3 lens, EF-M 55-200 and have also been considering EF-M 18-150/3.5-6.3. Nothing else available from Canon and size/weight, focal length range, price make it "borderline acceptable" to me. Although i would really prefer f/5.6, especially on APS-C.