Excellent, but...

Camera was bought specifically for travel. It has all the customisable features I require, including resolution, but is seriously let down by the poor quality of lenses by Canon, particularly the zoom range. Canon’s hype for this camera is therefore misleading, if not downright false. This means I’m unable to write anything too positive about the camera ‘cause I’ve yet to discover its real potential for taking high quality photographs!

Sittatunga wrote:

Michael Leek wrote:

Camera was bought specifically for travel. It has all the customisable features I require, including resolution, but is seriously let down by the poor quality of lenses by Canon, particularly the zoom range. Canon’s hype for this camera is therefore misleading, if not downright false. This means I’m unable to write anything too positive about the camera ‘cause I’ve yet to discover its real potential for taking high quality photographs!

You say lenses in the plural. Which ones did you try?

I’ve borrowed the Canon 55-200mm. Also not good.

It’s beyond my comprehension why Canon produce a potentially excellent camera body but don’t support it with quality optics...

You’re obviously an experienced photographer (from your profile). Let’s see what you’re seeing. Post some examples for us (w/EXIF and any details) so we can start helping you.

R2

This system needs a set of Mid Range zooms ....... the 11-22 is fine but hardly ultra wide however good it is so

8-16 F4 IS ... 15-60 F4 IS .... 55-300 F4-5.6 IS maybe , with proper QC for sample consistency .. Canon need to decide what they`re doing with the M system - given the M6-II you`d think they`d start taking it seriously , otherwise it`ll end up basically as the M100 and kit lens series and will fizzle out altogether in time .. an M5-II and a set of midrange lenses would help ...... an R mount adapter would too if it was possible

APS-C Mirrorless has a drought in decent standard zooms in general, the Fuji system has two rather mediocre midrange ones (the 18-55 and 16-80 are both pretty naff ) and one unstabilized F2.8 16-55 Brick which at least is very good but would be more at home on a 5DS sized body , Sony only has two which are even usable (the 18-135 and expensive and unstabilized and comically priced but decent 16-55 F2.8 ) .... Nikon only has ONE period (along the lines of the Canon 15-45) ....... so it`s not just EOS-M ...... the difference is that the M system hasn`t all the rubbish ones as well which the others (especially Sony) have

The problem is a decent zoom lens is never going to be small, just look at the APSC zoom lenses from Sony and Fuji, they are not much different in size/price to the full frame versions.  So you might as well just fit a EF 100-400ii L.

For me, I am quite happy with the 55-200 EF-M/M6ii  I wouldn't mind something longer, but then it would be a lot bigger and I probably wouldn't carry it with me as much.

PerfectMark wrote:

The problem is a decent zoom lens is never going to be small, just look at the APSC zoom lenses from Sony and Fuji, they are not much different in size/price to the full frame versions. So you might as well just fit a EF 100-400ii L.

but that means mucking about with an adapter and thats only the tele zoom , is massive and costs the earth , there isn`t a decent APS-C Standard zoom for DSLRs either in Canon (or nikon) even 3rd party ones are mediocre - the canon 17-55 F2.8 is massive and only really good at F5.6 ... FF fares a lot better for standard zooms in all mounts but they`re bog all use to APS_C

AdamT wrote:

PerfectMark wrote:

The problem is a decent zoom lens is never going to be small, just look at the APSC zoom lenses from Sony and Fuji, they are not much different in size/price to the full frame versions. So you might as well just fit a EF 100-400ii L.

but that means mucking about with an adapter and thats only the tele zoom , is massive and costs the earth , there isn`t a decent APS-C Standard zoom for DSLRs either in Canon (or nikon) even 3rd party ones are mediocre - the canon 17-55 F2.8 is massive and only really good at F5.6 ... FF fares a lot better for standard zooms in all mounts but they`re bog all use to APS_C

OK I agree with that, I saw the post where the OP mentioned the 70-200 and thought he was using zoom to mean tele lenses.

Despite isn't size, I use the EF-S 18-135 nUSM as my main zoom lens on my M6ii. Seems to be the best APSC zoom lens Canon currently provides, but hopefully that changes when they release the rumoured EF-M 2.8-4 zoom lens.

Edit: Although I think decent is the wrong word, the 18-150 is decent, it is just not excellent.

Despite isn't size, I use the EF-S 18-135 nUSM as my main zoom lens on my M6ii. Seems to be the best APSC zoom lens Canon currently provides, but hopefully that changes when they release the rumoured EF-M 2.8-4 zoom lens.

you`re right , I tried one on the EOS-M ,OK optically (like a good copy of the 17-85) but AF was useless back in the day , the price is right though ...... I know there`s the EFM 18-150 too but the price isn`t right - a 15-60 F4 I think is what is needed ....... if I was after a tele personally, I`d just grab a cheap used 70-200 F4L IS, yeah more adapter use but it`s great wideopen .

I recently sold my M6. Bought it to compare with my M4/3 equipment. I liked the M6 for the most part in terms of it functioning, pic quality capability and compact size. It could pass as compared to M4/3 as a competent compact camera. I had moved up from an M100 as I liked the potential and was considering going from M4/3 altogether.

But as stated here, the lens options were the problem. My M100 15-45 zoom was actually pretty good. Not so much for the M6 lens so I kept the one from the M100. I purchased a 55-200 and it was also Lacking having soft corners. I was very happy with my 22mm and pretty much kept it on the camera. Sharp, compact and I did not have any issues with hand holding.

Olympus produces some really nice lenses at a range of prices for both zooms and primes. The 12-40/4 zoom is fabulous. It really bothers me that a very capable company like Canon cannot produce a consistently good set of lenses. I never experienced QC issues with Oly lenses, although possible. I purchased a Nikon 10-20 zoom and it was clearly defective. The second Is great. No issues. Again from another very capable company. Do the two largest manufacturers have the greatest lens QC issues? If so Is it because of the volume or the manu process?

