Very good, but...

Marco Nero wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Plastic vs metal is a personal thing with no real impact on your photos. I would have been completely happy with an extra 100 grams of metal.

I agree. Modern plastics and polymers have major advantages in super-cold environments where subzero temperatures abound and there's evidence that plastic lenses can withstand an impact better than a metal shroud. That said, I personally prefer metal barrel construction on lenses and even more so on bodies.

I haven't researched it, but I am thinking this is the most expensive lens Canon has sold with a plastic mount. Compared to the price and build of the other 3 EF-M lenses, the 55-200 feels a bit overpriced and/or under built. Optically it can still match the very good quality of the other 3 lenses.

The biggest concern for users who travel with a long-zoom lens is weight. Most of the time these lenses are used for vacation and many users want to cut down on weight. Canon have a history of compromising on camera lenses when it comes to weight. I suspect that this larger, longer lens was easier to sell to the consumers on "weight" than on construction materials. It's only the mounting portion that is plastic... the rest of the lens barrel is metal.
.
Optically, the lens appears to satisfy all who have sampled it. I just don't understand why they can't justify putting the lens hood in the box with the lens. Nothing frustrates me more than getting shafted by being forced to locate and purchase a lens hood at additional (and often exorbitant) cost.

Are you sure about the lens barrel, Marco? I have read conflicting info. some say it is plastic as well, not that it is a detriment to me seeing how my first lens a Nikon 50 1.8 Series E lens was one of the first 35mm lenses made with a plastic barrel and it has been working fine since the mid 1980's.