# The promised pics of the 18-200 Tammy



## axtstern (Jul 14, 2014)

Do not complain about the Picture Quality...this was done in the halftime break of the soccer world Championship final so not to much love was invested...

I do not know how to make my uploaded pictures apear in the text so I sumply describe them inthe order I attach them:

1. Family Picture: Tammy, 18-55, 11-22, 22
2. Tammy EF-M versus Tammy EF-S 
3. Same but looking from the fan service perspective
4. Tammy EF-M versus Tammy EF-S with Adapter
5. 200mm at 1:6.3 Lightroom raw to JPG convert

A word about 5. 
The model is a DeutschDrahthaar puppy about 3 month old.
A sitting puppy besides a sleeping puppy is the only thingthe AF of the M can handle (at least in my Hands)
The missaligned framing is because of the in my SOS mail mentioned way the zoom operates:
Smooth but Ultra tight glide. From 18 to 200 mm means left Hand graps lens, right Hand graps M twisted by 180 degree and than pretend you want to squeeze water out of a wet Jeans. Oh and for good measure the lens has a zoom lock switch...

Touching the lens gives you the feel that you use the Sigma 1:1.8 Art zoom (also from relative weight)
STM kind of drive is nicely smooth and silent, VCD is silent and fast. But... mounting the lens or switching the M on generates a sound which reminds of the initialising Phase of a flatbed scanner.

You can see this on the Picture: The lens is fat, unlike the Canon EF-M design the Tammy has a much bigger Diameter than the bayonet.


----------



## axtstern (Jul 14, 2014)

If you want to check on some flaws of the Tammy check on the left ear of the puppy, plenty of choma issues there....


----------



## Act444 (Jul 15, 2014)

...also, the purple fringing on the lower right...that's quite a bit.

Thanks for sharing! I've been considering this lens as well and this helps. How does the lens look on the camera?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 15, 2014)

For the intended users, the lens is fine, its not a Pro lens, so don't expect $2500 performance.


Purple fringing can be removed in lightroom.




Here is a before and after with Canon's Champ of purple fringing, the 85mm f/1.8




Before:


Original:











1:1












Processed with Lightroom:


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2014)

Thanks for sharing.

Cool EW-54, mine is plain old boring black.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 15, 2014)

yeah purple fringing is a fairly minor concern these days


----------



## Act444 (Jul 15, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Purple fringing can be removed in lightroom.




What about DPP? I was never able to figure out how to reduce PF to that degree. (I don't have Lightroom)

TBH, though, PF is so well controlled in the lenses I use/conditions I shoot in that it's rarely if ever a problem...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 15, 2014)

Act444 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Purple fringing can be removed in lightroom.
> ...




LR5 has a tool for removing LOCA's. DPP has a lens correction tool, but I don't know if it works as well on that image. I have DPP4 which doesn't work with RAW from the 5D MK II yet.


What LR is actually doing, is to remove the exact purple shade of the color from the image. This usually is not noticible, because its a very narrow filter. But if there is something that exact shade of purple in the image, it will no longer have any color.


DXO also removed every bit of the purple fringe, and it was easier to use than Lightroom for this.


----------



## Famateur (Jul 15, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> What LR is actually doing, is to remove the exact purple shade of the color from the image. This usually is not noticible, because its a very narrow filter. But if there is something that exact shade of purple in the image, it will no longer have any color.



And if that is ever a problem, you can use a local adjustment brush to remove the fringing from just the places it appears. I use this option occasionally and have had great success with it. Hope this helps...

By the way, Lightroom is, in my opinion, worth every penny.


----------



## axtstern (Jul 15, 2014)

> Cool EW-54, mine is plain old boring black



From a Hong Kong shop, works pretty well with my red M when doing pictures of all the small children in the wider family... especially with the other secret weapon of the Luftwaffe: The PEZ dispenser. Somehow the feet of those dispensers are made to fit a hot shoe and you do not need to ask for smiles once you have mounted it.


----------



## axtstern (Jul 15, 2014)

> For the intended users, the lens is fine, its not a Pro lens, so don't expect $2500 performance.



Still the current (novelty) price tag is steep for a product that will have to compete in a few weeks with the Canon product.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 15, 2014)

axtstern said:


> > For the intended users, the lens is fine, its not a Pro lens, so don't expect $2500 performance.
> 
> 
> 
> Still the current (novelty) price tag is steep for a product that will have to compete in a few weeks with the Canon product.



Is a Canon version of the 18-200 on the way??


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 15, 2014)

Act444 said:


> axtstern said:
> 
> 
> > > For the intended users, the lens is fine, its not a Pro lens, so don't expect $2500 performance.
> ...




There is a Canon 18-200, it was initially expensive, and not all that good. 11:1 zoom lenses are a compromise, particularly if you want a reasonable price and a lens that is small and light weight.


A replacement for the 18-200 is long rumored, but not for as long as dozens of other lenses.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 15, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There is a Canon 18-200, it was initially expensive, and not all that good. 11:1 zoom lenses are a compromise, particularly if you want a reasonable price and a lens that is small and light weight.



