EF-M55-200mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,778
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to Lawrencew, 5 months ago

Lawrencew wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Lawrencew wrote:

rrccad wrote:

arielp wrote:

if translate to 529$ , EF-S or Tamron VC would be a better choise... given you can use it on normal DSLR..

bulk - if you have no other EF lenses you want to use - the EF-S and especially the tammy would be huge in a kit compared to this.

To be clear, the EF-S 55-250 is just 1" longer than the EF-M 55-200. I don't define that as 'huge'.

You are forgetting the size of the adapter there. So make that more than 2 inches.

I wasn't 'forgetting' it as such. Just that lots of people have the adapter in their 'kit' anyway.

Whether or not they have the adapter or not, makes NO difference to the fact that the 55-250mm is not "just 1" longer". It still is more than 2" longer on an EOS M. Which will always then include that adapter.

-- hide signature --

Regards
Lawrence
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lozwilkes/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tomtom50
Senior MemberPosts: 2,820Gear list
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to rrccad, 5 months ago

rrccad wrote:

the two STM lines that canon has rolling out it are intriguing. they aren't as gear happy exciting as others, but quietly canon has implemented a couple of nice lines across both the EF-M and EF-S platforms.

the EF-S STM IS line is lightweight, economic and compact for a DSLR form factor - making an SL1 kit stand pretty close to a smaller registration distance system in terms of overall kit size. it makes probably the best lineup from 10mm to 250mm out there in APS-C form factor in terms of cost and IQ - you really can't beat that line at all.

The EOS-M STM line is taking that down even further, by having the smallest kit from 11mm to 200mm available in the market - all with very good IQ and cost and diminutive sizes even against it's peers.

Agree 100%.

Canon's recent budget lenses (all STM) are practically all best in class:

EF-S

40mm, 10-18, 18-55, 18-135, 55-250

EF-M

11-22, 22, 18-55, 55-200

Am i forgetting any?

They are all reasonably priced. Some are all plastic but it is good plastic with no wobble.

They are kit lenses in the best sense. Optically very good so you do not need to upgrade to get better image quality. Expensive lenses are there if you need faster apertures, exotics, or pro build. They are the best reason for the less well-heeled to buy Canon.

 tomtom50's gear list:tomtom50's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS M Sony Alpha NEX-3N Sony a6000
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
justmeMN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,696
Like?
Re: If I were heading up Canon USA
In reply to Jonathan Brady, 5 months ago

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 also release this and the 11-22.

The Canon USA web site doesn't list any EOS M bodies, so they currently don't offer anything to attach this new lens to.

The Canon USA web site still lists the original two EF-M lenses, so it's possible that the next body will be released here.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rrccad
Senior MemberPosts: 3,290Gear list
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to tomtom50, 5 months ago

tomtom50 wrote:

rrccad wrote:

the two STM lines that canon has rolling out it are intriguing. they aren't as gear happy exciting as others, but quietly canon has implemented a couple of nice lines across both the EF-M and EF-S platforms.

the EF-S STM IS line is lightweight, economic and compact for a DSLR form factor - making an SL1 kit stand pretty close to a smaller registration distance system in terms of overall kit size. it makes probably the best lineup from 10mm to 250mm out there in APS-C form factor in terms of cost and IQ - you really can't beat that line at all.

The EOS-M STM line is taking that down even further, by having the smallest kit from 11mm to 200mm available in the market - all with very good IQ and cost and diminutive sizes even against it's peers.

Agree 100%.

Canon's recent budget lenses (all STM) are practically all best in class:

EF-S

40mm, 10-18, 18-55, 18-135, 55-250

EF-M

11-22, 22, 18-55, 55-200

Am i forgetting any?

They are all reasonably priced. Some are all plastic but it is good plastic with no wobble.

They are kit lenses in the best sense. Optically very good so you do not need to upgrade to get better image quality. Expensive lenses are there if you need faster apertures, exotics, or pro build. They are the best reason for the less well-heeled to buy Canon.

agreed.

and then also quietly canon as revamped it's L lineup in the same accord (missing one notable lens) with both F4.0 L's and F2.8L's from 16mm to 200mm.

 rrccad's gear list:rrccad's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
padmasana
Regular MemberPosts: 241Gear list
Like?
New lens. ... what a good sign this is
In reply to rrccad, 5 months ago

Though I will probably have to turn to Canada to get one of these in the USA, it's great that development is continuing with the system. I'm still very much enjoying the M and all three current lenses for what they do and the convenience of their relatively tiny footprint. Heck, I even take 'em mountain biking every now and then.

 padmasana's gear list:padmasana's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS M
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lawrencew
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,529Gear list
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to brightcolours, 5 months ago

brightcolours wrote:


To be clear, the EF-S 55-250 is just 1" longer than the EF-M 55-200. I don't define that as 'huge'.

