Any reviews or impressions of the EF-M 18-150mm yet?

[JPAZ]

So the EF-M 55-250 just arrived. A little "bigger" than I had thought (just my impression because it is very small compared to a my EF 100-400) but is lightweight and seems to work fine (weather keeps me indoors right now). So now my M lineup is the 11-22, 22, 18-55 and 55-200. I also have an adapter that works sweetly with the 40mm pankake.

So I have done it. I've made my "small kit" bigger. This arguement alone could favor the 18-150. Now I'll need to get bigger bag for my mirrorless kit ??? !

 

[slclick]

Boy, I have run this equation over in my head a thousand times, mostly from the angle of using my EF lenses on a Canon ML body for the desire to enjoy new tech, a smaller set of gear and having a second body (for the first time in a couple years) which would be great for particular travel situations less conspicuous, lighter and a nice change.

I have come down to two choices, waiting for something else to come out of Canon or perhaps picking up a unique fixed lens camera such as the Fujifilm X100F or a Sigma Quattro variety.

Trouble is, there are none of either locally for me to test out. This was how I completely ruled out the M5 after getting linked with a better than Street Price from Gordon for being a regular. I went to the only shop in town and after 2 minutes holding one, I moved on.

Crazy.

 

[yakman]

Back to the topic, how does the 18-150 compare to 18-55, particular in the 22 to 55 range?
Already own 11-22, 18-55, 22. and other EF lens including 70-200 F4L IS

Thinking whether to get the 18-150 in a kit or just the M5 body.

 

[HaroldC3]

There's no incentive to get it in a kit unless you can get some special deal. Personally, I'm waiting for it to get to around $300. Hopefully an import model will get there soon as they are already at $380.

 

[sunnyVan]

I've been using 18-150 for almost three months. In my view it's better than 18-55. I carry m5 + 18-150 + 11-22 wherever I go. Extremely convenient.

You should buy it through canonpricewatch Street Price program. You can get m5+ 18-150 kit for $1300.

Back to the topic, how does the 18-150 compare to 18-55, particular in the 22 to 55 range?
Already own 11-22, 18-55, 22. and other EF lens including 70-200 F4L IS

Thinking whether to get the 18-150 in a kit or just the M5 body.

 

[rrcphoto]

I'm totally necro'ing this thread.

I have extensively used every EF-M lens there is.

this is a lens that if you don't mind lens corrections, especially CA and PF, run. don't walk. don't delay. Run. and get this lens. I gave away my 15-45, 18-55 and 55-200 after using this lens.

it's a little front heavy on the M5 and M3 but not that bad as an EF lens.

however it's a .31x macro, and is absolutely brilliant through the zoom range.

if you don't correct for CA, it'll look soft, but once you do you'll be more than happy with results.

 

[Act444]

Back to the topic, how does the 18-150 compare to 18-55, particular in the 22 to 55 range?
Already own 11-22, 18-55, 22. and other EF lens including 70-200 F4L IS

I'd say favorably, at least in the center and mid-frame. Honestly I no longer have the 18-55, and would see little need in having both the 18-55 and 18-150. The 15-45 is at least smaller and 3mm wider so that's what I use when I need a small zoom. Although I think now, the 11-22 and 18-150 will get more use generally.

For me, it can't quite replace the 55-200 - the latter is still a tad better - and brighter - at the far end when I need ONLY telephoto coverage. Remember the 18-150 hits f6.3 at around 65mm while the 55-200 does not hit that until past 150mm

 

[bholliman]

Back to the topic, how does the 18-150 compare to 18-55, particular in the 22 to 55 range?
Already own 11-22, 18-55, 22. and other EF lens including 70-200 F4L IS

I'd say favorably, at least in the center and mid-frame. Honestly I no longer have the 18-55, and would see little need in having both the 18-55 and 18-150. The 15-45 is at least smaller and 3mm wider so that's what I use when I need a small zoom. Although I think now, the 11-22 and 18-150 will get more use generally.

