M5: why 15-45 instead of 18-55 as kit?

Hi, I understand the EF-M 18-55 is the better lens vs the 15-45 and the M3 uses the 18-55 vs M10 using the 15-45 as kit (with the M3 being higher-end than M10). So now we have the even higher-end M5 (vs M3) but it uses the 15-45. Any thoughts why? Or is the 15-45 actually the better lens?

wadia13 wrote:

Hi, I understand the EF-M 18-55 is the better lens vs the 15-45 and the M3 uses the 18-55 vs M10 using the 15-45 as kit (with the M3 being higher-end than M10). So now we have the even higher-end M5 (vs M3) but it uses the 15-45. Any thoughts why? Or is the 15-45 actually the better lens?

15 is very useful on the wide end. Smaller and lighter fits well with the body. Most people will not be able to see a difference in optical quality.

wadia13 wrote:

Hi, I understand the EF-M 18-55 is the better lens vs the 15-45 and the M3 uses the 18-55 vs M10 using the 15-45 as kit (with the M3 being higher-end than M10). So now we have the even higher-end M5 (vs M3) but it uses the 15-45. Any thoughts why? Or is the 15-45 actually the better lens?

It's an interchangeable lens system so you can use any lens on any camera. I don't have the 15-45 yet, so I can't comment on the image quality, but 15mm on the wide end is significantly more useful than 18mm. What I would really like to see is something like a 15-45 f/2.8.

I assumed much of it had to do with timing.  There was no 15-45mm when the M3 was launched (to the world), so the 18-55mm became the default kit.  A consistent theme for EF-M lens introductions since then has been compactness, so it's no surprise kits have been put together for the M10 and M5 with the newer, more compact 15-45mm.

I bought the M3 and the M10 kit and compared the two. The 15-45 was very very slightly sharper at the edges (after applying lens correction in DPP). I have now swapped and use the M3 with the 15-45 (and I've given away the M10/18-55 so I can't do any more comparisons).

I really like the wider end - I would love to have a 15-70 or there abouts - I find 45 not quite enough which is why I also have the Tamron 18-200.

Alan

It is about différenciation from 18-150 kit

Yes, the 15-45 is all plastic (to include lens mount), and it's quite light.  But I've got to say that what I've discovered with this lens (got it with an M10 for the wife) is that it is a quite useful focal range (especially on the wide end of things) and the copy I have is very, very sharp - with performance factors indicative of a much more expensive lens.

That's the thing about these EF-M lenses.  I've been known to periodically knock the build quality (meaning plastic mounts, etc), but I have to admit that their optical performance factors are quite competitive and the low cost of these lenses belie the superb results you can net.  In getting back to the 15-45, this little jewel shouldn't be overlooked.  Of course, that's only my opinion... 

My opinion too

to give those who shoot wide the 15-45 and those who prefer longer the 18-150?

Can't speak to the quality of either lens, but the 15-45 provides a 24-72 field of view.

Not only is the 24-70L popular with FF users, but notice how many P&S cams use that focal length on the short end. It's pretty much the standard now as the 35 was in days gone by.
--
It's not the camera...

The 18-55mm (28.8-88.0mm equiv) was introduced to be a smaller alternative to the EF-S 18-55mm selling with the DSLR's. The EF-M 18-55mm is obviously for mirrorless and it is cheaper for Canon to spend time designing a new lens than selling adapters with the EOS M cameras.

The 15-45mm (24.0-72.0mm equiv) was introduced soon after the 18-55mm, 11-22mm, 22mm, and 55-200mm were around and was used for a replacement kit lens. Here's why:

1. A smaller lens build is cheaper. Having less size means less glass, less metal, and less plastic helping Canon boost up profits.

2. Canon saw more potential in offering a 24-70mm style lens rather than 28-90mm (old EF lens) style.

3. Lighter lens would mean better handling for beginners.

4. Mirrorless is all about the compact size and Canon are probably trying to make people come to mirrorless by giving lenses like these so they can head upmarket with DSLR's. Currently the EOS Rebel, EOS M, and PowerShot G series are all on par with each other and I think Canon are trying to move the EOS Rebel up. This is evident with the SL2/200D, being marketed lower than the T6/1300D but with more advanced features and higher price. I think the EOS T7/T8/1400D will slot above the SL2 when it comes out. Essentially, the bigger the body the 'higher up' it is.

But how do they get stunning quality in a lens that small??? (It puts all EF-S 18-55mm's to SHAME)

1. A shorter flange focal distance removes the limitation of having to place elements further from the camera. This means a potentially closer lens allowing for small design.

2. Canon have made good use of this. The element closest to the sensor is really close. This means a potentially simpler construction particularly for wide-angle focal lengths.

3. Retraction mechanism. Great quality will involve a medium-to-big zoom lens, but retraction allows close position of elements to shrink the lens size.

4. 3 Aspherical lens elements. Having aspherical lenses corrects abberations at the cost of more time and money. However Canon have realised that they need to innovate in mirrorless and create more compact products.

The OP (I'm sure) has moved on since then, so any replies (suggestions) at this point, are all long after thoughts.  But that's OK, one day I replied to a thread (I didn't pay attention to the date of that OP) that originated back to 2013 - sigh.

Ben Herrmann wrote:

The OP (I'm sure) has moved on since then, so any replies (suggestions) at this point, are all long after thoughts. But that's OK, one day I replied to a thread (I didn't pay attention to the date of that OP) that originated back to 2013 - sigh.

Actually, your response then is useful even now. So with the previous poster. So, anybody who reads it, may learn something from it.

And if I may add, assuming it has not been covered already, it's not just the cost or making it small (though those are part of it). 28.8mm 35FF equiv is not exactly wide enough now. Sony and others have been offering something in the 24mm 35FF equivalent for years. This may not mean to some, but it does make a difference if one is literally in a tight spot. To do that, though, they sacrificed the long end a bit and to keep it small and simple, made that long end f6.3 instead of f5.6. I just got my M6 + 15-45 kit yesterday (got it on sale for U$541) and the size made me smile!     Nice camera and lens for everyday carry.

The M6 kit is not exactly perfect, but for U$541, I can live with that and it's better than any 1" sensor. It allows me to plug in my EF/EF-s lenses using my U$29 Andoer adapter if I need more firepower. The kit lens is amazingly sharp and quiet. The whole setup reminds me of my Sony a5100 + 16-50. I still have to say which one I will like better, but both should be fine, I think!

caterpillar wrote:

Ben Herrmann wrote:

The OP (I'm sure) has moved on since then, so any replies (suggestions) at this point, are all long after thoughts. But that's OK, one day I replied to a thread (I didn't pay attention to the date of that OP) that originated back to 2013 - sigh.

Actually, your response then is useful even now. So with the previous poster. So, anybody who reads it, may learn something from it.

And if I may add, assuming it has not been covered already, it's not just the cost or making it small (though those are part of it). 28.8mm 35FF equiv is not exactly wide enough now. Sony and others have been offering something in the 24mm 35FF equivalent for years. This may not mean to some, but it does make a difference if one is literally in a tight spot. To do that, though, they sacrificed the long end a bit and to keep it small and simple, made that long end f6.3 instead of f5.6. I just got my M6 + 15-45 kit yesterday (got it on sale for U$541) and the size made me smile! Nice camera and lens for everyday carry.

The M6 kit is not exactly perfect, but for U$541, I can live with that and it's better than any 1" sensor. It allows me to plug in my EF/EF-s lenses using my U$29 Andoer adapter if I need more firepower. The kit lens is amazingly sharp and quiet. The whole setup reminds me of my Sony a5100 + 16-50. I still have to say which one I will like better, but both should be fine, I think!

I'm reading it in 2019 so it's still useful!

(-:

I'm an avid EOS M system user also (m, M2, M3, M100, M50).  But it has become a well known issue that the Canon EOS EF-M 15-45 F3.5-6.3 IS STM lens has massive issues with copy to copy variations (mostly decentering issues).  I know, I had to go through 4 of them before I settled on 2 that were halfway decent.  After sending in my 4th one to Canon repair, I talked with one of the customer service reps there.  The person that I spoke with told me that in the case of the EF-M 15-45, it was the most sent in lens they've seen.  They typically don't try to repair them because just about all of them have decentering issues.  Instead, they replace them with a new one because it's not cost effective for them to try and repair.

This Fuji EX 15-45 F3.5-5.6 IS PZ is superior optically, I can tell you that and that 22.5 MM wide end equivalent really makes a difference (even over the now standardized 24 MM equivalents that you see from other brands).  Now keep in mind, I'm not slamming the EOS M system at all as I find those cameras fun to shoot with.  If you've been keeping up with the various Canon patents, they have a half dozen different patents in the system for 15-45 lens improvements, so I can only hope they finally release a replacement for that lens.  I will say that I do love the compact form factor of the Canon EF-M 15-45.

Ben Herrmann wrote:

I'm an avid EOS M system user also (m, M2, M3, M100, M50). But it has become a well known issue that the Canon EOS EF-M 15-45 F3.5-6.3 IS STM lens has massive issues with copy to copy variations (mostly decentering issues). I know, I had to go through 4 of them before I settled on 2 that were halfway decent. After sending in my 4th one to Canon repair, I talked with one of the customer service reps there. The person that I spoke with told me that in the case of the EF-M 15-45, it was the most sent in lens they've seen. They typically don't try to repair them because just about all of them have decentering issues. Instead, they replace them with a new one because it's not cost effective for them to try and repair.

This Fuji EX 15-45 F3.5-5.6 IS PZ is superior optically, I can tell you that and that 22.5 MM wide end equivalent really makes a difference (even over the now standardized 24 MM equivalents that you see from other brands). Now keep in mind, I'm not slamming the EOS M system at all as I find those cameras fun to shoot with. If you've been keeping up with the various Canon patents, they have a half dozen different patents in the system for 15-45 lens improvements, so I can only hope they finally release a replacement for that lens. I will say that I do love the compact form factor of the Canon EF-M 15-45.

Developments in 2018, especially the release of the Sony a7-3 has changed many old plans. These has literally made 3 companies change course in a dime. With the M dead-end to go to the R, I very much doubt if Canon will release a fast 15-45. It could still be in the books thoughh as that is a sought after FL. And Canon is also very good at designing and making those lens and will still make a profit, if only to prolong the M line.

With Canon admitting the shrinking of the camera market on all fronts, I don't foresee them working to make the M expand to really serious/enthusiast market. It could go the way of the Nikon 1, a niche MILC, although, being aps-c, instead of the insulting 1" sensor Nikon used, it will have a longer life. My take is that Canon will slowly drop the dslr line, from bottom to top, and let the M exist as an independent system. Yes, you can still use the EF/EF-s lenses with an adapter but I doubt if the R lenses will be backward portable though I see no reason why not.

I very much doubt if Canon is in the mood to make an aps-c R series. It would divide them too much with too many lines to maintain. As the market shrinks, their best bet is still to keep the M, even if a different system that will not lead to the R.

But the more pressing problem for Canon is how to catch up in technology for even R to make good at the 35FF line. They need to match or to get very near the A7-3 in performance if they hope to justify charging U$2,400, or even U$2,000. Otherwise, they will be relegated to the U$1,000-1,400 range. They can't even compete well with the U$900 XT-30 or the a6400 in the aps-c line.

My take is, Canon will try to keep the loyal in with a low cost body (but hit them with the lenses and accessories to compensate). That's what they are doing now with the M and it seems the RP will be doing the same with the 35FF MILC. I will not even deal with how they can respond to build the 1DX-3 or future 5Ds or their MILC version, which I think they will do. At this stage of development, Canon just wants to lessen the bleeding.  And that means low cost cameras, and making theh current loyalists happy as best as they can.

For hand hold vlogging, 15-45 is more relax to the arm.

I've set my 15-45 to 18mm for a test and you need to extend your arm longer, more tiring.

Dual-sensing IS is another plus for the 15-45!

R2

In terms of the Image Quality (Sharpness and Contrast) 15-45 is better lens than 18-55. I have a little decentered 15-45 and yet the worst edge was still better than the both edges on the 18-55 that I had.