18-150mm vs 40mm 2.8 STM - not good for the 18-150

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
Andy01 Senior Member • Posts: 3,081
Re: 18-150mm vs 40mm 2.8 STM - not good for the 18-150

kb1dqh wrote:

Andy01 wrote:

kb1dqh wrote:

Ok - I didn't know the 40mm 2.8 STM was so highly regarded. I suppose a 2.8 prime is easier to make. Perhaps unreasonable expectations.

Sounds like the 15-45 wouldn't be any better than this at 40mm either. If it was, I'd potentially swap them out.

I would be gobsmacked if the 15-45mm did any better - it is well "known" as the worst performing EF-M lens.

I find that my 24-105L ii on 6D ii is not as sharp as my 35mm f2 IS on 6D ii - what a surprise :-). So I am not in the slightest bit surprised that the 18-150mm superzoom is not quite as sharp as a prime lens.

I agree with the others - I think the 18-150mm has preformed quite well here. It was never designed as a super-sharp at all focal lengths and apertures zoom lens. It was designed as a versatile walk around lens that performs to an acceptable level across the range.

I think that all of these shots are at an acceptable level, and the "softness" is only apparent when pixel peeping at extremely detailed subjects like text. I don't believe that it was ever designed with that level of scrutiny in mind.

For the record, I did a few comparisons of shots taken on my old 70D + 24-105L (original) compared to M5 + 18-150mm and found that the M combo was at least as good as the 70D + L combo.

A lot of people poo-poo the 18-150mm - I actually think that my copy performs rather well, as does I think yours.


PS. I did note the timber floors and 1.3 second shutter speed - I assume a tripod and absolutely no movement in the house by anyone or anything ?

Thanks Colin. I see what you're saying, but I was hoping for more given how expensive. The 35mm f2 costs $550. The 40 2.8 stm costs $130. I didn't think a $130 lens would look so much better to my eye (compared to the 18-150). It's not just the sharpness - look at the cutting board on the left wall above the water bottle. So much more contrast and detail with the 40 2.8.

You are paying for the sophistication of a decent zoom with a focal length range of over 8x and a good 4x IS. This lens would be vastly more complex to design and make than a basic 40mm f2.8 prime without IS.

In FF terms it is like comparing a 35-350L with a 35mm f2 IS and being surprised that the 35mm f2 produces better results because it is non-L and cheaper.

I am using a manfrotto o55xprob - built for my 6D + 200 2.8 and I'm the only one home. Plus these are 6 different images and in each set I see a similar variance.

I wish there was something like the 40 2.8 quality with the 24-70 (full frame equiv) range, if not to the 105mm level. Here's to wishing.

I might keep the kit, but I'm not sure. The camera w/o the lens doesnt' come with the viewfinder and it sounds like the 15-45 won't fare better and all else equal, the range is nice.

The 18-150mm is a very convenient lens to have as a one lens solution for a walk around or vacation lens where you want to travel light. I don't think it was ever meant for prime-level sharpness when viewed at 100%. If you want something to compete with your 40mm, try a EF-M 22mm or 32mm prime (or even the 28mm macro) - they would all be sharper than any EF-M zoom (or probably even most L series zooms).


 Andy01's gear list:Andy01's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon 6D Mark II Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow