EF-M55-200mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM?

brightcolours wrote:

£329.99/€389.99.

Thanks, I found it on the UK press release.

Though given the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM can currently be picked up for £174 after cashback, that still looks a good choice to me.

arielp wrote:

if translate to 529$ , EF-S or Tamron VC would be a better choise... given you can use it on normal DSLR..

bulk - if you have no other EF lenses you want to use - the EF-S and especially the tammy would be huge in a kit compared to this.

quiquae wrote:

Early July release in Japan. No mention of other geographies.

http://cweb.canon.jp/newsrelease/2014-06/pr-ef-m55-200-f45-63is-stm.html

And the punchline? I ordered a EF-S 55-250 STM just last night.
Oh well.

From the spec's provided it looks like the 55-250 will remain a better lens for everything except size.

67gtonr wrote:

quiquae wrote:

Early July release in Japan. No mention of other geographies.

http://cweb.canon.jp/newsrelease/2014-06/pr-ef-m55-200-f45-63is-stm.html

And the punchline? I ordered a EF-S 55-250 STM just last night.
Oh well.

From the spec's provided it looks like the 55-250 will remain a better lens for everything except size.

yes. but .. it's size is pretty incredible.

comparison of the short registration distance APS-C kit zooms

Fuji 2.95 x 4.65" 20.46 oz f/3.5-4.8
Sony 2.5 x 4.25 12.1 oz f/4.5-6.3
Canon M 2.4" x 3.38 9.17 oz f/4.5-6.3

canon's quietly created the lightest (and smallest) ASP-C kit out there ranging from 11mm to 200mm

an interesting graphic from canon japan.

67gtonr wrote:

quiquae wrote:

Early July release in Japan. No mention of other geographies.

http://cweb.canon.jp/newsrelease/2014-06/pr-ef-m55-200-f45-63is-stm.html

And the punchline? I ordered a EF-S 55-250 STM just last night.
Oh well.

From the spec's provided it looks like the 55-250 will remain a better lens for everything except size.

Perhaps, but if size were truly of no concern, I would have sprung for a 70-200L or 70-300L instead....

rrccad wrote:

arielp wrote:

if translate to 529$ , EF-S or Tamron VC would be a better choise... given you can use it on normal DSLR..

bulk - if you have no other EF lenses you want to use - the EF-S and especially the tammy would be huge in a kit compared to this.

To be clear, the EF-S 55-250 is just 1" longer than the EF-M 55-200.  I don't define that as 'huge'.

rrccad wrote:

67gtonr wrote:

quiquae wrote:

Early July release in Japan. No mention of other geographies.

http://cweb.canon.jp/newsrelease/2014-06/pr-ef-m55-200-f45-63is-stm.html

And the punchline? I ordered a EF-S 55-250 STM just last night.
Oh well.

From the spec's provided it looks like the 55-250 will remain a better lens for everything except size.

yes. but .. it's size is pretty incredible.

comparison of the short registration distance APS-C kit zooms

Fuji 2.95 x 4.65" 20.46 oz f/3.5-4.8
Sony 2.5 x 4.25 12.1 oz f/4.5-6.3
Canon M 2.4" x 3.38 9.17 oz f/4.5-6.3

canon's quietly created the lightest (and smallest) ASP-C kit out there ranging from 11mm to 200mm

an interesting graphic from canon japan.

Maybe that is the sell. APS-C but almost as small as m43.

Personally I think the better sell is 'use all you Canon lenses' but that requires they make PDAF really work. Later, I suppose. They put on lens caps so the tele plastic mount can't be seen.

Lawrencew wrote:

rrccad wrote:

arielp wrote:

if translate to 529$ , EF-S or Tamron VC would be a better choise... given you can use it on normal DSLR..

bulk - if you have no other EF lenses you want to use - the EF-S and especially the tammy would be huge in a kit compared to this.

To be clear, the EF-S 55-250 is just 1" longer than the EF-M 55-200. I don't define that as 'huge'.

just to be clear I said 'especially the tammy would be huge'

and if you have no other EF lenses you want to use - then also include the adapter.

brightcolours wrote:

Lawrencew wrote:

rrccad wrote:

arielp wrote:

if translate to 529$ , EF-S or Tamron VC would be a better choise... given you can use it on normal DSLR..

bulk - if you have no other EF lenses you want to use - the EF-S and especially the tammy would be huge in a kit compared to this.

To be clear, the EF-S 55-250 is just 1" longer than the EF-M 55-200. I don't define that as 'huge'.

