# EF-M 55-200



## Ed V (May 7, 2017)

Just picked up a refurb 55-200 on sale ($250) at the Canon Online Store. Really bounced back and forth between the 18-150 and this lens and ultimately came down on the 55-200 for the extra reach even if IQ is a touch better with the 18-150. My wife and I both have M5s. I primarily use the 22mm and the EF 40mm pancake with adapter when shooting with my M5 (I mostly shoot with a 5D3). She uses M5 all the time with an 18-55. She'll be the one using the 55-200 most of the time. Hope I made the right decision.

Ed


----------



## Sporgon (May 7, 2017)

What, no pictures ! ? 

Here's one from me. M3 +55-200 @ 200. 1/500th, f/6.3, ISO 100


----------



## Ed V (May 7, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> What, no pictures ! ?
> 
> Here's one from me. M3 +55-200 @ 200. 1/500th, f/6.3, ISO 100



Just ordered the camera this morning. Should arrive by the end of the week. Nice pic. Where is that? I see a wind farm that looks like it is out to sea.


----------



## Sporgon (May 7, 2017)

Ed V said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > What, no pictures ! ?
> ...



It was taken in the U.K. on the East coast looking across an area of the sea called The Wash, which is full of wind turbines. In fact we have loads of off shore wind farms in the U.K. Or maybe I should say around the UK !


----------



## bholliman (May 7, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> What, no pictures ! ?
> 
> Here's one from me. M3 +55-200 @ 200. 1/500th, f/6.3, ISO 100



Lovely shot


----------



## bholliman (May 7, 2017)

Ed V said:


> Just picked up a refurb 55-200 on sale ($250) at the Canon Online Store. Really bounced back and forth between the 18-150 and this lens and ultimately came down on the 55-200 for the extra reach even if IQ is a touch better with the 18-150. My wife and I both have M5s. I primarily use the 22mm and the EF 40mm pancake with adapter when shooting with my M5 (I mostly shoot with a 5D3). She uses M5 all the time with an 18-55. She'll be the one using the 55-200 most of the time. Hope I made the right decision.
> 
> Ed



The 55-200 is a terrific lens. I think its as sharp as any other EF-M zoom lenses.


----------



## Act444 (May 7, 2017)

I think the EF-M 55-200 is a step below the EF-S 55-250 STM (which truly is an excellent lens for the price and every bit as sharp as the high-end EF zooms)...BUT - it is *considerably* smaller. And that can make a difference in certain scenarios. Easier to get it into stadiums. For what it is, it's pretty good. I find contrast (and sharpness, to a lesser degree) lacking a bit at the long end, but that is fixable. I'd give it the edge over the 18-150 however (that said, the convenience of an "all-in-one" lens for travel cannot be overstated).


----------



## Random Orbits (May 7, 2017)

I used it on the M1 and M3. It's ok. size is good, but f/6.3 is limiting. TDP comparison shows IQ favors the 55-200.
Below is a shot near the long end of the 55-200.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=968&Camera=812&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=1134&CameraComp=812&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1


----------



## Act444 (May 7, 2017)

^ Yup, that's roughly my experience, having both lenses. The 55-200 is better than the 18-150 in the equiv. range IQ wise, if still not spectacular. Still, the 18-150 is good enough at the wide end if you need wide angle coverage, plus it gives you reach if you need it. But it IS quite soft at 150mm, as clearly seen in the comparison, so if telephoto coverage is the priority, I'll use the 55-200 instead.


----------



## docsmith (May 8, 2017)

I picked up the EFM 55-200 a couple of weeks ago in one of the refurbished sales. My warning...do not pixel peep with this lens. It is not an "L" lens. The detailed IQ is not there (at least not with my copy). Stop down to f/8....doesn't matter. Still a blur/lack of contrast to it all.

But, as others are showing, the actual pictures are pretty good. In terms of EFm lenses, the 11-22 is really very good, borderline "L" like. The 18-55 and 22 f/2 are good, the 28 mm is interesting...and my impression of the 55-250 is that it is "ok." But I rank the others as better at this point.


----------



## Ed V (May 8, 2017)

docsmith said:


> I picked up the EFM 55-200 a couple of weeks ago in one of the refurbished sales. My warning...do not pixel peep with this lens. It is not an "L" lens. The detailed IQ is not there (at least not with my copy). Stop down to f/8....doesn't matter. Still a blur/lack of contrast to it all.
> 
> But, as others are showing, the actual pictures are pretty good. In terms of EFm lenses, the 11-22 is really very good, borderline "L" like. The 18-55 and 22 f/2 are good, the 28 mm is interesting...and my impression of the 55-250 is that it is "ok." But I rank the others as better at this point.



I have "L" lenses that I use with my 5D3. And no I am not expect the same IQ with the "M" lenses. That said, I have been mostly using the 22 f/2 on my M5 and my wife has been using the 18-55 on her M5. We both are satisfied the results from these lenses. And we both have 15-45 lenses but rarely, if ever, use them.

Given her interests, I assume my wife will be the primary user of the 55-200. I am a street photographer and almost never go longer than 50mm full frame. I'm holding out for a 32 or 35mm "M" lens from Canon.

Anyway, I think the 55-200 will suit her just fine.

Ed


----------



## Sporgon (May 8, 2017)

docsmith said:


> I picked up the EFM 55-200 a couple of weeks ago in one of the refurbished sales. My warning...do not pixel peep with this lens. It is not an "L" lens. The detailed IQ is not there (at least not with my copy). Stop down to f/8....doesn't matter. Still a blur/lack of contrast to it all.
> 
> But, as others are showing, the actual pictures are pretty good. In terms of EFm lenses, the 11-22 is really very good, borderline "L" like. The 18-55 and 22 f/2 are good, the 28 mm is interesting...and my impression of the 55-250 is that it is "ok." But I rank the others as better at this point.



That's pretty much how I feel. The lens I used was borrowed and to date I haven't really felt the desire to purchase one. With the dense crop sensor on the M3 I find I get a lot of shot noise with both this lens and the 18-55.


----------



## bholliman (May 9, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> I used it on the M1 and M3. It's ok. size is good, but f/6.3 is limiting. TDP comparison shows IQ favors the 55-200.
> Below is a shot near the long end of the 55-200.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=968&Camera=812&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=1134&CameraComp=812&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1



Either I have a really good copy of the EF-M 18-150mm or TDP has a bad one. Mine is pretty much as sharp as the EF-M 55-200 and 15-45mm and 18-55mm. I've done a number of side by side shots of real subjects, I haven't done any test chart comparisons. The TDP crops look awful.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 9, 2017)

bholliman said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > I used it on the M1 and M3. It's ok. size is good, but f/6.3 is limiting. TDP comparison shows IQ favors the 55-200.
> ...



TDP states on their website:



> 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.



Maybe it's a lens that doesn't test well but is better in practice. The thing that bothers me is how quickly it gets to f/6.3. When I use the M, I tend to only use the 11-22, 22 or 55-200. The 18-55 is supposed to be decent, but I never liked using it much...


----------



## Act444 (May 9, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



Yeah, the 18-55 was never truly wide enough for general shooting for me. I just wish the 15-45 more closely matched it performance-wise...that said, it's not _too_ bad. 

I'd be curious to see if anyone has an 18-150 that performs notably better than what TDP shows, because honestly I think based on my experience, it's pretty accurate- at least at 100mm and beyond. I know of another big reviewer's findings (on YouTube) that is more or less consistent with my experience as well. 

I can't disagree with their conclusion: the compromise made is very clear. You gain convenience while sacrificing telephoto IQ and brightness. If you want sharp, this is NOT your lens. But if you want good enough for snapshots while traveling light, it'll get the job done.


----------



## Ed V (May 15, 2017)

Here's a sample photo with the M5 and 55-200. Handheld. 200mm. f/8. This is a jpeg file straight out of camera. No cropping. No processing.


----------



## Ed V (May 15, 2017)

... and a processed version. Not like it was shot with a 500mm L-glass bazooka but not terrible either. Would have been a bit better on a tripod, I am sure.


----------



## tomscott (May 15, 2017)

Ed V said:


> Here's a sample photo with the M5 and 55-200. Handheld. 200mm. f/8. This is a jpeg file straight out of camera. No cropping. No processing.



I assume this is due to the re-sizing but there doesn't seem to be much detail at all.

The only comparison I have is the 55-250mm EF-S lens which is really impressive for under £100. Bought this for my GF and the quality is really impressive, it doesn't touch my 100-400 MKII but for 1/16th the price and for the size its very good.


----------



## Aichbus (May 15, 2017)

Hi!

I have the 5DsR with some very, very sharp lenses, so the 55-200 is definitely not the sharpest lens I've ever used. But given the size and the price I find it very good value and I actually use it quite a lot. Here are some samples taken with my M3 and the 55-200 (original RAW files):

http://www.aichberger.de/_download/EOS-M3_55-200.zip


----------



## muchakucha (May 17, 2017)

Cherry Blossoms in Japan..not bad for cheap and lightweight lens. 
M3 55-200 F8


----------