I suspect the question is about the EF-M 18-200mm rather than the EF-S 18-200mm - in which case, there's a optical formula patent, but nothing more is known - fingers crossed for a new EF-M lens, maybe two with the next EOS-M camera - an 18-200 and/or pancake zoom would seem likely, more so the latter I'd guess to keep in line with the compact agenda


----------



## Famateur (Jul 15, 2014)

axtstern said:


> The PEZ dispenser. Somehow the feet of those dispensers are made to fit a hot shoe and you do not need to ask for smiles once you have mounted it.



Cool! I'm going to have to try this!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 15, 2014)

Haydn1971 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > There is a Canon 18-200, it was initially expensive, and not all that good. 11:1 zoom lenses are a compromise, particularly if you want a reasonable price and a lens that is small and light weight.
> ...




I missed that, thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## axtstern (Jul 15, 2014)

With now a few days to play with the Tammy I m curious about the Canon 55 200 it will be half the weight. Handling of the M simply shouts to hold the M but not the lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 16, 2014)

axtstern said:


> I m curious about the Canon 55 200



I've been finding my M very useful as a travel camera, I may pick up the 55-200 and 11-22 to round out the kit.


----------



## axtstern (Jul 16, 2014)

> 11-22 to round out the kit



that lens is in my eyes (currently) the reason for the M to exist.
I'm not a street photographer but Souks in Marakesh, Old Town Jerusalem, Markets in Bangkok... anywhere where it is crowded this lens just shines. And mounted on the M the lens still takes up less real estate in my bag than the Tokina 11-16 2:8 did in the past. 

Pitty that it is so hard to get in the land of the free


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 17, 2014)

axtstern said:


> that lens is in my eyes (currently) the reason for the M to exist.
> I'm not a street photographer but Souks in Marakesh, Old Town Jerusalem, Markets in Bangkok... anywhere where it is crowded this lens just shines. And mounted on the M the lens still takes up less real estate in my bag than the Tokina 11-16 2:8 did in the past.
> 
> Pitty that it is so hard to get in the land of the free



Got mine from Canada. It is a sweet lens.


----------



## alan_k (Jul 17, 2014)

The 10-18 seems like it might be a good match (if you already have an EF/EF-S ->M adapter). Getting good reviews and pretty small. Any reason not to go this route?

I just got a 6D, kept my 60D as a backup/beater camera, so the M is relegated to times I'm bringing some sort of backpack or shoulder bag while playing tourist but not so much that I'm bringing one of the bigger cameras. Debating whether to invest in a wide-angle (trip to Italy coming up), or pare back even more and spend the money on something like an RX100iii that takes great photos but is more limited in focal length.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2014)

alan_k said:


> The 10-18 seems like it might be a good match (if you already have an EF/EF-S ->M adapter). Getting good reviews and pretty small. Any reason not to go this route?
> 
> I just got a 6D, kept my 60D as a backup/beater camera, so the M is relegated to times I'm bringing some sort of backpack or shoulder bag while playing tourist but not so much that I'm bringing one of the bigger cameras. Debating whether to invest in a wide-angle (trip to Italy coming up), or pare back even more and spend the money on something like an RX100iii that takes great photos but is more limited in focal length.



The 11-22 is significantly smaller than the 10-18 + adapter. 

I had been considering the RX100 III, since I used to bring along a PowerShot S95/100. However...in bright light, small sensors do fine (nearly as good as larger sensors if you don't need shallow DoF), but in dim light you want the biggest sensor you can carry. That's what I like about the M – relatively larger sensor in a small package with lens flexibility. The 11-22 and 55-200 together aren't much more outlay than the RX100 III. The M + 22/2 does decently in low light (not nearly as good as my 1D X + 35/1.4L, though).

I find the M + 18-55 carries nicely in a Lowepro Dashpoint 30 on my belt. I have the 22/2 pancake in a Lowepro Lens Case 8x6 in the backpack that I bring (I have 3 kids, one 15-months, so I need snacks, diapers, water, raincoat/sweater or towel, etc., on pretty much every outing). The 8x6 case holds the 18-55 when I swap. The other two M lenses would be easy enough to carry in separate lens cases, and the whole kit would take less room than the 1D X + 24-70/2.8 II even in a neoprene cover in the backpack.


----------



## Zv (Jul 18, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> axtstern said:
> 
> 
> > that lens is in my eyes (currently) the reason for the M to exist.
> ...



+1, really loving the 11-22. I made a lens gallery for it, post your pics.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jul 18, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> yeah purple fringing is a fairly minor concern these days



unless you are photographing something that is purple....


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 18, 2014)

Famateur said:


> axtstern said:
> 
> 
> > The PEZ dispenser. Somehow the feet of those dispensers are made to fit a hot shoe and you do not need to ask for smiles once you have mounted it.
> ...



+1. This is brilliant!


----------



## bainsybike (Jul 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The M + 22/2 does decently in low light (not nearly as good as my 1D X + 35/1.4L, though).



With more than 20x price differential, I'd sort of expect that.


----------

