EF-M 55-200 4.5-6.3 IS STM Coming Shortly

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/ef-m-55-200-4-5-6-3-is-stm-coming-shortly/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/ef-m-55-200-4-5-6-3-is-stm-coming-shortly/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/09/eos-m-update-information-cr1/" target="_blank">heard about this lens way back in September of 2013</a>, and it’s finally making its way to the market.</p>
<p>We’re thinking this lens will not immediately make it to the USA, following the same path as the EF-M 11-22 f/4-5.6 IS STM.</p>
<p><strong>EF-M 55-200mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Adopted one glass molded aspherical lens and one UD lens.</li>
<li>22% shortening the overall length compared to the EF 55-250 IS STM.</li>
<li>EF-250 mm in 1980-IS 31% weight reduction compared with STM equipped with a camera shake correction of the effect of 3.5 stops.</li>
<li>Fast AF algorithm.</li>
<li>Full-time manual focus.</li>
<li>ET-54B Lens Hood.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://digicame-info.com/2014/06/ef-m55-200mm-f45-63-is-stm-1.html" target="_blank">DCI</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Loswr]

Nice. This and the 22/2 as a walkaround M kit would work for me.

 

[Lee Jay]

The linked post said it would be coming with a new body. So, new body?

 

[DRR]

I think the new body it's referring to was the M2 announcement in December...

 

[DRR]

Any word on pricing, or availability in the US?

 

[Haydn1971]

Nononono... I want a EOS-M 15-135mm

 

[ashmadux]

6.3?


that sucks...sounds like design compromise for the size.

 

[Slyham]

Now we need a new body with DPAF and the 11-22 released in the US.

 

[Lee Jay]

I think the new body it's referring to was the M2 announcement in December...

Not exactly, "...an EF-M 55-200 IS STM lens coming whenever a body is announced...", is it. Maybe it's just a little late.

Oh well. I can't see myself ever buying into the M system anyway.

 

[DRR]

I think the new body it's referring to was the M2 announcement in December...

Not exactly, "...an EF-M 55-200 IS STM lens coming whenever a body is announced...", is it. Maybe it's just a little late.

Oh well. I can't see myself ever buying into the M system anyway.

The "whenever a new body is announced" bit was written in September 2013. M2 was announced in December 2013. I was saying that I think the lens announcement is late, rather than an M3 announcement will be coming out at the same time as this lens, as it hasn't even been 6 months since the M2 shipped.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

This is the lens that I've wanted for the system. I often carry the 70-300L along with my Tamron 24-70 VC + 6D while traveling. I also bring the M for the moments when I want to go out very light, typically with the 22mm. Being able to leave the 70-300L home would be sweet; I use a tele sparingly for general travel, so as long as the image quality is pretty decent this should do the trick for me.

Somewhat surprised by the f/6.3 aperture; I've not known any Canon to have a maximum aperture smaller than f/5.6, although the practice is not unusual among 3rd parties.

 

[Random Orbits]

Much less excited about this lens than the 11-22, 22, 18-55. Will wait for the reviews on this one. Would have like to see one with a wider aperture like Fuji. Also will be interesting to see if MII/III will be able to track moving objects with this lens.

f/6.3 looks like it was done for diameter/weight reduction. 22% reduction of length isn't that impressive when it gives up 25% of the longest focal length relative to the EF-S 55-250.

 

[Random Orbits]

This is the lens that I've wanted for the system. I often carry the 70-300L along with my Tamron 24-70 VC + 6D while traveling. I also bring the M for the moments when I want to go out very light, typically with the 22mm. Being able to leave the 70-300L home would be sweet; I use a tele sparingly for general travel, so as long as the image quality is pretty decent this should do the trick for me.

Somewhat surprised by the f/6.3 aperture; I've not known any Canon to have a maximum aperture smaller than f/5.6, although the practice is not unusual among 3rd parties.

Given that this is a mirrorless system, the PDAF baselines and traditional max aperture values may not apply...

 

[Bob Howland]

Nononono... I want a EOS-M 15-135mm

+1000

And an M body similar in concept to the Sony A6000, only better.

 

[AvTvM]

F/6.3 ... and in reality probably T/7.9 ... no way. Too much of a compromise. They should have made it f/5.6 even if that would have meant only slightly smaller than the EF-S 55-250. i'll continue to use that one ... Plus adapter ... Which is nice anyway because it has a tripod foot for my mini-tripod.

