Useless!

Started 3 months ago | User reviews
Michael Leek
Michael Leek Regular Member • Posts: 154
Useless!

A very disappointing lens! Probably the worse lens I’ve owned! Image quality is awful at any focal length above about 50mm, even in almost perfect light conditions - such as often found in the mid west USA. In frequent low light conditions, such as in Scotland, where I live, this lens is worse than many point-and-shoot cameras!

I bought this lens specifically for travel, alongside my Canon M6 MkII. Whilst the camera body is good, I have no idea of its true potential with this piece of inferior glass attached. It almost makes the camera body useless.

Canon should be ashamed of themselves for producing and marketing a product that fails to deliver against Canon’s hyped-up claims.

 Michael Leek's gear list:Michael Leek's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS M6 II Sigma 300mm F2.8 APO EX DG HSM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +16 more
Canon EF-M 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM
Lens • Canon EF-M
Announced: Sep 15, 2016
Michael Leek's score
0.0
Average community score
3.2
Canon EF-M 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Canon EOS M6
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
neilt3
neilt3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,704
Sounds faulty .
3

Sounds like you've got yourself a faulty lens that needs returning from where you bought it for replacement .

Did you buy it new from a shop with a guarantee , or second hand off eBay ?

 neilt3's gear list:neilt3's gear list
Konica Minolta DiMAGE A200 Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Minolta DiMAGE 7 Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5 Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi +41 more
gium Senior Member • Posts: 1,514
Re: Useless!
1

I actually liked this lens and I'm disappointed I sold it. I brought it to Disneyland and used it on my M6 back then. I was pleasantly surprised how well it performed, sharp in the center area at all focal lenghts and apertures. some softness in the corners at longer focal lenghts, but overall very usable. Especially for a 8,3x zoom it performed good.

So far all I've read about this lens were all positive reviews, so this review surprises me. But thanks for your input and review, it's unfortunate the lens didn't perform according to your expectations.

 gium's gear list:gium's gear list
Canon EOS RP Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM +8 more
Michael Leek
OP Michael Leek Regular Member • Posts: 154
Re: Sounds faulty .

neilt3 wrote:

Sounds like you've got yourself a faulty lens that needs returning from where you bought it for replacement .

Did you buy it new from a shop with a guarantee , or second hand off eBay ?

Bought new in December.

 Michael Leek's gear list:Michael Leek's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS M6 II Sigma 300mm F2.8 APO EX DG HSM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +16 more
neilt3
neilt3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,704
Re: Sounds faulty .
1
  • Michael Leek wrote:

neilt3 wrote:

Sounds like you've got yourself a faulty lens that needs returning from where you bought it for replacement .

Did you buy it new from a shop with a guarantee , or second hand off eBay ?

Bought new in December.

It seems to me if it's as bad as you say , your covered with your statutory consumer rights .

It has to be fit for the purpose it was sold for , and according to your description , it's not .

As a minimum they should change it for another , even after this time  .

Was it from a shop in the u.k , rather than a grey import ?

I've bought a lens in the past , online from a UK shop that was unsatisfactory and sent it back for a refund , no problem .

Mail order goods ( new or used ) are also returnable under the distance selling regulations , but I think theirs a time limit on that . Much less than six months .

 neilt3's gear list:neilt3's gear list
Konica Minolta DiMAGE A200 Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Minolta DiMAGE 7 Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5 Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi +41 more
Andy01 Senior Member • Posts: 3,667
Re: Useless!
3

I do not have a 32MP M6 ii, but I am actually quite impressed with my 18-150mm on my M5 - I think that it has pretty decent IQ for a superzoom. Does it compare at 150mm (on M5) with my 100-400L ii at 240mm on 6D ii - of course not and I don't expect it to either. But it is a reasonable compromise that provides a very useful focal length range in a fairly compact solution.

I saw you review of M6 ii where you slated both camera and lenses because of the lenses. You stated (from memory) that the lenses were poor and particularly the zooms, and then stated that (if I understood you correctly) that you had only tried 18-150mm and a borrowed 55-200mm. Perhaps you should try some of the primes and the excellent 11-22mm ?

Also, what are you comparing against ? If you are trying to get similar IQ from M6 ii + 18-150mm as you get from a FF + 24-70L f2.8, it is hardly surprising that you are disappointed.

As others have said, perhaps your copy of 18-150mm is not good and you should try to get it repaired while it is still under warranty ? Might have been better to have dealt with this within the first couple of weeks rather than waiting 6 months though.

Read the other comment here about 18-150mm - generally it is quite well thought of for a compact versatile superzoom.

Colin

 Andy01's gear list:Andy01's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon 6D Mark II Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon EF-M 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM +5 more
Michael Leek
OP Michael Leek Regular Member • Posts: 154
Re: Sounds faulty .

neilt3 wrote:

  • Michael Leek wrote:

neilt3 wrote:

Sounds like you've got yourself a faulty lens that needs returning from where you bought it for replacement .

Did you buy it new from a shop with a guarantee , or second hand off eBay ?

Bought new in December.

It seems to me if it's as bad as you say , your covered with your statutory consumer rights .

It has to be fit for the purpose it was sold for , and according to your description , it's not .

As a minimum they should change it for another , even after this time .

Was it from a shop in the u.k , rather than a grey import ?

I've bought a lens in the past , online from a UK shop that was unsatisfactory and sent it back for a refund , no problem .

Mail order goods ( new or used ) are also returnable under the distance selling regulations , but I think theirs a time limit on that . Much less than six months .