It is obvious from reading so many comments in this forum that people do want to experiment with different camera and lens options but it seems to be a struggle to stay optimistic when venturing beyond the basics. I am going back to the basics focussing on what I hope to be competent, trustworthy equipment that gets the job done, regardless of who makes it. The company that does that consistently gets my dollars.

Michael Leek wrote:

Camera was bought specifically for travel. It has all the customisable features I require, including resolution, but is seriously let down by the poor quality of lenses by Canon, particularly the zoom range. Canon’s hype for this camera is therefore misleading, if not downright false. This means I’m unable to write anything too positive about the camera ‘cause I’ve yet to discover its real potential for taking high quality photographs!

lenses for it are: siggy 56 f1.4 and siggy 16 f1.4 and canon 32 f1.4 and canon 11-22

beyond that - a lot of buts

sam2428 wrote:

MAC wrote:

Michael Leek wrote:

Camera was bought specifically for travel. It has all the customisable features I require, including resolution, but is seriously let down by the poor quality of lenses by Canon, particularly the zoom range. Canon’s hype for this camera is therefore misleading, if not downright false. This means I’m unable to write anything too positive about the camera ‘cause I’ve yet to discover its real potential for taking high quality photographs!

lenses for it are: siggy 56 f1.4 and siggy 16 f1.4 and canon 32 f1.4 and canon 11-22

beyond that - a lot of buts

What about the 22f2? Everyone seems to praise that lens.

it's light, but not as good as the 32 f1.4

it is the FF equivalent of a 35 f3.2 without IS

btw - I studied m6ii and lenses for months and ended up buying an RP for $850 and a RF 24 -105 F4 L for $899 around xmas time.  I'm very pleased with the sooc jpgs

im on the fence right now about buying a m6ii.

I was on the fence for 3 months and skipped out

It seems to be a great camera but I’m just not super excited to buy it.

has no bright zoom lens

Not a huge fan of the removable eye sore evf either.

you can't put a flash or radio trigger on the hot shoe at same time  - non starter

But if it creates good imagines that’s ultimately what matters.

it does with the 11-22, 32 f1.4, 56 f1.4

also debating between the 15-45 and the 18-150 kit if I do end up buying one.

consider the RP instead with RF lenses

or wait for a m5ii/m50 ii with internal evf and IBIS

sam2428 wrote:

MAC wrote:

Michael Leek wrote:

Camera was bought specifically for travel. It has all the customisable features I require, including resolution, but is seriously let down by the poor quality of lenses by Canon, particularly the zoom range. Canon’s hype for this camera is therefore misleading, if not downright false. This means I’m unable to write anything too positive about the camera ‘cause I’ve yet to discover its real potential for taking high quality photographs!

lenses for it are: siggy 56 f1.4 and siggy 16 f1.4 and canon 32 f1.4 and canon 11-22

beyond that - a lot of buts

What about the 22f2? Everyone seems to praise that lens.

im on the fence right now about buying a m6ii. It seems to be a great camera but I’m just not super excited to buy it. Not a huge fan of the removable eye sore evf either. But if it creates good imagines that’s ultimately what matters.

also debating between the 15-45 and the 18-150 kit if I do end up buying one.

The Canon 18-150mm lens for the M6 MkII is useless beyond a focal length of about 50mm (if that). Image quality deteriorates quickly beyond that. And in even slightly low light conditions noise is very much apparent. I would not recommend this lens.

Michael Leek wrote:

sam2428 wrote:

MAC wrote:

Michael Leek wrote:

Camera was bought specifically for travel. It has all the customisable features I require, including resolution, but is seriously let down by the poor quality of lenses by Canon, particularly the zoom range. Canon’s hype for this camera is therefore misleading, if not downright false. This means I’m unable to write anything too positive about the camera ‘cause I’ve yet to discover its real potential for taking high quality photographs!

lenses for it are: siggy 56 f1.4 and siggy 16 f1.4 and canon 32 f1.4 and canon 11-22

beyond that - a lot of buts

What about the 22f2? Everyone seems to praise that lens.

im on the fence right now about buying a m6ii. It seems to be a great camera but I’m just not super excited to buy it. Not a huge fan of the removable eye sore evf either. But if it creates good imagines that’s ultimately what matters.

also debating between the 15-45 and the 18-150 kit if I do end up buying one.

The Canon 18-150mm lens for the M6 MkII is useless beyond a focal length of about 50mm (if that). Image quality deteriorates quickly beyond that. And in even slightly low light conditions noise is very much apparent. I would not recommend this lens.

You must have a bad copy. Mine is fine throughout the range. It's a super zoom, so obviously it won't be prime quality, but it's as good as any other super zoom out there. And noise is very well controlled on the M6II. Of course, you have to know how to process the images (don't sharpen noise, for example), but once you do, the results are as good as you're going to get from a crop sensor.

And the 22 is an excellent lens. Instead of playing with equivalence numbers in my head, like some posters seem to be obsessed with, I just use it. I've been using it since getting it with my first M, and have many great shots from it. It's also amazingly small and light. Definitely no need for an EVF when using that lens.

The M6II is easily the best camera I've owned. Very well designed, amazing AF system, fast performance, and excellent image quality. If you want a fast small native EF-M zoom to go with it, you won't get one (not right now). If you want to produce excellent images with the many superb lenses that fit either natively or with the adapter (which doesn't affect either performance or image quality), this camera makes it easy to get them.

There's no way I would ever choose the RP instead of this camera. The RP simply has too many compromises. The R system is looking like it's about to expand very nicely. Of course, to get the full benefit of the R, you will need much bigger and more expensive lenses, and a much better body than the RP.