Review: Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM

[Canon Rumors Guy]

The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM, a superzoom for Canon APS-C mirrorless cameras. The EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM was <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/buyers-guide/canon-ef-m-18-150mm-f3-5-6-3-is-stm/">announced on September 15, 2016</a>.</p>
<p><strong>From TDP:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Superzoom lenses typically represent a compromise between the convenience of a single lens with a diverse array of uses and the image quality tradeoffs necessary to make the lens compact and affordable. With its small size, light weight and broad focal length range, the EF-M 18-150mm is heavy on convenience with surprisingly good image quality, making it light on compromise, and… it’s also relatively light on the wallet. <a href="https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-M-18-150mm-f-3.5-6.3-IS-STM-Lens.aspx">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>It looks like this lens continues with the good value performance of previous EF-M lenses.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://bhpho.to/2HYnHnT">Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[AlanF]

Well done Neuro - a fine review! I really must get one.

 

[Woody]

I just bought this lens today. What a coincidence!

I am very impressed with the lens.

 

[rrcphoto]

This lens rocks it out of the park if you combine it with DLO.

I showed the images from it to a Fuji friend of mine, and he didn't think you really needed another travel lens after this one.

 

[Talys]

Great review. If I had an M5, this is definitely the travel lens I'd purchase for the "go small and light" kit. It looks like a great lens.

It's also a perfect example of why I think APSC is just plain better than full frame for people who want to go small. It would be impossible to build this kind of focal range with an acceptable weight, size and image quality in full frame.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks, all!

I showed the images from it to a Fuji friend of mine, and he didn't think you really needed another travel lens after this one.

I would disagree with that, mainly because I often want wider a 29mm-FFeq FoV.

It would be impossible to build this kind of focal range with an acceptable weight, size and image quality in full frame.

But what if you had a really right, perfectly designed lens mount? :-X

 

[AlanF]

Yes, the EF-M 11-22mm is a must.

 

[ejenner]

I was going through some landscape shots the other day and was a little disappointing with seeing some CA and extreme corner slight softness.

Then I had to remember I was using a $500 superzoom that is super small and light. I've gotten used to comparing it to my $1k - $2k lenses on my 5DIII.

The 11-22 is very impressive stopped down.

It does seem that there was some copy variation in the 18-150 though.

 

[takesome1]

It is a fine review.

In regard to this section: Alternatives to the Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens

I think a critical comparison is missing, one I considered when buying the m.

You can go with the combination 15-45 and 55-200 vs the all in one 18-150.

The combination of the two gives you a more compact camera when you do not need the zoom. I think this is an important consideration for this camera. I think others would be debating this as well.

Plus it gives you the additional 50mm reach. I went with the combination.

Just constructive criticism, it is just a comparison I made when purchasing and I think others would look at that combination as an alternative.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It is a fine review.

In regard to this section: Alternatives to the Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens

I think a critical comparison is missing, one I considered when buying the m.

You can go with the combination 15-45 and 55-200 vs the all in one 18-150.

The combination of the two gives you a more compact camera when you do not need the zoom. I think this is an important consideration for this camera. I think others would be debating this as well.

Plus it gives you the additional 50mm reach. I went with the combination.

Just constructive criticism, it is just a comparison I made when purchasing and I think others would look at that combination as an alternative.

Thanks for the feedback!

Typically, Bryan only compares 'comparable' lenses, and I think that approach makes sense. For a 70-200mm zoom, would the combination of 85/135/200mm primes be a reasonable comparison? While they are a viable alternative, I think it makes sense to exclude combinatorial possibilities, for the sake of simplicity if nothing else. For example, in addition to the M15-45 + M55-200 combo, there's also the M18-55 + M55-200 combo, as well as the adapted EF-S 18-55 and 55-250 combos (for which there are several versions of each lens, further expanding the complexity).

I do think there are people who will want to consider the standard zoom (M15-45 / M18-55) plus telezoom (M55-200) combo vs. the M18-150, and in that case I'd recommend reading the reviews for all the lenses to inform the decision. Granted, that's not possible yet...the M55-200 review is up on TDP, and I'm currently working on both the M18-55 and M22/2 reviews, with the M15-45 to come after those (and that's the last one, until Canon releases more EF-M lenses).

 

[takesome1]

It is a fine review.

In regard to this section: Alternatives to the Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens

I think a critical comparison is missing, one I considered when buying the m.

You can go with the combination 15-45 and 55-200 vs the all in one 18-150.

The combination of the two gives you a more compact camera when you do not need the zoom. I think this is an important consideration for this camera. I think others would be debating this as well.

Plus it gives you the additional 50mm reach. I went with the combination.

Just constructive criticism, it is just a comparison I made when purchasing and I think others would look at that combination as an alternative.

Thanks for the feedback!

Typically, Bryan only compares 'comparable' lenses, and I think that approach makes sense. For a 70-200mm zoom, would the combination of 85/135/200mm primes be a reasonable comparison? While they are a viable alternative, I think it makes sense to exclude combinatorial possibilities, for the sake of simplicity if nothing else. For example, in addition to the M15-45 + M55-200 combo, there's also the M18-55 + M55-200 combo, as well as the adapted EF-S 18-55 and 55-250 combos (for which there are several versions of each lens, further expanding the complexity).

I do think there are people who will want to consider the standard zoom (M15-45 / M18-55) plus telezoom (M55-200) combo vs. the M18-150, and in that case I'd recommend reading the reviews for all the lenses to inform the decision. Granted, that's not possible yet...the M55-200 review is up on TDP, and I'm currently working on both the M18-55 and M22/2 reviews, with the M15-45 to come after those (and that's the last one, until Canon releases more EF-M lenses).Alternatives to the Canon EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens

Of course you would typically compare focal lengths and not multiple combinations. Maybe the comparison would be the 55-200 vs the 18-150 only? Really the extended length and how to get it is what I was comparing when I bought it.

FWIW I thought the 18-55 is getting phased out. At B&H I see you can only get it on the M3 combination.

 

[AlanF]

The IS of the 15-45 can be combined with the IBIS of the M50 to give greater overall IS whereas that of the 18-55 can’t and so it is now an older generation lens.

 

[Talys]

It would be impossible to build this kind of focal range with an acceptable weight, size and image quality in full frame.

But what if you had a really right, perfectly designed lens mount? :-X

The FF version of this guy ;D

 

[neuroanatomist]

FWIW I thought the 18-55 is getting phased out. At B&H I see you can only get it on the M3 combination.

The M18-55 is no longer available in body kits, but it's still readily available (including direct from Canon USA).

 

[neuroanatomist]

The IS of the 15-45 can be combined with the IBIS of the M50 to give greater overall IS whereas that of the 18-55 can’t and so it is now an older generation lens.

In that regard, the M11-22 and M55-200 are also 'older generation' lenses.

But that's a point worth mentioning in the M18-55 vs M15-45 comparison, thanks.

 

[AlanF]

The 15-45 is a decent lens. It was looked down upon because it has a plastic mount, but IQ-wise it's as good as my 11-22 where they overlap, and I scores well on Photozone's MTF tests, comparable to the 18-55.