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



## Act444 (Dec 6, 2016)

I notice first impressions are trickling in for the M5, but what about the lens that was announced alongside it? I'm curious about the 18-150 and how it compares optically to the 18-55 in that range as I may consider it as an all-in-one package for my M10. 

The 55-200 is nice and compact, if slow and a bit underwhelming at its long end, but there might be situations where I'd be willing to give up that 50mm telephoto to get wide angle coverage without having to change lenses/carry multiple bodies. I'm not expecting L performance but hope someone can chime in with thoughts or impressions as to how it compares to the other EF-M lenses.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 7, 2016)

sorry no input, but interested in reviews of that lens too.


----------



## troy19 (Dec 7, 2016)

18-150 isn't out yet in my country, no store has it in stock, some give a Dec., 22th, delivery date. So I guees we have to be patient. I too hope it gives us good IQ since it's the most expensive EF-M lens to date (499,- €) with all other EF-M lenses under 400,- €.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 7, 2016)

Release date in the US seems to be Dec. 15th.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2016)

I'm considering it. The IQ of the M18-55 is decent, and the M55-200 is good as well (example). However, since I always bring the M11-22, I often find myself choosing either the M18-55 or the M55-200 (usually the latter) rather than bringing both. If the IQ of the M18-150 is equivalent to the M18-55 and M55-200, I will likely pick one up.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm considering it. The IQ of the M18-55 is decent, and the M55-200 is good as well (example). However, since I always bring the M11-22, I often find myself choosing either the M18-55 or the M55-200 (usually the latter) rather than bringing both. If the IQ of the M18-150 is equivalent to the M18-55 and M55-200, I will likely pick one up.



same here. For once. 


PS: nice shot! 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I'm considering it. The IQ of the M18-55 is decent, and the M55-200 is good as well (example). However, since I always bring the M11-22, I often find myself choosing either the M18-55 or the M55-200 (usually the latter) rather than bringing both. If the IQ of the M18-150 is equivalent to the M18-55 and M55-200, I will likely pick one up.
> ...



Thanks!


----------



## dak723 (Dec 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Also considering it, but hopefully you will get one first and give us a review! Nice shot with the 55-200!


----------



## Gongedan (Dec 11, 2016)

Was able to try the M5 with the 18-150mm mounted on Photokina. First impression regarding sharpness and overall image quality was very good, though only judged by the back of the screen as you were not able to put your own SD-card in the camera. Impression was so good that I plan to replace my 18-55 with it and skip the 55-200. With 11-22 and 18-150 I would then have a compact yet very versatile combo.


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 11, 2016)

If the MTF curves are to be believed and are well behaved in between the extreme examples provided on the Canon web site, this could very well be the best EF-M lens they have made. It would reduce the amount of equipment I usually carry around. My old M and a few of the older lenses may suit my wife's needs.


----------



## Fleetie (Dec 11, 2016)

I must admit, I do have very High Hopes for this lens.


I look forward to reading people's reviews of it.


I'd love to fit this to my M3, and if good, buy the M5, for a complete travel solution.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Dec 11, 2016)

I, too, am awaiting the release of the 18-150 to replace my 18-55 and 55-200. I'm pleased that it takes the same filters as the EF-M 11-22.


----------



## boogaloo (Dec 13, 2016)

Have just picked up the M5 (love it so far... have the original M and M3 and this is a different league) but had also just ordered the EF-M 55-200. Am curious as to how the two will compare. Are people expecting this to be a significantly better lens? It's a smidge faster I believe, but not much. Great range though, I guess.


----------



## troy19 (Dec 19, 2016)

Sample shots see this message:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31379.msg641466#msg641466


----------



## Act444 (Dec 21, 2016)

Thanks for the message and for posting those pics.

I'll withhold final judgment until I conduct my own tests, but...right off the bat, from looking at those images - two major flaws are immediately apparent to me. Off-center softness at the wide-angle setting (bit of PF as well); and _overall_ softness at 150mm f/6.3. 

However, I also notice those wide angle pics are taken between f3.5 (wide open) and f5. I'd like to see some wide shots taken at f8 to see if/how much the lens sharpens up its edges and corners. If the answer is yes, then it may be OK. Also to compare the 150mm 6.3 end to 150mm on the 55-200, which I feel may be a bit better, if still not phenomenal. 

My hope is that my local store has a copy and I can take my M and play around a bit...

