Very good, but...

I currently own all 4 of the EF-M lenses that are available at the time of writing this review.  Similar to the other lenses in the system, the new 55-200mm STM lens has very good optical quality and complements the rest of the system quite well.  For a short time I also owned the older Version II 55-250mm EF-S lens and this new EF-M lens is significantly better.

The lens is really compact and much smaller than I had expected.  If you take the lens caps off of the EF-M 22mm and EF-M 18-55mm and stack them face to face, this is almost identical to the size of the EF-M 55-200mm lens.

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.

after schlepping around the state fair for 8 hours with the beastly 55-250 II i decided to order the 55-200... i'm more than happy to trade (arguable) durability for weight. next stop: las vegas.

Canon tried to place the EOS-M as a premium camera with a high price, and they failed because at launch price other mirrorless cameras were far better.

Canon seem to have gotten the message and is taking M downscale without sacrificing optical quality. A wise move, I think.

But... Canon is not going to be over-producing this lens. The days of deep discounts are over.

nnowak wrote:

Plastic vs metal is a personal thing with no real impact on your photos. I would have been completely happy with an extra 100 grams of metal.

I agree.  Modern plastics and polymers have major advantages in super-cold environments where subzero temperatures abound and there's evidence that plastic lenses can withstand an impact better than a metal shroud.  That said, I personally prefer metal barrel construction on lenses and even more so on bodies.

I haven't researched it, but I am thinking this is the most expensive lens Canon has sold with a plastic mount. Compared to the price and build of the other 3 EF-M lenses, the 55-200 feels a bit overpriced and/or under built. Optically it can still match the very good quality of the other 3 lenses.

The biggest concern for users who travel with a long-zoom lens is weight.  Most of the time these lenses are used for vacation and many users want to cut down on weight. Canon have a history of compromising on camera lenses when it comes to weight.  I suspect that this larger, longer lens was easier to sell to the consumers on "weight" than on construction materials.  It's only the mounting portion that is plastic... the rest of the lens barrel is metal.
.
Optically, the lens appears to satisfy all who have sampled it.  I just don't understand why they can't justify putting the lens hood in the box with the lens.  Nothing frustrates me more than getting shafted by being forced to locate and purchase a lens hood at additional (and often exorbitant) cost.

mirkoc wrote:

Can you please elaborate more about optical qualities? Thanks!

I've had mine for about 3 weeks and have been pleased with it. I have some samples HERE if you want to take a look, EXIF is intact.

Marco Nero wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Plastic vs metal is a personal thing with no real impact on your photos. I would have been completely happy with an extra 100 grams of metal.

I agree. Modern plastics and polymers have major advantages in super-cold environments where subzero temperatures abound and there's evidence that plastic lenses can withstand an impact better than a metal shroud. That said, I personally prefer metal barrel construction on lenses and even more so on bodies.

I haven't researched it, but I am thinking this is the most expensive lens Canon has sold with a plastic mount. Compared to the price and build of the other 3 EF-M lenses, the 55-200 feels a bit overpriced and/or under built. Optically it can still match the very good quality of the other 3 lenses.

The biggest concern for users who travel with a long-zoom lens is weight. Most of the time these lenses are used for vacation and many users want to cut down on weight. Canon have a history of compromising on camera lenses when it comes to weight. I suspect that this larger, longer lens was easier to sell to the consumers on "weight" than on construction materials. It's only the mounting portion that is plastic... the rest of the lens barrel is metal.
.
Optically, the lens appears to satisfy all who have sampled it. I just don't understand why they can't justify putting the lens hood in the box with the lens. Nothing frustrates me more than getting shafted by being forced to locate and purchase a lens hood at additional (and often exorbitant) cost.

Are you sure about the lens barrel, Marco? I have read conflicting info. some say it is plastic as well, not that it is a detriment to me seeing how my first lens a Nikon 50 1.8 Series E lens was one of the first 35mm lenses made with a plastic barrel and it has been working fine since the mid 1980's.

67gtonr wrote:

Marco Nero wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Plastic vs metal is a personal thing with no real impact on your photos. I would have been completely happy with an extra 100 grams of metal.

I agree. Modern plastics and polymers have major advantages in super-cold environments where subzero temperatures abound and there's evidence that plastic lenses can withstand an impact better than a metal shroud. That said, I personally prefer metal barrel construction on lenses and even more so on bodies.

I haven't researched it, but I am thinking this is the most expensive lens Canon has sold with a plastic mount. Compared to the price and build of the other 3 EF-M lenses, the 55-200 feels a bit overpriced and/or under built. Optically it can still match the very good quality of the other 3 lenses.

The biggest concern for users who travel with a long-zoom lens is weight. Most of the time these lenses are used for vacation and many users want to cut down on weight. Canon have a history of compromising on camera lenses when it comes to weight. I suspect that this larger, longer lens was easier to sell to the consumers on "weight" than on construction materials. It's only the mounting portion that is plastic... the rest of the lens barrel is metal.
.
Optically, the lens appears to satisfy all who have sampled it. I just don't understand why they can't justify putting the lens hood in the box with the lens. Nothing frustrates me more than getting shafted by being forced to locate and purchase a lens hood at additional (and often exorbitant) cost.

Are you sure about the lens barrel, Marco? I have read conflicting info. some say it is plastic as well, not that it is a detriment to me seeing how my first lens a Nikon 50 1.8 Series E lens was one of the first 35mm lenses made with a plastic barrel and it has been working fine since the mid 1980's.

Quoted as having a metal "exterior" http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21369.0

Howard S wrote:

67gtonr wrote:

Marco Nero wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Plastic vs metal is a personal thing with no real impact on your photos. I would have been completely happy with an extra 100 grams of metal.

I agree. Modern plastics and polymers have major advantages in super-cold environments where subzero temperatures abound and there's evidence that plastic lenses can withstand an impact better than a metal shroud. That said, I personally prefer metal barrel construction on lenses and even more so on bodies.

I haven't researched it, but I am thinking this is the most expensive lens Canon has sold with a plastic mount. Compared to the price and build of the other 3 EF-M lenses, the 55-200 feels a bit overpriced and/or under built. Optically it can still match the very good quality of the other 3 lenses.

The biggest concern for users who travel with a long-zoom lens is weight. Most of the time these lenses are used for vacation and many users want to cut down on weight. Canon have a history of compromising on camera lenses when it comes to weight. I suspect that this larger, longer lens was easier to sell to the consumers on "weight" than on construction materials. It's only the mounting portion that is plastic... the rest of the lens barrel is metal.
.
Optically, the lens appears to satisfy all who have sampled it. I just don't understand why they can't justify putting the lens hood in the box with the lens. Nothing frustrates me more than getting shafted by being forced to locate and purchase a lens hood at additional (and often exorbitant) cost.

Are you sure about the lens barrel, Marco? I have read conflicting info. some say it is plastic as well, not that it is a detriment to me seeing how my first lens a Nikon 50 1.8 Series E lens was one of the first 35mm lenses made with a plastic barrel and it has been working fine since the mid 1980's.

Quoted as having a metal "exterior" http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21369.0

Thanks, that's what I had thought before, now if I run across anyone posting about the barrel being plastic I will try and educate them.

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.

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