# 18-55mm EF-m IS STM experiences



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 27, 2013)

I can get a good nearly new used price on one of these... worth augmenting my M system with?

I love the 22mm for the compact form, is the quality of the 18-55 sufficient that it's worth getting one?

I had thought about getting an EF-s 18-55 IS that would work across my bodies, but then I've already got the (better) Sigma 18-50 f2.8, so I thought I'd focus more on an M system so to speak, M+adaptor+EF-s standard becomes a bit larger.

What do you reckon, if the price is right? Worth a punt?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 27, 2013)

I think the adapter size ends up with the advantage of a camera small. If EF-M 18-55 cost up to $ 200 then sail worth. I can not imagine why anyone would use a bulky lens in EOS M.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 27, 2013)

The quality of the M 18-55 IS is fine. Sharpness, contrast, etc. are pretty good. Not as compact or as fast as the 22mm, but it works well enough outside, where there is enough light. My biggest nit with it is the small max aperture, but it is what it is -- a very good kit lens. Picked mine up for $150.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 27, 2013)

IQ is very good. A little soft in the corners wide open and some flare with intense light sources in the frame. But impressive overall.

IS is great and easily gets you 3 stops, 4 if you're careful. For that reason the 22mm is not necessarily the low light king. If motion is not an issue, the IS trumps it.

It seems to be the perfect mix of size/weight and zoom range for casual vacation and street shots.

Still love the 22mm, but I'm glad I got the 18-55.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 27, 2013)

Music to my ears folks. Took the plunge. Hopefully get it by Tuesday morning and my M is going on Holiday!


----------



## Act444 (Sep 27, 2013)

At first, when I viewed test pics I was very lukewarm about it. 

But, after buying one and using it on many occasions, here are my real-world thoughts:

Outdoors in good light - it is surprisingly good. It is clearly a step above any P&S and can keep pace with the DSLR kit lenses. Don't expect top-notch L quality - but man, for its size, I was really impressed. 

Indoors, however, it can struggle a bit sometimes. I prefer using the 22 (or 40 + adapter) to shoot events indoors.


----------



## bholliman (Sep 27, 2013)

I've been considering this lens for my M as well. I bought mine with the 22/2 prime and love it. I've used my M quite a bit with EF lenses and the Canon adapter, but the size of most of the EF lenses defeats the main purpose of the M system (size).

At some point, I'll probably add the 18-55 and 11-22 to my M kit.


----------



## BlueBomberTurbo (Oct 2, 2013)

Got my 18-55mm yesterday. Let's just say the 22mm spoiled me.  

Low light focusing is extremely limited on the 18-55, where on the 22mm, it was hard to find something I couldn't focus on. AF seems kinda... uh, laggy? When you half press the shutter button, there's a slight hesitation that's not on the 22mm. AF speed after that seems similar, though. And yeah, it's definitely sharp enough for anything you'd ever shoot with the M, though the bokeh is a bit uneasy. 

It's roughly 2.5x the length of the 22mm, so the camera's no longer pocketable with it on. Nice and smooth zoom ring, though, and extends pretty far, so it's nice that it was kept as compact as it is closed. 

Like most kit zooms, it makes compromises, but considering there are only 3 lenses total for the system, it's definitely good enough for the price it's currently going for in the US (around $150 new). I'd say if you have the 22mm, go for the 18-55mm as well. If you have the 18-55mm, don't judge the camera until you try the 22mm, too.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 10, 2013)

cheers, have, love and rate the 22mm.

Got the 18-55 now, just need some time to play with it.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 13, 2013)

Here's some try-outs from the 18-55 EF-M


----------



## BL (Oct 13, 2013)

while i haven't used mine for stills much, i picked one up for cheap to use for video. IS is profoundly helpful for shooting handheld and the lens itself gives you a more stable platform.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 13, 2013)

I've a feeling it may be useful once in a while on my fig rig.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 13, 2013)

BlueBomberTurbo said:


> Low light focusing is extremely limited on the 18-55, where on the 22mm, it was hard to find something I couldn't focus on. AF seems kinda... uh, laggy? When you half press the shutter button, there's a slight hesitation that's not on the 22mm.



This is the opposite of my experience. BUT...I have AF on the rear button, use single point mode, and I always put my AF point over an area of strong contrast. I actually feel that the 18-55 is quick in this configuration, i.e. comparable to similar DSLR lenses.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 19, 2013)

Another wee shot with the mighty M and the newly aquired 18-55!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 21, 2013)

Transition by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## docsmith (Oct 21, 2013)

I really like both lenses on the EOS-M...

Here is a shot with the EFM 18-55



small-2860 by kayaker72, on Flickr

And a shot with the EFM 22 mm



small-3332 by kayaker72, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 21, 2013)

docsmith said:


> I really like both lenses on the EOS-M...



Both nice images. I agree about the quality of the two lenses, and the bargain price helps, too. I would love to see a nice compact telephoto for the system, but at the same time I have very little incentive to buy a lot of lenses for it. It will never be my primary system, but having options isn't bad, either.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 28, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > I really like both lenses on the EOS-M...
> ...



i'd be all over either a 15-85 or an 18-200 its just the camera i would actually use a zoom like these on and leave my fast primes on the 5Ds


----------



## Act444 (Oct 30, 2013)

Know what this system really needs? A fast 50-ish mm lens. Perhaps macro. 

A telephoto sounds like a good idea but I wonder how compact they can actually make it. Perhaps if it's like the 11-22 (extends out to use) they might be able to keep the size down, but...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 4, 2013)

18-55 with Cheapo Hama ND fader


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 4, 2013)

Nice shots everyone! I just got my M, 22, 18-55, and 90EX kit on Friday, but haven't played with it yet. It looks like it blows away the crappy compacts I've used over the years.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 10, 2013)

For anybody who is interested, the 18-55 image stabilisation works quite well in video mode.

I used it on friday to shoot a car to car shot with the M and lens in a fig rig and me sitting in the back of a vauxhall corsa facing backwards.

Ok it was on a racetrack (Knockhill in scotland) and at 18mm, but I was pretty impressed.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 12, 2013)

It is a surprisingly good lens - just like the little 22mm.




Brushstrokes of Autumn by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## morphguy13 (Nov 16, 2013)

Just picked up this little Gem last week and loving it!! 

Fantastic quality.. nice Bokeh... will post some pics soon!


----------



## Proffarm (Nov 17, 2013)

I got mine a couple months ago, and since the first weekend it hasn't been on my M once. It's not that I don't like it, I just love the 22 so much that it is hard to swap it out. I've never had this 'fast' a lens before-I've always had the crappy kit lens for whatever I had (20D, 40D, Nikon N70).


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 18, 2013)

The 22mm is great. I wish they would make an EF-s version!


----------



## bainsybike (Nov 18, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> The 22mm is great. I wish they would make an EF-s version!



+1


----------



## drjlo (Dec 12, 2013)

EF-M 18-55 at 18mm




IMG_0622ir by drjlo1, on Flickr


----------