UPDATE: Upon going back, I did see one shot taken at 18mm f8 (with 1/20 sec exposure) - better, but still a bit of an edge sharpness issue, not blown away. But I guess not awful either. More tests needed to be confident in conclusion though.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 6, 2017)

I went ahead and ordered the lens - finally in stock - and impressions will be forthcoming once I receive it and have a chance to test it extensively


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 6, 2017)

I've been using it extensively for about three weeks, and it really works very well overall. It has a bit of CA, and the flare resistance could be better, but stopped down a bit it is actually quite sharp.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 6, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I've been using it extensively for about three weeks, and it really works very well overall. It has a bit of CA, and the flare resistance could be better, but stopped down a bit it is actually quite sharp.



How is it at 150mm f6.3? Is it similar to the 55-200 in this range?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 6, 2017)

Act444 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I've been using it extensively for about three weeks, and it really works very well overall. It has a bit of CA, and the flare resistance could be better, but stopped down a bit it is actually quite sharp.
> ...



I'll shortly be releasing a head to head comparison.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 6, 2017)

Here's one I took at 74mm f/8 last week:



Painting the West by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Here's another at 35mm f/6.3



Awaken to Wonder by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

You can see my actual image gallery (a lot will be added from my recent trip in the next few days) here: http://bit.ly/2gYDCDx


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 7, 2017)

like the 1st pic painting the west. great light! where is it? what mountain is that? thx!


----------



## Act444 (Jan 7, 2017)

Lens actually came today (!), initial thoughts:

- Weight is very noticeable - unlike other EF-M lenses, this one has somewhat of a heft to it
- The M10/18-150 combo is RIGHT at the limit of what you can stuff into a Dashpoint 30 bag (it's TIGHT)
- For some reason I don't feel the same sense of solidness and durability when I hold this one compared to the others, especially the 11-22
- Great range - FINALLY the M system has a multi-purpose lens. That said, see next point - other, smaller lenses may still be better for certain uses
- On-board flash casts significant shadow at 18mm (no surprise there, really) - with a regular size filter attached, one must zoom to 35mm to get rid of this shadow. Flash selfies won't really work with this lens, and you must also consider this when taking low-light, wide-angle shots (think indoor portraits or group shots). *UPDATE: Even without a filter, this lens will still cast a shadow with flash on the M10 up to 30mm*
- The _stated_ aperture range is 3.5-6.3 but...it closes down on you FAST. By 35mm it's already f5. You hit f6.3 before 70mm(!), which means that the 55-200 is brighter throughout the equivalent range by an average of 2/3 stop, something to keep in mind.

*UPDATE: Here's a quick speed comparison between the two lenses
18-150 55-200
55mm: f5.6  f4.5
70mm f6.3 f5.0
100mm f6.3 f5.0
135mm f6.3 f5.6
150mm f6.3 f5.6

As you can see, the 55-200 is ALWAYS faster at the equivalent focal length. For those considering trading in their 55-200 for this one, note that you'll be giving up speed as well as the 50mm extra reach*

- IQ: can only take indoor shots at this time, so can't truly evaluate, but from what I can see sharpness seems to hold up surprisingly well throughout most of the range (it does soften a bit near the long end). Contrast needs to be boosted in post. And I agree with Dustin about the fringing/CA - it's present and noticeable
- I'll have to put this one through a couple of real-world situations before I have a final verdict, but first impressions are _generally_ positive. 

ETA: Also, the 18-150 may be easier to handle with an M3 or M5, both of which have grips - the M10 does not have a grip, and even after just a few minutes, one-handed shooting with this lens became somewhat uncomfortable - not a deal-breaker, but something I never really had to consider with the other lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2017)

Thanks! Looking forward to your further impressions...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> like the 1st pic painting the west. great light! where is it? what mountain is that? thx!



That is Picacho Peak in Arizona.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 8, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> That is Picacho Peak in Arizona.



thanks!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 8, 2017)

Here's one from my recent trip that I thought came out surprisingly artful from the lens. I've done a little post to enhance color (and some light on the main subject), but most of the look is from the lens.



Cholla Bones by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Bad news - you have to be REALLY careful with the sun on this lens. It is definitely prone to some ghosting.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 9, 2017)

dpreview has posted sample shot gallery for EF-M 18-150 
https://www.dpreview.com/samples/9488673812/canon-ef-m-18-150-f3-5-6-3-is-stm-gallery-posted


----------



## bf (Feb 5, 2017)

I currently take 11-22 and 55-200 for my hikings. I rarely use my 18-55. Looking at DPR gallery I can't see much of this new lens. I wish they had used a more photographic eye! 
It is a good walk around range. Is it as sharp as 11-22 or at least sharper than 55-200?
I look for your head to head review Dustin.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 6, 2017)

bf said:


> I currently take 11-22 and 55-200 for my hikings. I rarely use my 18-55. Looking at DPR gallery I can't see much of this new lens. I wish they had used a more photographic eye!
> It is a good walk around range. Is it as sharp as 11-22 or at least sharper than 55-200?
> I look for your head to head review Dustin.