For me, it can't quite replace the 55-200 - the latter is still a tad better - and brighter - at the far end when I need ONLY telephoto coverage. Remember the 18-150 hits f6.3 at around 65mm while the 55-200 does not hit that until past 150mm

I have either owned or currently own all the EF-M lenses except the 28mm macro. After some extensive use, I'm going to sell my 15-45 and 55-200 and roll with the following 3-lens set-up: 22 f/2, 11-22 and 18-150. I recently added the 11-22 and have loved it for landscapes and indoor scenes. The 18-150 is surprisingly sharp for a superzoom, maybe not quite as good as the 55-200 (and a little slower as Act444 pointed out), but I can live with this compromise to have a single lens that covers such a wide range. If I need more reach, I can use my EF lenses with the adapter.

The 15-45 is the only EF-M lens that I've been somewhat disappointed with. It is very compact, but not very sharp.

 

[Zv]

Sorry, bit late to the game but that review of the M5 everyone is referring to is terrible. Guy doesn't know what he's talking about. All M cameras are well built. What kind of talk is that anyway? "Oh yeah image quality is great just like any Canon DSLR but ..." but what? Shut up. Ugggh couldn't even read further than that.

Anyway, I'm liking what I hear about the 18-150mm and this will likely be my next purchase either with or without the M6. (Just hope it doesn't fall apart in my hands suddenly you know, because the build quality is sooooo terrible right?)

 

[AvTvM]

thx for all the input on 18-150. still undecided re. my future EF-M lens park. Got 11-22 and 22 will definitely keep. Also got 18-55 which I like for compact size and decent IQ. Also have 55-200 but rarely use.

Tried it last week ... M5 with 18-150 attached will not fit Lowepro Dashpoint 30. Those pouches can be attached not only horizontally (to belt) but also *vertically* - e.g. up front on backpack strap, which is my favorite carrying solution in the mountains and on many city trips. Have already asked LowePro if they could possibly *pretty please* add a slightly larger Dashpoint 40 to their lineup. They did respond, but not with a resounding YES yet ...

 

[dak723]

thx for all the input on 18-150. still undecided re. my future EF-M lens park. Got 11-22 and 22 will definitely keep. Also got 18-55 which I like for compact size and decent IQ. Also have 55-200 but rarely use.

Tried it last week ... M5 with 18-150 attached will not fit Lowepro Dashpoint 30. Those pouches can be attached not only horizontally (to belt) but also *vertically* - e.g. up front on backpack strap, which is my favorite carrying solution in the mountains and on many city trips. Have already asked LowePro if they could possibly *pretty please* add a slightly larger Dashpoint 40 to their lineup. They did respond, but not with a resounding YES yet ...

I guess the obvious comment would be - how often do you feel you need more reach than the 18-55 gives you? Since you rarely use the 55-200, my guess would be not often enough to get the 18-150. In my case, I have been using the 18-150 and the 18-55 has been put away and not used since due to the convenience of the wide range on the 18-150. Haven't done a close comparison, but the 18-150 seems similar in IQ to the 18-55 within their same ranges.

 

[rrcphoto]

Back to the topic, how does the 18-150 compare to 18-55, particular in the 22 to 55 range?
Already own 11-22, 18-55, 22. and other EF lens including 70-200 F4L IS

I'd say favorably, at least in the center and mid-frame. Honestly I no longer have the 18-55, and would see little need in having both the 18-55 and 18-150. The 15-45 is at least smaller and 3mm wider so that's what I use when I need a small zoom. Although I think now, the 11-22 and 18-150 will get more use generally.

For me, it can't quite replace the 55-200 - the latter is still a tad better - and brighter - at the far end when I need ONLY telephoto coverage. Remember the 18-150 hits f6.3 at around 65mm while the 55-200 does not hit that until past 150mm

I have either owned or currently own all the EF-M lenses except the 28mm macro. After some extensive use, I'm going to sell my 15-45 and 55-200 and roll with the following 3-lens set-up: 22 f/2, 11-22 and 18-150. I recently added the 11-22 and have loved it for landscapes and indoor scenes. The 18-150 is surprisingly sharp for a superzoom, maybe not quite as good as the 55-200 (and a little slower as Act444 pointed out), but I can live with this compromise to have a single lens that covers such a wide range. If I need more reach, I can use my EF lenses with the adapter.

The 15-45 is the only EF-M lens that I've been somewhat disappointed with. It is very compact, but not very sharp.

the 18-150mm more than the 55-200 needs good lens corrections after that, the sharpness should be pretty comparable if not more favourable with the 18-150mm. DLO does a bang up job on the 18-150mm sans not strong enough PF.