You are forgetting the size of the adapter there. So make that more than 2 inches.

well you are forgetting it is 2 inches shorter in reach

Of course it is smaller - it is only 55-200mm

-- hide signature --
 Lawrencew's gear list:Lawrencew's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS 70D Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rrccad
Senior MemberPosts: 3,290Gear list
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to Lawrencew, 5 months ago

Lawrencew wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

To be clear, the EF-S 55-250 is just 1" longer than the EF-M 55-200. I don't define that as 'huge'.

You are forgetting the size of the adapter there. So make that more than 2 inches.

well you are forgetting it is 2 inches shorter in reach

Of course it is smaller - it is only 55-200mm

the E mount 55-200 is not nearly as small - and it's not just a little smaller - it's alot smaller than the EF-S 55-250mm STM

 rrccad's gear list:rrccad's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lawrencew
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,529Gear list
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to rrccad, 5 months ago

rrccad wrote:

the E mount 55-200 is not nearly as small - and it's not just a little smaller - it's alot smaller than the EF-S 55-250mm STM

You mean its a lot smaller than the EF-S 55-250mm STM with the EF Adaptor.

And for that you give up 80mm of reach on an APS-C camera, and the ability to mount it on cameras that are actually sold by Canon in the USA...

Has the EF-M 55-200 been announced by Canon USA yet?

-- hide signature --
 Lawrencew's gear list:Lawrencew's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS 70D Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tonkotsu Ramen
Senior MemberPosts: 1,288Gear list
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to Lawrencew, 5 months ago

what is the point of a lens so big on a camera that's supposed to be small?

I think many would prefer to use the 55-250 + adapter

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,778
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to Lawrencew, 5 months ago

Lawrencew wrote:

rrccad wrote:

the E mount 55-200 is not nearly as small - and it's not just a little smaller - it's alot smaller than the EF-S 55-250mm STM

You mean its a lot smaller than the EF-S 55-250mm STM with the EF Adaptor.

He means it is a lot smaller! Without. And with even more of a difference!

And for that you give up 80mm of reach on an APS-C camera, and the ability to mount it on cameras that are actually sold by Canon in the USA...

One buys an M for compactness. If one has other DSLRs, then use them with the big lens.

Has the EF-M 55-200 been announced by Canon USA yet?

What does that have to do with anything?

-- hide signature --

Regards
Lawrence
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lozwilkes/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lawrencew
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,529Gear list
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to Tonkotsu Ramen, 5 months ago

Tonkotsu Ramen wrote:

what is the point of a lens so big on a camera that's supposed to be small?

I think many would prefer to use the 55-250 + adapter

I think that is good question. Once the camera and lens combination is so big that is far from pocketable and no longer even fits in a small camera bag, then what difference does an extra inch or two make to the length of the lens if it brings you other advantages in the process?

that said, for many people looking for the smallest travel kit possible rather than the longest reach available, then the EF-M is going to be an ideal choice.

-- hide signature --

Regards
Lawrence
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lozwilkes/

 Lawrencew's gear list:Lawrencew's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS 70D Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sonics
Regular MemberPosts: 204Gear list
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to rrccad, 5 months ago

rrccad wrote:

Jonathan Brady wrote:

If I'm going to use the 55-250 STM then personally... I'd rather just do this...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#351.389.2,448.389,ha,t

Same depth front to back but MUCH better controls, faster phase detection AF through the viewfinder and better AF performance in liveview.

Then again, I don't have the 55-250 STM, nor the M (anymore)

But, as a consumer, and one who would buy the M to significantly downsize, I wouldn't use the 55-250 over the 55-200 because it's a substantial increase in weight and size.

the two STM lines that canon has rolling out it are intriguing. they aren't as gear happy exciting as others, but quietly canon has implemented a couple of nice lines across both the EF-M and EF-S platforms.

the EF-S STM IS line is lightweight, economic and compact for a DSLR form factor - making an SL1 kit stand pretty close to a smaller registration distance system in terms of overall kit size. it makes probably the best lineup from 10mm to 250mm out there in APS-C form factor in terms of cost and IQ - you really can't beat that line at all.

The EOS-M STM line is taking that down even further, by having the smallest kit from 11mm to 200mm available in the market - all with very good IQ and cost and diminutive sizes even against it's peers.

the 55-200's IQ against its' peers:

sony E 55-210

EF-M 55-200mm

what lines are the most important to read?