My review is live. Read it: http://bit.ly/EFM18_150STM Watch it: http://bit.ly/18_150STM

It's actually a pretty good lens.


----------



## Fleetie (Feb 6, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> bf said:
> 
> 
> > I currently take 11-22 and 55-200 for my hikings. I rarely use my 18-55. Looking at DPR gallery I can't see much of this new lens. I wish they had used a more photographic eye!
> ...


Thanks for your review of this lens. I read it the other day.
I am looking forward to buying it.
I'll probably get it with the M5; I currently have the M3 and the 18-55.
I was complaining on a trip out at Christmas, that the 18-55 doesn't have enough reach sometimes.
The 18-150 should totally banish that woe.


Thanks again!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 6, 2017)

Fleetie said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > bf said:
> ...



You bet. If I personally go for an M5, it will be for the kit with the 18-150mm


----------



## bf (Feb 7, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> bf said:
> 
> 
> > I currently take 11-22 and 55-200 for my hikings. I rarely use my 18-55. Looking at DPR gallery I can't see much of this new lens. I wish they had used a more photographic eye!
> ...



Thanks for the good review.

How the focus speed and accuracy is compared between 55-200 and 18-150 when they are used on M5 body?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 7, 2017)

bf said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > bf said:
> ...



Focus speed is actually much better than the 55-200. Much faster, more accurate.


----------



## bf (Feb 7, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> bf said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...


Great news! Thanks.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 20, 2017)

UPDATE

Took it outside on a nice sunny day and shot with it for the first time in such conditions. 

Throughout most of the range, I found it to be sharp in the center - interestingly enough, with a very noticeable drop-off in quality toward the edges (didn't see this before in my test indoor shots). Admit to being slightly disappointed here, especially given how solid the 11-22 and 18-55 were in this respect. 

Found it to be soft at 150mm (at least at f/8 and larger). Still, the fact that I can have that level of reach in an "everyday" lens is impressive...BIG advantage over the 55-200 here in many ways, allows for greater variety of shots. 

I also noticed other optical flaws on occasion, like ghosting, lack of contrast, and fringing. 

Is it a good lens? Yes, it has great range and will have a particular use for me. Given that I'm now used to very high quality from top lenses, it didn't blow my socks off. But it's good enough - files will just need a bit more work in post. But then again, that was the case with the 55-200 as well (although with this lens, I feel even more so esp. at/near 150mm).


----------



## JPAZ (Feb 20, 2017)

Thanks for all of the above comments. I just got back from a quick trip and took the M3 (with EVF, 11-22, 18-55 and 22. I found I was looking for more reach a whole lot and have been contemplating the 18-150 and waiting for some feedback. Then, a refurb 55-200 shows up on CPW for a lot less than the 18-150. I could not resist and it is on its way. I've no doubt the 18-150 is a great idea but for me, I think I'll be happy with my M kit (until something "quicker" with reach come a long.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 20, 2017)

It's all about compromise - the 55-200 is faster and I think slightly sharper at around 150mm - so for sole telephoto coverage, that's the way to go...but there has been more than one occasion where I wished for something wider. The 18-150 does hold up well toward the wide end, which makes it a good choice as an "all-in-one" solution. But yes, it is pricey.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 20, 2017)

With my full frame kit, I've gone the route of having top quality zooms (16-35 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8 II, 70-200 f/2.8 II) to cover 16-200mm. _(The new 16-35 f/2.8 III might be a better all around lens than my f/4 IS, but for my use (landscape) the f/4 is perfect - I don't need the more expensive f/2.8 lens)_

With my EF-M kit the choices are not so clear. There is no clear "best" zoom other than the 11-22 in its focal range.

The 15-45, 18-55, 18-150 and 55-200 all have their advantages and disadvantages. 