 

[bholliman]

The Digital Picture has added the EF-M 18-150mm to their lens image quality comparison tool - and they look really bad. I recently purchased a 18-150 and now have all the EF-M lenses except for the 28mm Macro. My copy of the 18-150 is much better than the TDP copy. Mine is comparable in sharpness to the 18-55 and 55-200 and better than my 15-45.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1134&Camera=812&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1114&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The Digital Picture has added the EF-M 18-150mm to their lens image quality comparison tool - and they look really bad. I recently purchased a 18-150 and now have all the EF-M lenses except for the 28mm Macro. My copy of the 18-150 is much better than the TDP copy. Mine is comparable in sharpness to the 18-55 and 55-200 and better than my 15-45.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1134&Camera=812&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1114&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I was surprised by that, too. The copy I used in my M5 reviews was pretty excellent, all things considered.

 

[Random Orbits]

The Digital Picture has added the EF-M 18-150mm to their lens image quality comparison tool - and they look really bad. I recently purchased a 18-150 and now have all the EF-M lenses except for the 28mm Macro. My copy of the 18-150 is much better than the TDP copy. Mine is comparable in sharpness to the 18-55 and 55-200 and better than my 15-45.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1134&Camera=812&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1114&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I was surprised by that, too. The copy I used in my M5 reviews was pretty excellent, all things considered.

On TDP's announcement of the availability of IQ chart data was the following blurb.

The focal length range in this compact lens is awesome. The image sharpness is ... well, I'll let you decide.

The evaluation lens came in the Canon EOS M6 retail kit we tested. After consulting with Roger at Lensrentals.com, I'm led to believe that this copy of the 18-150 may be somewhat underperforming at the wide end, but the results from the long end appear normal. While it is hard to argue with the convenience factor of this lens, those looking for ultimate image sharpness will likely not find what they are looking for from any copy of this model.

So it looks like a subpar unit, but might still be representative at the long end? Hopefully, they'll get another sample to evaluate...

 

[Act444]

The wide end looks a bit soft - mine isn't that bad in the center - but the long end seems about right. Not its strong point.

 

[ejenner]

Just got mine today. Compared to 10-22 and sigma 18-250 (macro) @ 18mm f6.3 and f8.

M 18-150 is the best. More CA than the 10-22, but also better contrast and sharpness.

Seems good though the range @ f6.3. Similar to the Sigma @35mm, better again after 50-70mm.

I find that a lot of my lenses don't seem to follow what I see on TDP, either compared to other lenses or comparing f-stops. I trust forum comments here and POTN much more.

There are also decent sample images you can download that look good at 18mm and are much more in line with what I am seeing.

Actually like this lens more than I thought I would. Sure it's not fast, but very decent at f6.3, small and light for what it is.

 

[AlanF]

What, a lot of your lenses don't follow TDP? You are playing with fire for writing that as there are those who believe he is the one true and infallible prophet and his results on one copy of a lens apply to every single copy.

 

[AvTvM]

What, a lot of your lenses don't follow TDP? You are playing with fire for writing that as there are those who believe he is the one true and infallible prophet and his results on one copy of a lens apply to every single copy.

While I don't believe the above, I do value Brian Carnahan's website www.the-digital-picture.com and his great contribution to the community over many years very much. His reviews are generally very well done and IQ data is also valuable. Of course one needs to be aware of the limitations of "single copy testing".

For more scientific data, Roger Cicala and OLAF @ www.lensrentals.com are currently the best source I am aware of.

 

[AlanF]

I do agree that his site is one of the best and does have very useful information and reviews. But, his IQ tests are just taken so dogmatically that is problematic. it's the one-copy testing, on the one hand, and the distances used on the other that lead to misunderstandings.

I much prefer cameralabs.com for qualitative comparisons. Although he uses only one copy, which is a serious drawback, he does use charts for close ups and then long distance shots for telephotos. You really do need the long distance shots for telephotos for two main reasons. Firstly, how different lens perform at the same distance from the subject, which is what we need to know, not being at different distances for the chart to fill the screen at different focal lengths. Secondly, lenses often have different characteristics close up and far away, which cameralabs tells you.