 

[Loswr]

Somewhat surprised by the f/6.3 aperture; I've not known any Canon to have a maximum aperture smaller than f/5.6, although the practice is not unusual among 3rd parties.

Live View AF works down to very narrow apertures, and that's the only kind of AF that the EOS M features.

 

[dadgummit]

not interested in this lens but at least it seems thata canon does not think the M line is completely dead. If a dual pixel M body comes out I hope I do not have to purchase it grey market.

 

[Zv]

Hmmm could be a nice little cheap tele option for when I'm using my wide angles out in the field. F/6.3 might be alright as long as we get f/5.6 up to around 150mm, the IS helps too I guess. I've been using an FD 100 f/2.8 with adapter but the IQ isn't that great. Was thinking about the 55-250 STM but this one might be just the ticket.

The 18-55 is dirt cheap these days, hope this one is priced somewhere in between that and the 11-22.

 

[jebrady03]

f/5.6 --> f/6.3 is 1/3 of a stop. REALLY people? You're going to ***** and moan about 1/3 of a stop? Seriously? OBVIOUSLY, the point of the M is to shrink things down as much as possible. 1/3 of a stop throughout the focal range is a "duh" kind of compromise. As in... DUH... DO IT! (when talking about mirrorless)

If I were heading up Canon USA and I KNEW an M with a DPAF sensor was coming, I'd hold off releasing this lens. Then, when the new M with DPAF hits, I'd release it and I'd also release this lens and the 11-22.

Honestly, this lens, IMO, COMPLETES the M ecosystem (WITH a DPAF M) for the AVERAGE US consumer.

Of course, being able to add the EVF from the G1XII as well as a couple of small primes would help round things out for the rest of us.

This lens is almost EXACTLY what I was saying Canon should shoot for. A small tele zoom, even with a limited range. My suggestions were 55-150 or 75-150 and max aperture at f4 or f4.5. As long as Canon prices this similarly to their other lenses MSRP (not the street price, the MSRP) then I think they have a winner!

Nice job Canon!

Here's a quick comparison to another well known, similarly spec'd lens...

Canon EF-M 55-200 IS STM f/4.5-6.3 vs Sony E-mount 55-210 f/4.5-6.3

Weight: 260 grams vs 345 grams
Length: 87mm vs 108mm
Focal range: 55-200 (88-320 FF equivalent) vs 55-210 (82.5-315 equivalent)
Aperture: f/4.5-6.3 vs f/4.5-6.3
So, the EF-M lens is 25% shorter and 20% lighter! NICE! The focal range is a tad longer (even worth mentioning the difference?) on both the wide and tele ends of the lens and the apertures are equal - the only difference may be where the actual max aperture stops are on the focal range - I would assume they're similar but possibly not.

Also, the EOS M is 298 grams and the EOS M2 is 274 grams. This lens should balance VERY well on the M family!

The EF-S 55-250 STM is actually just a touch longer than the E mount Sony tele lens mentioned above (3 mm longer) and heavier (30 grams heavier). But, if you're talking about mounting the EF-S 55-250 to the M, you obviously need the adapter as well. You're adding an additional 28mm and 110 grams. So, here's the final comparison...

EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM vs EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM + EF to EF-M adapter
Weight: 260 grams vs 485 grams
Length: 87mm vs 139mm
Focal range: 55-200 (88-320 FF equivalent) vs 55-250 (88-400 equivalent)
Aperture: f/4.5-6.3 vs f/4-5.6
So, the EF-M lens is 37% shorter and 43% lighter! Obviously, the EF-M 55-200 is 1/3 of a stop slower at the wide and tele end and is slightly lacking in the "reach" department. The diagonal angle of view at 320mm is 7.7 degrees and the diagonal angle of view at 400mm is 6.2 degrees. So, 1.5 degrees. Significant... but also NOT significant.

Hope this helps to put things into perspective for some who were over reacting...

 

[eninja]

I think the new body it's referring to was the M2 announcement in December...

Not exactly, "...an EF-M 55-200 IS STM lens coming whenever a body is announced...", is it. Maybe it's just a little late.

Oh well. I can't see myself ever buying into the M system anyway.

If it only got a viewfinder and <$1k.