Having second thoughts (M6 II)

RLight wrote:

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

So the first copy of the M6 II goes back with the faulty 18-150... Some thoughts though...

After testing the 10/10 copy of the 15-45 and likewise perfect (as far as I can tell) 55-200 lenses from my M50 II kit on it, I much rather prefer the handling of the 18-150 + EVF on the M6 II vs the 15-45 or 55-200. Why? You need a heavier lens to balance the M6 II and EVF. The 15-45 and 55-200 sorta flop around on it hence I'm really feeling the M6 II this round with the 18-150 on it vs with the 15-45, it was just ho-hum. It makes me think Canon may want to reconsider kitting the M6 II with the 15-45, but it's not my decision. In fact, I might argue if you want a small zoom APS-C footprint; skip the 15-45, go G1X Mark III. Sharper lens, better handling. Weather sealed a touch faster of a lens on both ends. Not trying to knock the 15-45, but even having a perfect copy of it, it's a, just okay lens. The 15-45 does pair well with the M50s though.

Likewise, the 22 pancake pairs well on the M6 II without the EVF; super compact. I would argue both the 18-150 and 22 pancake handle better on the M6 II, and the 15-45 and 55-200 handle better on the M50 II. It's sorta of a win win in terms of cost and performance where you might marry these combinations.

Given my recent run of bad copies of lenses, I think I'm going to hit pause and re-evaluate things; I'm going to wait out April and see what happens if Canon does a R7 with a RF-S lens to go with it. I'm finding cameras like the M6 II, although they leave the M50 II in the dust, they simply need heavier lenses to balance. It's an odd thought to have but there is such a thing as unbalanced. Depending what Canon does or doesn't, I may just buy another copy of the M6 II + 18-150 (black). If they don't release an R7 that's small enough, or release at all, or don't release a lens that makes sense with it, that's my thought. Should they do something interesting? We'll see.

All to say, I highly recommend the M6 II + 18-150, as long as you get a good one, and a good 22 to go with it. More reach? Adapt an EF-S 55-250 IS STM or EF 70-300 IS USM II; skip the 55-200. It's a fantastic lens (the 55-200), but in terms of handling, I feel you need a more oomph-like lens to attach to that M6 II. Just my 2 cents.

Aren't the 18-150mm and 55-200mm the exact same dimensions and nearly the same weight?

230g vs 300g.

It was a shock to me too, pun not intended, that the small difference in weight, influences whether or not it feels balanced. The 55-200 feels balanced on the M50 II for example.

The 18-150 balances well on the M6 II, the 55-200, although it fits well (same size), it's more, flimsy in terms of handling.

Now that didn't stop me in former lifetimes with having a blast with it

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmB5SwXP

But I do feel adapted glass like the EF-S 55-250 IS STM or EF 70-300 IS USM II are a better fit when paired with a 18-150.

My other tele is EF 70-300 f/4.0-5.6L, a bit heavy (1 KG) and bit big and thus better suited for my Rs but on the other hand, image quality from it is out of this world good.

The only lens I regret selling is surprisingly the 70-300 DO, I owned a rather good one and it was just so small and fun.

Again this is all my opinion, 2 cents, take for what it's worth. I think I gave the 18-150 too little credit in former lifetimes, and wrote off adapted glass. That's a mistake. Now is the 55-200 poor? Absolutely not.

At 200mm, it's not a dull lens as folks have claimed. Mech shutter used. Someone want to point out shutter shock here? Can't find it here.

But, the majority of the work the 55-200 does, can / should be done by the 18-150. Note the 85mm usage. Had I had the 18-150 slapped on, it would've done just fine here, extra 50mm not needed.

I do find the 55-200 renders IQ more richly than the 18-150 though. It's not just about 50mm. If you want more "pop", yes the 55-200 is a better answer than the 18-150. But, it's not as "fun" to shoot with as it's a bit front-light. Normally we say front heavy, so it sounds weird saying that.