You are forgetting the size of the adapter there. So make that more than 2 inches.

here's how it looks:

the zuko 14-150mm is nearly the exact same size as the 55-200mm M. (2.5 x 3.3")

and yes, that was a damned hard thing to find .. a lens with the same dimensions.

another comparison with the sony:

rrccad wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Lawrencew wrote:

rrccad wrote:

arielp wrote:

if translate to 529$ , EF-S or Tamron VC would be a better choise... given you can use it on normal DSLR..

bulk - if you have no other EF lenses you want to use - the EF-S and especially the tammy would be huge in a kit compared to this.

To be clear, the EF-S 55-250 is just 1" longer than the EF-M 55-200. I don't define that as 'huge'.

You are forgetting the size of the adapter there. So make that more than 2 inches.

here's how it looks:

the zuko 14-150mm is nearly the exact same size as the 55-200mm M. (2.5 x 3.3")

and yes, that was a damned hard thing to find .. a lens with the same dimensions.

another comparison with the sony:

If I'm going to use the 55-250 STM then personally... I'd rather just do this...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#351.389.2,448.389,ha,t

Same depth front to back but MUCH better controls, faster phase detection AF through the viewfinder and better AF performance in liveview.

Then again, I don't have the 55-250 STM, nor the M (anymore)

But, as a consumer, and one who would buy the M to significantly downsize, I wouldn't use the 55-250 over the 55-200 because it's a substantial increase in weight and size.

rrccad wrote:

67gtonr wrote:

quiquae wrote:

Early July release in Japan. No mention of other geographies.

http://cweb.canon.jp/newsrelease/2014-06/pr-ef-m55-200-f45-63is-stm.html

And the punchline? I ordered a EF-S 55-250 STM just last night.
Oh well.

From the spec's provided it looks like the 55-250 will remain a better lens for everything except size.

yes. but .. it's size is pretty incredible.

comparison of the short registration distance APS-C kit zooms

Fuji 2.95 x 4.65" 20.46 oz f/3.5-4.8
Sony 2.5 x 4.25 12.1 oz f/4.5-6.3
Canon M 2.4" x 3.38 9.17 oz f/4.5-6.3

canon's quietly created the lightest (and smallest) ASP-C kit out there ranging from 11mm to 200mm

an interesting graphic from canon japan.

Yes, the size is pretty incredible and barring any IQ problems I will be purchasing this lens. But if I had the 55-250 already I wouldn't feel I was missing out.

brightcolours wrote:

Lawrencew wrote:

rrccad wrote:

arielp wrote:

if translate to 529$ , EF-S or Tamron VC would be a better choise... given you can use it on normal DSLR..

bulk - if you have no other EF lenses you want to use - the EF-S and especially the tammy would be huge in a kit compared to this.

To be clear, the EF-S 55-250 is just 1" longer than the EF-M 55-200. I don't define that as 'huge'.

You are forgetting the size of the adapter there. So make that more than 2 inches.

I wasn't 'forgetting' it as such.  Just that lots of people have the adapter in their 'kit' anyway.

Lawrencew wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Lawrencew wrote:

rrccad wrote:

arielp wrote:

if translate to 529$ , EF-S or Tamron VC would be a better choise... given you can use it on normal DSLR..

bulk - if you have no other EF lenses you want to use - the EF-S and especially the tammy would be huge in a kit compared to this.

To be clear, the EF-S 55-250 is just 1" longer than the EF-M 55-200. I don't define that as 'huge'.

You are forgetting the size of the adapter there. So make that more than 2 inches.

I wasn't 'forgetting' it as such. Just that lots of people have the adapter in their 'kit' anyway.

-- hide signature --

Regards
Lawrence
My Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lozwilkes/

Thanks for the FOV posting that is surprising that the 50mm adds that much more reach, its easy to forget that the crop factor is still in play and it is equal to an 80mm difference.

Jonathan Brady wrote:

If I'm going to use the 55-250 STM then personally... I'd rather just do this...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#351.389.2,448.389,ha,t

Same depth front to back but MUCH better controls, faster phase detection AF through the viewfinder and better AF performance in liveview.

Then again, I don't have the 55-250 STM, nor the M (anymore)

But, as a consumer, and one who would buy the M to significantly downsize, I wouldn't use the 55-250 over the 55-200 because it's a substantial increase in weight and size.

the two STM lines that canon has rolling out it are intriguing.  they aren't as gear happy exciting as others, but quietly canon has implemented a couple of nice lines across both the EF-M and EF-S platforms.

the EF-S STM IS line is lightweight, economic and compact for a DSLR form factor - making an SL1 kit stand pretty close to a smaller registration distance system in terms of overall kit size. it makes probably the best lineup from 10mm to 250mm out there in APS-C form factor in terms of cost and IQ - you really can't beat that line at all.

The EOS-M STM line is taking that down even further, by having the smallest kit from 11mm to 200mm available in the market - all with very good IQ and cost and diminutive sizes even against it's peers.

the 55-200's IQ against its' peers:

sony E 55-210

EF-M 55-200mm