15-45 - small size (130g), wide minimum focal length, build quality average, locks in retracted position (-)
18-55 - medium size (210g) for EF-M, better build quality
18-150 - large size (301g), excellent focal range, better build quality, quick/accurate AF (per Dustin Abbott)
55-200 - med-large size (260g), good focal range and max range, faster max aperture through most of range, better build quality

Optically, I'm not sure there is a clear winner and loser here. I've heard the 15-45 is soft compared with the other EF-M zooms, but my experience shows mine to be as sharp as the 18-55 I owned previously. Certainly not up the the standards of my much more expensive L glass, but decently sharp.

I currently have the 15-45 and 55-200 zooms and 22/2 prime, which gives me everything buy UWA coverage, and I plan to pick up a 11-22 at some point.

While the all-in-one focal range of the 18-150 is tempting, I hate to give up 15mm on the wide end and 200 on the long end with my current 2 zoom kit. I can fit my M5 and either 22/2 or 15-45 into a reasonably small Lowepro Adventura belt pack. Using a single zoom really doesn't save that much space over a 2 lens kit.

Other than buying a 11-22 at some point, I don't plan to make any other EF-M lens changes until new options are available.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 20, 2017)

similar here.
In addition to my 5D3 + L zoom kit i got EOS m 1st gen + 11-22, 18-55, 55-200 and 22/2. Perfect. Fits into a small bag. When mountaineering i take camera + 22 or 18-55 in a small Lowepro Dashpoint 30 bag on my backpack front strap. Immediate access.

15-45 is optically subpar. 18-150 is tempting, but for the time being I'll stick with my setup. My copy of 18-55 is rather decent.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 21, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> similar here.
> In addition to my 5D3 + L zoom kit i got EOS m 1st gen + 11-22, 18-55, 55-200 and 22/2. Perfect. Fits into a small bag. When mountaineering i take camera + 22 or 18-55 in a small Lowepro Dashpoint 30 bag on my backpack front strap. Immediate access.
> 
> 15-45 is optically subpar. 18-150 is tempting, but for the time being I'll stick with my setup. My copy of 18-55 is rather decent.



Once I pick-up a 11-22 (I'm waiting for them to show up in the refurb sales), I may decide to part with my 15-45. I think I can live with a "gap" between 22 and 55mm since I normally like to shoot wide and long anyway. The 15-45 is a decent lens, but I find I don't use it that much. Its strongest attribute is its size, which works against it a little due to the retracted "parked" position which forces you to go through an additional step to get the camera ready to shoot. Dustin Abbott points out these drawbacks in his review.

I'd love to see Canon come out with a small 35mm or 85mm fast prime for the system, but they seem to be targeting their EF-M lenses toward the consumer market. I need to become more familiar with manual focus with the M5 (works very well in my limited experience) before I would consider one of the 3rd party MF only lenses.


----------



## Rocky (Feb 21, 2017)

11-22 EF-M is a great lens. It is almost as sharp as the 20/2. Definitely, it is sharper than the 18-55.


----------



## bf (Feb 24, 2017)

To me, 11-22 is even sharper than 22. I usually take 11-22 and 55-200 for hiking. At dark conditions, I take 22, ef-50 stm and my Rokinon 8.5 fisheye.
This 18-150 range is tempting however my next investment will be in m5 or m6 body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 24, 2017)

bholliman said:


> Once I pick-up a 11-22 (I'm waiting for them to show up in the refurb sales), I may decide to part with my 15-45. I think I can live with a "gap" between 22 and 55mm since I normally like to shoot wide and long anyway. The 15-45 is a decent lens, but I find I don't use it that much. Its strongest attribute is its size, which works against it a little due to the retracted "parked" position which forces you to go through an additional step to get the camera ready to shoot.



Just to point out (though you're probably aware) that the 11-22 has the same 'problem' with the retracted position and needing to extend the lens before shooting.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 26, 2017)

In DPP, I'm finding that on average, I'm using Contrast +3.0, turning off Noise Reduction (or down significantly for higher ISO shots) and tweaking USM to 4/1/1 to squeeze the most out of 150mm f/6.3 shots. With the 55-200, at 200mm f/6.3 I made similar tweaks, maybe except left NR at default setting. Contrast tweaking was more in the +1 to +2 range, although occasionally it would be more than that. By comparison, with shots from the 11-22, for most shots I left at the default USM setting of 3/4/4 unless there was a focus issue (the lens is quite sharp out of the gate). Contrast, mostly untouched (occasional boosts of < 1 were made in instances).

Of course, this is just reflecting my personal taste. I tend to favor high amounts of detail in my finished product but I know many that don't care for that.


