Very good, but...

nnowak wrote:

Howard S wrote:

nnowak wrote:

67gtonr wrote:

nnowak wrote:

The only downside is construction. The EF-M 55-200mm lens is solid, zooms smoothly and has no wobble in the extending barrel. However, where all previous EF-M lenses have been built with metal exteriors and metal mounts, this new lens is all plastic. I am sure this lens will hold up just fine, and this is a superficial complaint, but this lens just doesn't have the same premium "feel" of the prior lenses. This lens is also the most expensive of the bunch which is also tough to swallow given the appearance of "cheaper" construction.

If this lens was all metal like its siblings, I wouldn't have a single complaint.

Are you saying that the lens barrel, contrary to other postings, is not made of metal?

I thought that only the lens mount was plastic.

The entire lens is plastic. I have the lens in my hands it absolutely positively does NOT have the metal shell exterior like the previous EF-M lenses. The only metal on the outside of the lens is 4 mount screws and the electrical contacts. Everything else is plastic.

I just had a look and the 11-22, 18-55 and 55-200 look to have the same lens outer to me (except the mount) and Canon say it's metal. See the link I posted above

The Canon press release is wrong. Not the first time a manufacturers press release was incorrect.

All of the lenses are painted with the same paint so that the look very similar, but the underlying materials are indeed different.

I took a knife to my 55-200 and scratched through the paint and it is absolutely all plastic for the entire exterior. I can also clearly see the injection molding parting lines on the lens barrels. One line is about 1mm right of the "70" marking and another is 6.5mm right of the "200" marking.

My other EF-M lenses all have enough bumps and bruises to expose the shiny aluminum metal that surrounds the barrels.

Thanks for clarifying that point.