EF-M Lenses: Not as durable as I thought...

THE EOS MASTER wrote:

Hi All,

So a few months ago I purchased an EOS M100. Not because it was small and light, but more because of the new DIGIC 7 features, ISO 25600 etc. and it seemed like a 'fun' camera. I just wanted to try EF-M mirrorless for once. The camera was enough for me in terms of performance, and I received it direct from Canon (so definitely genuine) with the 15-45mm and 55-200mm lenses.

I knew from experience with my friend's 18-55mm kit lens, that it can definitely survive a few drops and general wear and tear. The quality of both my EF-M lenses appeared better and the price said so too.

But... somehow I dropped my 15-45mm. It wasn't a severe drop, but for some reason the optics misaligned and the camera thinks it's stuck at 45mm. Moreover, my 55-200mm won't extend when zoomed. I don't know what is going on. Also I can't find any EF-M repair centres, just EF and EF-S.

Can anyone tell me if you've had problems with the durability of these lenses???

From my experience in a manufacturer's service department I have seen a lens that had fallen from 18 inches onto a thick carpet and which had to be written off. On the other hand I have also seen a lens that fell from the 4th floor of a multi storey car park which survived with minor scuffing and a bent filter ring.

The moral, if there is one, is that it's simply the luck of the draw and less to do with durability. If you don't want your lenses to be damaged it's probably best not to drop them.  

I have had no such issue with any of my photo gear. I guess I had a chrome strap lug on a Coolpix 4300 oxidize and paint wear off a few buttons over 15+ years, but I treat my gear very carefully and haven't dropped or caused serious damage to a camera yet (knock on wood).

Obviously mistakes happen, but I generally take care to have a wrist, shoulder, or neck strap attached to me at all times, so that even if I do loose my grip, the camera is safe.

Dropping any camera, or especially lens could have the potential to cause serious damage, regardless of brand or product line. As a product designer, when I think of durability, I think of ability to withstand general wear and tear, and maintain functionality over X number use cycles. I don't typically think of this as protection against throwing out of windows, but this obviously depends upon the working environment, as a gopro or waterproof camera would be designed with shock resistance in mind. It is safe to assume that their is no such protection unless marketed as so. Drop an expensive Leica lens and you might have similar results as an EF-M one.

I am sorry to hear about your issue. Try contacting a Canon service center and see what they tell you, I would imagine that they if repairable, they could either do the work or ship it to another center that could. Good luck!

Probably will not be able to find a repair shop. Even Canon doesn't seem to repair M lenses, at least not my 18-55mm. They replaced it and indicated it is not repairable. Good luck.

Greg

Ben Herrmann wrote:

Canon's initial EF-M offerings - the 18-55, the 22 MM, and the 11-22 MM were all built like little tanks - and love those metal lens mounts. Optically they also do a very good job and the 22 and the 11-22 are optical marvels for the price.

Section of the 18-55mm lens on the EOS M

Most of the metal in this lens is in the vanity shell and the bayonet. Just like a MacBook Pro. It doesn't mean it's a badly constructed lens, just that the later lenses are more honestly made. Lenses in this price range aren't designed to be repaired, it's too costly, just like the original Timex clockwork watches.  If it breaks in the guarantee period it's cheaper to replace than to mend.

But something ridiculous happened on the way to the forums (pun intended) - Canon elected to get cheap. Everything produced after those 3 gorgeous lenses turned into all plastic designs with the exception of some 3rd party lenses that feature superb construction with metal mounts. And the bantering back and forth between the "metal lens mount" fans and those who are "purveyors of the plastic lens mount," is ongoing. IMO, there's some truth and logic to customers wanting better constructed optics.

This is but one facet of the EF-M lens line in general that prevents me from purchasing more M serious bodies - that is, both the quality and the pitiful number of EF-M lenses available. Think about it - Canon has released 8 M bodies since the M was first released - only to have a current selection of 7 Canon EF-M lenses (6 really since the 18-55 is no longer being produced).

Now lest any of the EOS M fanboys infer that I'm knocking the system - I'm not - not by a long shot! I enjoy shooting with the system, but many of us aren't satisfied with the current EF-M selection of optics.

-- hide signature --

Sincerely,
Bernd ("Ben") Herrmann
Fuquay Varina, North Carolina USA

Sittatunga wrote:

Ben Herrmann wrote:

Canon's initial EF-M offerings - the 18-55, the 22 MM, and the 11-22 MM were all built like little tanks - and love those metal lens mounts. Optically they also do a very good job and the 22 and the 11-22 are optical marvels for the price.

Section of the 18-55mm lens on the EOS M

Most of the metal in this lens is in the vanity shell and the bayonet. Just like a MacBook Pro. It doesn't mean it's a badly constructed lens, just that the later lenses are more honestly made. Lenses in this price range aren't designed to be repaired, it's too costly, just like the original Timex clockwork watches. If it breaks in the guarantee period it's cheaper to replace than to mend.

But something ridiculous happened on the way to the forums (pun intended) - Canon elected to get cheap. Everything produced after those 3 gorgeous lenses turned into all plastic designs with the exception of some 3rd party lenses that feature superb construction with metal mounts. And the bantering back and forth between the "metal lens mount" fans and those who are "purveyors of the plastic lens mount," is ongoing. IMO, there's some truth and logic to customers wanting better constructed optics.

This is but one facet of the EF-M lens line in general that prevents me from purchasing more M serious bodies - that is, both the quality and the pitiful number of EF-M lenses available. Think about it - Canon has released 8 M bodies since the M was first released - only to have a current selection of 7 Canon EF-M lenses (6 really since the 18-55 is no longer being produced).