----------



## slclick (Feb 27, 2017)

What do M5 owners think of this review...http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/6/14520976/canon-m5-review-mirrorless-camera-sample-photos


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 27, 2017)

slclick said:


> What do M5 owners think of this review...http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/6/14520976/canon-m5-review-mirrorless-camera-sample-photos



Not an owner yet though I did get an extended play with one the other day.

To me the article reads like somebody who knows all the well worn phrases and is so interested in maintaining their position within the 'cool' crowd they came into the exercise with a preconceived idea and maintained it.

I liked this video review, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VikNPzKntDM , though Fro is a bit of a sales rep nowadays part of his persona is to point out stuff that doesn't work. I was particularly impressed with the 13:30 scene and the AF https://youtu.be/VikNPzKntDM?t=810 . 

My personal impression after handling the camera? I really liked the size and responsiveness of it, controls AF and menus were all good; hated hated hated the EVF, good lord if they are the future then a ton of money needs to be thrown at them to get them to anything like the quality of a decent viewfinder. It reminded me of looking at a CRT TV set down a plane isle in the dark through an SLi viewfinder. I'll probably still get one though!


----------



## Eldar (Feb 27, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> .... hated hated hated the EVF, good lord if they are the future then a ton of money needs to be thrown at them to get them to anything like the quality of a decent viewfinder. ...


I agree. I dread the day when I have to rely on one of these. I tried the Hasselblad X1D the other day, with some expectation that they had made something decent, but it was absolutely horrible. EVFs need orders of magnitude improvements in resolution and even more in responsiveness. Panning with one of these makes you seasick.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 27, 2017)

slclick said:


> What do M5 owners think of this review...http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/6/14520976/canon-m5-review-mirrorless-camera-sample-photos



I think that this person Amelia is a rather clueless woman. 

Already reading her first 2 paragraphs leads me to this conclusion. Blaming Canon with link to cheapo, entry-level Canon EOS M10 mixing it with FF-sensored hi-level Sony A7 series and - the "design flare" (!) of those freaking awfully retro-styled Fuji cameras ... enough already! ;D 

Then she whines about Canon EF-M lens lineup, the usual "OMG, there is only 7 of them" .. and then she uses the only optically subpar of all EF-M lenses ... 15-45 ... as her sole lens for an entire month and for her review. Did not even mount the 22, 28, 11-22, 18-55, 18-150, 55-200. 

*stupid*, Amelia. 

That said, also *stupid* Canon* for not putting silent mode/electronic shutter in. 
And that down-wilting LCD *is* the dumbest thing seen on a camera in a long time.


----------



## slclick (Feb 27, 2017)

After looking into many other MILC systems and deciding to forego the M5 for the screen for one thing (and the creak and the battery and the shutter noise), it's amazing how many brands/models have the down tilting screen and not a flippy.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 27, 2017)

slclick said:


> After looking into many other MILC systems and deciding to forego the M5 for the screen for one thing (and the creak and the battery and the shutter noise), it's amazing how many brands/models have the down tilting screen and not a flippy.



Agreed. Not excusing Canon, but obviously the engineering to put the fully articulating screen into a mirrorless body is harder than what it may seem. I found the article relatively accurate in many areas, but with a few key omissions. One glaring one is negatively comparing the M5's EVF to the Sony, which has the same number of pixels and is actually dimmer than that of the Canon. There was little said about the excellence of the touchscreen or touch and drag AF, which Canon has implemented beautifully. Sony's touchscreens are a joke by comparison.

The single biggest reason I haven't bought an M5 already is the lack of 4K video support. I'd like to buy a Sony a6500 for that reason, but some of the ergonomic issues are holding me back (not to mention that I don't trust Sony to support the a6500 any more than six months, after which they'll probably move on to the a6700.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 27, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > What do M5 owners think of this review...http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/6/14520976/canon-m5-review-mirrorless-camera-sample-photos
> ...



Amelia Holowaty Krales was the photographer for the article, Sean O'Kane was the author.

*stupid* AvTvM


----------



## slclick (Feb 27, 2017)

I didn't throw it out there for critique because I agreed with him... it's obvious he is writing from a skewed and biased POV and contradicts himself a couple times at least. I just wanted to hear feedback on those few potentially salient points of what his negative review is based upon. i.e. poor EVF, adapter connection strength, sluggish, poor lcd, bad door design for card & battery, tilty.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 27, 2017)

slclick said:


> I didn't throw it out there for critique because I agreed with him... it's obvious he is writing from a skewed and biased POV and contradicts himself a couple times at least. I just wanted to hear feedback on those few potentially salient points of what his negative review is based upon. i.e. poor EVF, adapter connection strength, sluggish, poor lcd, bad door design for card & battery, tilty.



