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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 16, 2014)

```
<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>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2014)

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


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 16, 2014)

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


----------



## DRR (Jun 16, 2014)

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


----------



## DRR (Jun 16, 2014)

Any word on pricing, or availability in the US?


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 16, 2014)

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


----------



## ashmadux (Jun 16, 2014)

6.3? 


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


----------



## Slyham (Jun 16, 2014)

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


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 16, 2014)

DRR said:


> 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 (Jun 16, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


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



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 (Jun 16, 2014)

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 (Jun 16, 2014)

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 (Jun 16, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> 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 (Jun 16, 2014)

Haydn1971 said:


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



+1000

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


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 16, 2014)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> 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 (Jun 16, 2014)

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 (Jun 17, 2014)

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 (Jun 17, 2014)

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 (Jun 17, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


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



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


----------



## Dreamer (Jun 17, 2014)

Ok i know i'm a little off topic - but how cool does that lens look 8). I'd like to see a similar finish, darker black of course, to all their new lenses.

Anyone else like the cleaner look?


----------



## Etienne (Jun 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


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



I am warming up to the M. I bought the EF-M 11-22 10 days ago, and I love it, it is so light and handy! Yesterday I went out with EF-M 11-22, 22 f/2, and 24-105 (with adapter), and the light weight is really nice. This 55-200 would eliminate the need for the 24-105 and make the M setup awesome for daytime walk around.

Now I'm hoping that Canon goes all-in with an M3 ... something that would challenge Sony's A7s in video (but APSC). Don't hold back, make it a real contender Canon!


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 17, 2014)

jebrady03 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



nice work +1000
BTW did I mention how much I love my 11-22 EF-M ?


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 17, 2014)

jebrady03 said:


> 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)



Yes, I do take issue with f/6.3 - beecause in practice it likely means T/7.9
Instead of filter thread 52mm, Canon shouild have made it f/5.6 and 55mm or f/4.0 and 58mm filter thread, even if that wozuld have meant 50 grams more or 100 grams more weight and 50 dollars or 100 dollars higher price.


----------



## Zv (Jun 17, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > 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)
> ...



Huh, lets say Canon did make it constant f/4, for about $50 more. Now there is less demand for the EFS 55-250 STM since its slower, bigger and costs about the same. From a marketing point of view that would seem counter productive, I think (I'm no expert!). Sure, it would attract more M users but more people already have a rebel or xxD model camera so you might not wanna irk them by giving the M users the good stuff, would you? 

I think by keeping it small and light they've surely compromised but in a good way. I feel like this is what the M was made for. Small, light, compact. You'll not be shooting sports or tracking BIF with it but for a wee trip to the zoo with the kids it'll do just fine!


----------



## jebrady03 (Jun 17, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > 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)
> ...



Sony sells a BUTT LOAD of their similarly spec'd lens because it's a kit lens, bundled with their cameras. That's exactly what Canon was going for. And they're smart to do so. There's a MUCH larger market for that than there is for a large, heavy, telezoom. They're going after volume, not pleasing the less than 1‰ on the forums. 
It's an intelligent business decision.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 17, 2014)

jebrady03 said:


> Sony sells a BUTT LOAD of their similarly spec'd lens because it's a kit lens, bundled with their cameras. That's exactly what Canon was going for. And they're smart to do so.



yes, Canon would be smart to also sell a CAMERA to go with this "kit lens". ;D 

For the U.S: Canon might not be selling this lens AT ALL.


----------



## jebrady03 (Jun 17, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> yes, Canon would be smart to also sell a CAMERA to go with this "kit lens". ;D



HA! Yeah, no doubt! Interestingly, this lens WAS announced in the EU where the M2 was NOT announced.



AvTvM said:


> For the U.S: Canon might not be selling this lens AT ALL.



It's possible. In fact in my earlier post I said...



jebrady03 said:


> 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.



We'll see what happens now that the day is starting here...

The MTF charts look FANTASTIC for this lens!


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 18, 2014)

anyone seen mtf's yet?
cant wait to see some samples too
gonna be interesting to see how it tracks
i've found the 135f2L works pretty damn good in servo mode on the M


----------



## surapon (Jun 18, 2014)

Yes, Yes, Yes, That will be my new lens in my Belly/ Fanny pack with EF-M 22, and EF-M 18-55 mm.
Thankssssss , Dear Canon.

One Question to all of my teachers and my friends=
Will Canon have EF-M 1.4X or 2X Extender in the near future ?---If Yes, That will be perfected fit for bright sun shine photography of far away subject.
Sorry, I miss you 10 days, because I just come back from Vacation in Utah National Parks = Beautiful and the most wonderful scenery in this world---Yes, I will post the Photos to let you see with in a week, Yes, I have to finish my business 's project first.
Good night.
Surapon


----------



## dcm (Jun 18, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> anyone seen mtf's yet?
> cant wait to see some samples too
> gonna be interesting to see how it tracks
> i've found the 135f2L works pretty damn good in servo mode on the M



Posted MTFs in the other thread. 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21369.msg405845#msg405845


----------