Now lest any of the EOS M fanboys infer that I'm knocking the system - I'm not - not by a long shot! I enjoy shooting with the system, but many of us aren't satisfied with the current EF-M selection of optics.

"...just that the later lenses are more honestly made" - what do you mean by this?

robblackett wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Ben Herrmann wrote:

Canon's initial EF-M offerings - the 18-55, the 22 MM, and the 11-22 MM were all built like little tanks - and love those metal lens mounts. Optically they also do a very good job and the 22 and the 11-22 are optical marvels for the price.

Section of the 18-55mm lens on the EOS M

Most of the metal in this lens is in the vanity shell and the bayonet. Just like a MacBook Pro. It doesn't mean it's a badly constructed lens, just that the later lenses are more honestly made. Lenses in this price range aren't designed to be repaired, it's too costly, just like the original Timex clockwork watches. If it breaks in the guarantee period it's cheaper to replace than to mend.

But something ridiculous happened on the way to the forums (pun intended) - Canon elected to get cheap. Everything produced after those 3 gorgeous lenses turned into all plastic designs with the exception of some 3rd party lenses that feature superb construction with metal mounts. And the bantering back and forth between the "metal lens mount" fans and those who are "purveyors of the plastic lens mount," is ongoing. IMO, there's some truth and logic to customers wanting better constructed optics.

This is but one facet of the EF-M lens line in general that prevents me from purchasing more M serious bodies - that is, both the quality and the pitiful number of EF-M lenses available. Think about it - Canon has released 8 M bodies since the M was first released - only to have a current selection of 7 Canon EF-M lenses (6 really since the 18-55 is no longer being produced).

Now lest any of the EOS M fanboys infer that I'm knocking the system - I'm not - not by a long shot! I enjoy shooting with the system, but many of us aren't satisfied with the current EF-M selection of optics.

"...just that the later lenses are more honestly made" - what do you mean by this?

All the EF M lenses basically have high grade engineering plastic bodies. That's not to say that they're bad, Canon have at least had 42 years of practice in making good cameras with lots of plastics. The three EF M lenses that I own have very thin, easily dented metal vanity shells that look nice, feel great but are essentially there for decoration. The lenses would been just as good and a bit cheaper without those shells. Canon have dropped the shells on their later lenses, making it explicit that the lens bodies are plastic and people complain that they look cheap. They can't please everyone.

There again, I don't like the stone cladding on London's Tower Bridge. There's a steel framework inside those towers. I'd rather the bridge showed how it worked as an example of Victorian engineering than it hid behind mock-mediaeval masonry.

Ben Herrmann wrote:

Canon's initial EF-M offerings - the 18-55, the 22 MM, and the 11-22 MM were all built like little tanks - and love those metal lens mounts. Optically they also do a very good job and the 22 and the 11-22 are optical marvels for the price.

But something ridiculous happened on the way to the forums (pun intended) - Canon elected to get cheap. Everything produced after those 3 gorgeous lenses turned into all plastic designs with the exception of some 3rd party lenses that feature superb construction with metal mounts. And the bantering back and forth between the "metal lens mount" fans and those who are "purveyors of the plastic lens mount," is ongoing. IMO, there's some truth and logic to customers wanting better constructed optics.

This is but one facet of the EF-M lens line in general that prevents me from purchasing more M serious bodies - that is, both the quality and the pitiful number of EF-M lenses available. Think about it - Canon has released 8 M bodies since the M was first released - only to have a current selection of 7 Canon EF-M lenses (6 really since the 18-55 is no longer being produced).

Now lest any of the EOS M fanboys infer that I'm knocking the system - I'm not - not by a long shot! I enjoy shooting with the system, but many of us aren't satisfied with the current EF-M selection of optics.

In a way I'm going a bit off-topic here, but in the vein of "it could be worse"/"let's hope they don't go that far!" you could take a close look at Canon's new cheapest DSLR (except that it isn't "cheaper enough" yet as far as its actual price goes) - the EOS 4000D/3000D (not sure if it has a US designation or even will be on sale in the US) - it's a scary illustration of how cheap Canon is willing to go on construction etc.  It was launched alongside the EOS 2000D/1500D/Rebel T7, which is a direct replacement for the EOS 1300D/Rebel T6.  The 2000D/T7 ups the old model to a 24MP sensor but otherwise leaves it unchanged, aside from one weird downgrade it shares with the new 4000D (there's no large X contact in the hotshoe any more, just a blank, so they cannot use cheap undedicated flashes and even some of Canon's own units aren't fully functional) but by comparison the 4000D is a bit of a shocker.  It stays at 18MP (not a sin), is made of especially cheap polycarbonate, has an all-plastic lens mount (we've seen this before back in film days and these days only Sony had done it on the a58 and a68, but it always looks ugly), a lift-it-yourself flash (like the EOS M50, thankfully the only "downgrade" it shares with these and it's not too bad a feature), no rear thumbgrip material, a 2.7" 230k dot LCD (when was the last time we tried to ignore the dots on a resolution that low?), control labels printed next to buttons because it's cheaper and no blue paint for any of the legends either for the same reason, no on/off switch (just an OFF position on the mode dial - so you can't leave it set to your favourite shooting mode, ready to go), no eyesight correction facility for the viewfinder.  They bundle it with the worst variant of the 18-55 still made, unsurprisingly, yet it barely costs any less than the 4000D.  Both models (and their predecessor) dropped the automatic dust removal systems from the sensor too.

At least they're not doing that to the EOS M range (yet  )...