-- hide signature --

Canon 5D + Canon eosm + several lenses

 sonics's gear list:sonics's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Canon EOS 5D Sony Alpha NEX-F3 Canon EOS M Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rrccad
Senior MemberPosts: 3,290Gear list
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to Lawrencew, 5 months ago

Lawrencew wrote:

rrccad wrote:

the E mount 55-200 is not nearly as small - and it's not just a little smaller - it's alot smaller than the EF-S 55-250mm STM

You mean its a lot smaller than the EF-S 55-250mm STM with the EF Adaptor.

actually it's smaller without the adapter, and alot smaller mounted on an M - i thought that would be self evident .. you know - picture being worth a thousand words and all?

Do you have any other magical means to mount it on an M that I'm not aware of.

And for that you give up 80mm of reach on an APS-C camera

and gain a much smaller and far more balanced unit on your M, and don't have to play around with a fiddly adapter.

and the ability to mount it on cameras that are actually sold by Canon in the USA...

and I care?  I hate to tell you but 4.44% of the earth's population lives in the united states, 22% of the GDP, and canon certainly isn't HQ'ed there.

Has the EF-M 55-200 been announced by Canon USA yet?

i'm not in the States, so to be honest, what Canon USA does is immaterial to me.  I do wish that Americans would stop making it sound like if it's not sold in the states it's irrelevant - it's actually quite annoying.

 rrccad's gear list:rrccad's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rrccad
Senior MemberPosts: 3,290Gear list
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to Tonkotsu Ramen, 5 months ago

Tonkotsu Ramen wrote:

what is the point of a lens so big on a camera that's supposed to be small?

I think many would prefer to use the 55-250 + adapter

actually i find the 55-250 ungainly on the M.  i rarely take it out, because it just isn't balanced well, and is overly large and doesn't focus all that quickly.

However I certainly it the end of 55mm and wish i could zoom more, however the 55-250 + adapter certainly isn't small bag carryable as easily as the 50-200 EF-M - and i"m sure the native EF-m 55-200 will AF quite nicely on the M considering they actually mention it does.

 rrccad's gear list:rrccad's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tonkotsu Ramen
Senior MemberPosts: 1,288Gear list
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to rrccad, 5 months ago

Actually i just saw the comparison pics to the 11-22 and 18-55, and it's only about 1" longer than those lenses. That's actually not bad.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rrccad
Senior MemberPosts: 3,290Gear list
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to Tonkotsu Ramen, 5 months ago

Tonkotsu Ramen wrote:

Actually i just saw the comparison pics to the 11-22 and 18-55, and it's only about 1" longer than those lenses. That's actually not bad.

it's crazy good. it's the smallest telephoto zoom for APS-C or above sensor size out there, by a fairly large margin.

the M's zoom tiny trinity

I'm using the Zuiko 14-150/ 63.5mm x 83mm versus the 55-200mm EF-M at 60.9 × 86.5 mm.

 rrccad's gear list:rrccad's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
justmeMN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,696
Like?
Adapter
In reply to Tonkotsu Ramen, 5 months ago

I think many would prefer to use the 55-250 + adapter

Many others would prefer to save money, by using an EF-M lens, that doesn't require a $200 adapter.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tonkotsu Ramen
Senior MemberPosts: 1,288Gear list
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to rrccad, 5 months ago

Now they just need a few more native primes and make the bodies more easily avail. Then I'll jump back in!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rrccad
Senior MemberPosts: 3,290Gear list
Like?
Re: definition of 'huge'
In reply to Tonkotsu Ramen, 5 months ago

Tonkotsu Ramen wrote:

Now they just need a few more native primes and make the bodies more easily avail. Then I'll jump back in!

i certainly would like to see the 50mm 1.8 EF-M that was patented a while back.  A macro would be swell.  to be honest, outside of a macro and making a nice small 16-17mm prime - i can't think of much i need to see on this system.

it would be nice if Sigma would make their DN line available for the EOS-M though.

 rrccad's gear list:rrccad's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tonkotsu Ramen
Senior MemberPosts: 1,288Gear list
Like?
Re: Adapter
In reply to justmeMN, 5 months ago

justmeMN wrote:

I think many would prefer to use the 55-250 + adapter

Many others would prefer to save money, by using an EF-M lens, that doesn't require a $200 adapter.

Adapters are $75 shipped on ebay

55-250 is $350 from online retailers or $300 shipped from ebay

So it's about $425 or $375, AND you get to use the rest of canons lenses as well.

When I had my EOS-M and was on this forum more, everyone here was happily using their lenses with adapters. Have you not taken advantage of that?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads