Optically how good is the EF-M 55-200 IS STM lens?

Side note, DLO via DPP4 turns the 55-200 into an L practically.

Lightgreen wrote:

Side note, DLO via DPP4 turns the 55-200 into an L practically.

You say this as praise or criticism of the lens? Some could interpret this to mean that the lens cannot hold its own optically, and that significant PP hacks are needed to make it a good performer. Please cast your vote without regard for DLO or individual PP application since the poll is about the lens's optics, not about digital signal processing. You know that. Thanks.

Both.

Some lenses clean up well with DLO, others, DLO can't help to save it's life. The 55-200 is one of those lenses that it really helps with, not that it was bad to begin with but there is some CA it cleans up very nicely. Optically speaking, it clocks an insane almost 4,000 lines in the center wide open; doesn't do so well in the corners so it's subjective. I personally think center counts more than corners. I cast an excellent and stand by it, at least my copy anyhow.

Now if you asked me how well the IS performs (not the optics) I'd say crappy. That's one thing Canon could easily do a mark II of the lens with. You really need to shoot at least your shutter speed in terms of focal length which isn't that big of a deal as you can always push more shutter to compensate for meh IS (at least my copy once again). That and nano-USM of course would be welcome. The 18-150 does focusing and IS better (you can easily shoot between 1/15 and 1/40 at 150mm depending how careful you are for example, which there is no way the 55-200 can do), but is optically inferior vs the 55-200, no offense to the 18-150. The 18-150 on the other hand, is more optically distributed and handles corner sharpness better; obviously Canon's been adapting their optical formulas to favor distributed sharpness. So for example the 55-200 is sharper in the center vs the 18-150, but the 18-150 is sharper in the corners, in some circumstances than the 55-200.

Lightgreen wrote:

Both.

Some lenses clean up well with DLO, others, DLO can't help to save it's life. The 55-200 is one of those lenses that it really helps with, not that it was bad to begin with but there is some CA it cleans up very nicely. Optically speaking, it clocks an insane almost 4,000 lines in the center wide open; doesn't do so well in the corners so it's subjective. I personally think center counts more than corners. I cast an excellent and stand by it, at least my copy anyhow.

Now if you asked me how well the IS performs (not the optics) I'd say crappy. That's one thing Canon could easily do a mark II of the lens with. You really need to shoot at least your shutter speed in terms of focal length which isn't that big of a deal as you can always push more shutter to compensate for meh IS (at least my copy once again). That and nano-USM of course would be welcome. The 18-150 does focusing and IS better (you can easily shoot between 1/15 and 1/40 at 150mm depending how careful you are for example, which there is no way the 55-200 can do), but is optically inferior vs the 55-200, no offense to the 18-150. The 18-150 on the other hand, is more optically distributed and handles corner sharpness better; obviously Canon's been adapting their optical formulas to favor distributed sharpness. So for example the 55-200 is sharper in the center vs the 18-150, but the 18-150 is sharper in the corners, in some circumstances than the 55-200.

Great. This has been discussed on a handful of separate threads already. The goal of this poll is much simpler. Register your vote. Thanks.

Strange about the IS since it is always ON if the camera is ON.

Greg