Fed Up with EF-M 18-150mm

J Peters wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to do this. You've given a well-balanced appraisal of the lens I think.

I'm wondering if I'd be happier using an adapted EF/EF-S lens for this focal length range.

I doubt it.

From what I have read (it has been years since I owned a EF-S 55-250 & never owned a EF-S 18-135) the EF-M 18-150 holds it's own with the EF-S 18-135 (which is the only EF/EF-S lens with a comparable focal length range) and is obviously much smaller & lighter than the adapted EF-S lens.

There was/is an 18-200mm EF-M lens, I think Tamron, but from what I remember reading it wasn't great and was a very typically handicapped/compromised superzoom, I would think notably worse (in general) than the 18-150. Not sure if it is even still available.

And, of course, something like the EF 100-400 Lii is a far better lens than any of these, but at a huge cost & weight/size penalty, and obviously has a huge gap at the bottom end (18-100). I find it a bit awkward to use on my M5 (the lens weighs about 4 or 5 times what the camera weighs), and the small M5 AF box is too big to get accurate focus on small subjects (like insects).

Similarly the EF 70-300 ii is a nice zoom, and much cheaper & smaller than the 100-400L ii, but again, much bigger/heavier than the 18-150 and obviously a big gap between 18 and 70mm, though less so if you use your 18-55mm.

As we all know, photography is all about compromise. It would be fantastic to have a 10-400mm f2.8 lens with L lens IQ and the size and cost of even a EF-S 55-250, but that is just not the way it works

I still think that (at least based on my copy) the EF-M 18-150mm lens is a pretty good compromise that has compact size and weight, and pretty reasonable IQ, particularly once some corrections and even basic PP is applied. It is a reasonable jack-of-all-trades (and master of none).