The EVF is where EVF technology is at this point, the M5 has the same dots as the best Sony cameras and they both look similar, very very different if it is your first EVF rather than optical viewfinder though.

Adapter connection is entirely fallacious, I have the original Canon adapter and have hung my 300 f2.8IS off it, it is rock solid. Having said that, anybody that hangs a multi thousand dollar lens off an M strap is asking for trouble.

As for the rest, essentially built quality questions, I didn't feel the same, this is a sub $1,000 body not a >$3,000 one, I felt the build was not a concern or consideration, that is, I didn't notice it, but then I am a photographer not a reviewer. I opened the battery door and didn't notice anything of concern to me. But my baseline is does it take pictures well and do the ergonomics and general design help me or get in my way.

As for the screen, many other cameras have this same design so it is kinda comical that Canon get this wave of criticism over it whereas everybody else gets 'innovative', tags. I have already seen a couple of practical solutions to work around the tripod use/tilt down 'issue'. For me handling the camera it will be the first camera I own with any hinges so to me the novelty was interesting and useful, however I shoot in portrait orientation a lot and it is entirely useless for that!


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 27, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I think that this person Amelia is a rather clueless woman.
> ...



indeed!  
Thx for the correction and my apologies to Amelia, her images for the review loog good to me.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 27, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> For me handling the camera it will be the first camera I own with any hinges so to me the novelty was interesting and useful, however I shoot in portrait orientation a lot and it is entirely useless for that!



I'm also someone who shoots in portrait orientation a lot, mainly for panos. I like the M3, and the ability to look down into the tiltable EVF (although I agree I'd go for a OVF before an EVF any day) but that can't be done in portrait. Also the rear screen design has the same issue, aka M5 and 6. I really like the G1X because it has the flip screen rather than tilt, and works well on a tripod in portrait, more so now I've (more or less) got to grips with the powershot interface, thanks to using the M3 more. Same issues with the G1XII, tilt screen not flip, so I'm hoping a future G1XIII will go back to flip.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 27, 2017)

I've owned the M5 for almost two months now. Haven't taken that many pics as the weather hasn't been cooperative, but I agree with others that the review just seems to repeat the usual negative comments as if it is a requirement to put down Canon. Both this and other reviews mention how "out-of-date" the camera already is and would have been a major achievement if only it had been released years ago. This type of argument is ridiculous. It is a perfectly good camera right now. If you are looking for a camera now, it is as good as the competition - as long as there aren't those very few spec items that others may have. 

It's funny how this review, as well as others I have seen, mention how good the image quality is - and then sort of dismiss it as not that important. Well, I think for most photographers that is the most important aspect of a camera. They also grudgingly say that it is fun and easy to use. Bingo! The next most important aspect! 

Regarding the EVF - yes, it's not the best. It seriously enhances colors. But compared to the Sony A7 and A7 II - I would say it is definitely better. The Sony EVFs are dark. Too dark to accurately get a WYSIWYG exposure indication - one of the advantages (to me anyway) that an EVF provides. At least that was my brief experience with the Sonys before I returned them. 

For whatever reason, Olympus has a far better EVF on their OM-D cameras. So, for those waiting for EVFs to radically improve, there is hope. Not sure how Olympus does it, but, in daylight, I often forget that I am looking through an EVF. Color and light/dark comparison to the real scene are almost completely spot on. 

If you want the excellent IQ that we can always expect from Canon, and are looking for small and light, then I would recommend the M5. If you are getting the M lenses than In-body stabilization is not needed (something the reviewers always fail to mention). I normally shoot center point and recompose, but moving the focus point on the touch screen is so easy and quick, I am starting to use it. It may not be a Canon innovation (don't know, think someone else may have had it first) but it works great and is a step above much of the competition that Canon is supposed to be lagging behind.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 27, 2017)

Eldar said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > .... hated hated hated the EVF, good lord if they are the future then a ton of money needs to be thrown at them to get them to anything like the quality of a decent viewfinder. ...
> ...



I'm certainly not a EVF fan either... After nearly 3 months I'm becoming familiar with the M5's EVF, but its always nice to back to the big, bright OVF on my 5DsR!



dak723 said:


> ... It's funny how this review, as well as others I have seen, mention how good the image quality is - and then sort of dismiss it as not that important. Well, I think for most photographers that is the most important aspect of a camera. They also grudgingly say that it is fun and easy to use. Bingo! The next most important aspect!


+1 That's what struck me about the review. The important aspects, where the M5 excels, were quickly dismissed and minor perception based arguments (like build quality) were emphasized. 



> _"the M5 is sluggish and cheaply built. It’s missing staples like in-body image stabilization and an electronic shutter. It is surely Canon’s best mirrorless camera to date, but if any other mirrorless camera maker put this out it’d be treated as a major step back. Or, in other words, it’s the best mirrorless camera of four years ago."_



I'm not real sure what the author is basing his "sluggish" comments on. To me, performance is pretty snappy. The only significant delay I've experienced is the time it takes to display images on the LCD screen, but that is certainly not a big deal. 

I don't have any issues with the M5's build quality. Sure, its not all metal, but it seems pretty solid. Certainly not "cheaply built" in my opinion.

In-body stabilization and electronic shutter would be nice, but I can certainly live without them, especially since most of my lenses are stabilized. 

Overall, the author seems to have decided up front that the M5 wasn't good enough and went about finding arguments to prove that rather than looking at things objectively. The M5 certainly has some flaws, but overall, I find it to be a very good 2017 camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 27, 2017)

bholliman said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > ... It's funny how this review, as well as others I have seen, mention how good the image quality is - and then sort of dismiss it as not that important. Well, I think for most photographers that is the most important aspect of a camera. They also grudgingly say that it is fun and easy to use. Bingo! The next most important aspect!
> ...



That was the long running complaint I had against the tidal wave of hate the original M drowned under. For the size the IQ was, and still is, exceptionally good!

I don't use it often but whenever I do I am still impressed with the base iso IQ.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 28, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



that is very true. I was actually surprised at how well it did when I compared it to the M5 and 80D.


----------



## LesC (Mar 5, 2017)

I've often thought it might be nice to downsize/reduce weight form my current most used combo of the 6D + 24-70 F2.8 but the problems with the M5 for me are a) the EVF - although I could probably get used to it but mainly b) the lack of really good lenses so far.

Putting and adaptor & L series glass on the M5 would no doubt give very good IQ but defeats the point of having a small body. If I really want a small body, I use my 100D/SL1 - about the same size as the M5 but still a real dslr. I do have the original EOS M (got it for next to nothing) but very rarely use it...

If/when Canon or someone else produces superb lenses for their CSC's & the EVF's improve then I'll reconsider - I'm sure it's just a matter of time.


----------



## JPAZ (Mar 5, 2017)

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 (Mar 5, 2017)

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 (Mar 9, 2017)

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 (Mar 10, 2017)

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 (Mar 10, 2017)

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. 



yakman said:


> 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 (May 5, 2017)

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 (May 5, 2017)

yakman said:


> 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 (May 7, 2017)

Act444 said:


> yakman said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the topic, how does the 18-150 compare to 18-55, particular in the 22 to 55 range?
> ...



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 (May 7, 2017)

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 (May 7, 2017)

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 (May 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> 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 (May 7, 2017)

bholliman said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > yakman said:
> ...



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 (May 9, 2017)

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 (May 9, 2017)

bholliman said:


> 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 (May 9, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (May 9, 2017)

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 (May 17, 2017)

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 (May 17, 2017)

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 (May 17, 2017)

AlanF said:


> 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 (May 17, 2017)

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.


----------



## bholliman (May 17, 2017)

ejenner said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



I've very happy with my EF-M 18-150 as well. As I noted earlier in this thread, my results are very different (much better) from TDP's copy.

When I have time I plan to do some controlled side by side testing, but in the limited comparisons I've done against my EF-M 15-45 and EF-M 55-200, the 18-150 is better or just as good, both in the center and at the corners. I have my EF-M 55-200 and 15-45 up for sale since I don't feel I need all 3.


----------



## yakman (Jun 7, 2017)

Do any of you find the focus speed of 18-150 on M5 slow on the tele end?
I tried it in the local Canon store.
It would some time hunt in the wrong direction. 
Compared that to 80D with 18-135 using PDAF. 80D is easier 3 times faster...
Single point single shot AF
Still subjects, one 1 meter away, the other 10 meters away


----------



## bholliman (Jun 7, 2017)

yakman said:


> Do any of you find the focus speed of 18-150 on M5 slow on the tele end?
> I tried it in the local Canon store.
> It would some time hunt in the wrong direction.
> Compared that to 80D with 18-135 using PDAF. 80D is easier 3 times faster...
> ...



I don't have an 80D or 18-135 to compare with, but focus is definitely slower and less accurate than my 5DsR and 300 or 70-200 - but I expect that. The M's don't have dedicated AF processors or as much battery power as a DSLR. 

I find the AF to be "good enough" for general purpose use, primarily shooting our 5-6-7 year old kids. I used it last week for a kids track event and my M5 and 18-150 nailed focus on all but a few shots, albeit in good light with the kids mostly moving parallel to my focal plane, so not an extremely demanding environment.

I've been using my M5 with the 18-150 and 22/2 prime for almost all my family photography for the past few months and they have performed extremely well.


----------



## Quirkz (Jun 7, 2017)

I've also found the 18-150 AF slow at the tele end; but the AF on the 22mm is very fast. Much faster than my old first edition M.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2017)

bholliman said:


> The M's don't have dedicated AF processors or *as much battery power as a DSLR*.



The M-series bodies use the same batteries as Rebel/xxxD cameras.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 9, 2017)

Quirkz said:


> I've also found the 18-150 AF slow at the tele end; but the AF on the 22mm is very fast. Much faster than my old first edition M.



The strength of STM is smoothness, not torque. The 22mm puts little stress on an AF system due to the focal length, so yes, it focuses pretty quickly. I don't think STM has enough torque to really push telephoto AF speeds, particularly major focus shifts. I'd like to see Canon implement Nano USM for future EF-M lenses; it gives much more focus speed and seems to be fully compatible with the DPAF technology. I've been very impressed with both Nano USM lenses I've reviewed (at least as far as autofocus performance).


----------



## yakman (Jul 14, 2017)

After a long wait, finally got home the M5 on its own.
I tested the 18-150 again and find the tele end not working for me. It's like EOS M AF speed there.
Its advantage against 18-55 on tele side can no longer justify a purchase.

I'd still recommend it for anyone shooting stationary or travel scenery. But not for any moving objects..

Tested with my 70-200 F4 IS, despite much heavier, the USM lens AF faster than the native 18-150...
I guess, i'll just adapt a 24-105 or 70-200 if needed.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 15, 2017)

yakman said:


> After a long wait, finally got home the M5 on its own.
> I tested the 18-150 again and find the tele end not working for me. It's like EOS M AF speed there.
> Its advantage against 18-55 on tele side can no longer justify a purchase.
> 
> ...



If AF is really bad at the long end, you might have a bad 18-150 copy. Mine focuses pretty well at all focus lengths. I have used it a lot for shooting the kids swimming, track events, and just playing, all moving subjects mostly over 100mm and I get a very high in-focus rate. Not as good focus or IQ as my 70-200 f/2.8 II and 5DsR, but I dont expect that. The images are certainly "good enough" to document these events from my perspective.


----------



## yakman (Jul 17, 2017)

bholliman said:


> If AF is really bad at the long end, you might have a bad 18-150 copy. Mine focuses pretty well at all focus lengths. I have used it a lot for shooting the kids swimming, track events, and just playing, all moving subjects mostly over 100mm and I get a very high in-focus rate. Not as good focus or IQ as my 70-200 f/2.8 II and 5DsR, but I dont expect that. The images are certainly "good enough" to document these events from my perspective.



I think maybe my test case was indoor and switching from near to far objects.
If the objects are all at a similar distance, doesn't require the lens to "zoom" from near to far, the tracking can be possible under good lighting.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 17, 2017)

I've had AF hang up as well at the long end of the 18-150, but mostly when it was out of focus to begin with. In fact I've missed a few shots initially because of it.

I think overall the 18-150 does what I need it to do. The compromises are (unfortunately) very clear when you use it, but most of the time they can be worked around. Typically a higher-than-normal contrast boost, and USM tweaking for low-ISO shots yields results I find quite good (considering its size). 

The 15-45 is the odd man out - if not for work I'd sell it, I have no other use for it at this point. It just does not hold up to my standards IQ-wise. But for work use I like its compact size and its single-lens wide to normal perspective that neither the 11-22 nor 18-150 provide.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 24, 2017)

Act444 said:


> 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.



the 18-150 is now my walkaround lens for general photos. it *IS* a lens that benefits greatly from DPP's DLO, or some other form of computational lens optimization beyond just normal CA. This lens shines if you use DLO to correct it's rather obvious flaws.

(download the JPG versus seeing it inline - as it changes the % of magnification. the views are shown at 100% magnification)

Considering this is a 8.33x lens, the results are great if there's a little care involved.


----------