I do understand UK consumer laws! However, one reason for not having sent it back was because, having bought it from Wex Photo Video, they are not the most pro active when it comes to returns resulting from faulty goods. Their immediate reaction is to have a faulty lens ‘repaired’ rather than replacing as new. I had this problem with a brand new Sigma 150-600mm Sports. Auto focus stopped working after the very first day’s shooting! Wex said send it back and they’ll get Sigma to repair. Wex would NOT entertain a straight replacement, even though the lens was less than one month old and obviously still within warranty. It was repaired, but I’m not convinced that it was simply the auto focus motor that was at fault (which was replaced). At maximum focal length, using a pro tripod with remote shutter release, AF is not always accurate. It’s almost as if the lens is either front focusing or back focusing. Not good. But I digress from the topic I originated in the first place...!

Reading numerous online reviews from both sides of the Atlantic, it seems the Canon lens is not that good anyway, but unfortunately I fell for one or two positive reviews. These made me decide to get this lens!

It would be so useful if DPReview did as many lens reviews as they do cameras!

 Michael Leek's gear list:Michael Leek's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS M6 II Sigma 300mm F2.8 APO EX DG HSM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +16 more
neilt3
neilt3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,704
Re: Sounds faulty .

Your call , but it sounds like the lens is unusable for anything other than a paperweight .

So if you've still got the kit lens that came with your camera , I'd still take it back .

At least you stand a chance of it being sorted out to at least the standard that other people's are .

It's not like it's a £50 lens you got unlucky with , have them stand by their product .

 neilt3's gear list:neilt3's gear list
Konica Minolta DiMAGE A200 Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Minolta DiMAGE 7 Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5 Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi +41 more
Michael Leek
OP Michael Leek Regular Member • Posts: 154
Re: Sounds faulty .

neilt3 wrote:

Your call , but it sounds like the lens is unusable for anything other than a paperweight .

So if you've still got the kit lens that came with your camera , I'd still take it back .

At least you stand a chance of it being sorted out to at least the standard that other people's are .

It's not like it's a £50 lens you got unlucky with , have them stand by their product .

Good point!

By the way, it wasn’t a kit lens. I bought the camera and lens separately, partly because I was undecided about the lens...

 Michael Leek's gear list:Michael Leek's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS M6 II Sigma 300mm F2.8 APO EX DG HSM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +16 more
neilt3
neilt3 Senior Member • Posts: 1,704
Re: Sounds faulty .

If it's your only lens , I'd do without a camera while they sort it out .

It's not a cheap item after all .

 neilt3's gear list:neilt3's gear list
Konica Minolta DiMAGE A200 Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 Minolta DiMAGE 7 Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5 Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi +41 more
Michael Leek
OP Michael Leek Regular Member • Posts: 154
Re: Useless!

Andy01 wrote:

I do not have a 32MP M6 ii, but I am actually quite impressed with my 18-150mm on my M5 - I think that it has pretty decent IQ for a superzoom. Does it compare at 150mm (on M5) with my 100-400L ii at 240mm on 6D ii - of course not and I don't expect it to either. But it is a reasonable compromise that provides a very useful focal length range in a fairly compact solution.

I saw you review of M6 ii where you slated both camera and lenses because of the lenses. You stated (from memory) that the lenses were poor and particularly the zooms, and then stated that (if I understood you correctly) that you had only tried 18-150mm and a borrowed 55-200mm. Perhaps you should try some of the primes and the excellent 11-22mm ?

Also, what are you comparing against ? If you are trying to get similar IQ from M6 ii + 18-150mm as you get from a FF + 24-70L f2.8, it is hardly surprising that you are disappointed.

As others have said, perhaps your copy of 18-150mm is not good and you should try to get it repaired while it is still under warranty ? Might have been better to have dealt with this within the first couple of weeks rather than waiting 6 months though.

Read the other comment here about 18-150mm - generally it is quite well thought of for a compact versatile superzoom.

Colin

Not quite as easily to deal with the lens issue whilst the supplier’s been closed due to the coronavirus virus lockdown (as I have, and continue to be). Also, it hasn’t taken six months to deal with the problem, just six months to post my review! And I never ‘slated the camera’!

Within one week of getting both camera and lens I travelled to France and to the USA, so had plenty of opportunity to test both.

And the reason I haven’t tried the other lenses you mention is because, as per my original post, I wanted a zoom for travelling, so why would I look at non zoom lenses? (The question’s rhetorical, by the way).

I was also not comparing the M6 with a full-frame body. Not sure where you get that from...? The camera was bought on the basis of its spec, plus the review published by DPReview, and because it meets my criteria for a camera with which to use when travelling.

I’ve read all of the replies about both the camera and the lens. The lens may well be ‘quite well thought of by others’, but my experience tells me otherwise. More importantly - and I’m repeating myself - it’s incomprehensible to me why Canon should produce an excellent camera, but without a range of quality optics to compliment it...? (This question is also rhetorical!)

 Michael Leek's gear list:Michael Leek's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS M6 II Sigma 300mm F2.8 APO EX DG HSM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +16 more
davel33 Senior Member • Posts: 2,054
Re: Useless!
4

I would think that if you really wanted to show how bad the 18-150 really is you would post a few pictures.  When I had a M5 I used the 18-150 on it and was very pleased with it.  Your post is subjective at best.

-- hide signature --

"Just one more Lens, I promise....."
Dave

 davel33's gear list:davel33's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 +24 more
Andy01 Senior Member • Posts: 3,667
Re: Useless!
2

Michael Leek wrote:

Andy01 wrote:

I do not have a 32MP M6 ii, but I am actually quite impressed with my 18-150mm on my M5 - I think that it has pretty decent IQ for a superzoom. Does it compare at 150mm (on M5) with my 100-400L ii at 240mm on 6D ii - of course not and I don't expect it to either. But it is a reasonable compromise that provides a very useful focal length range in a fairly compact solution.

I saw you review of M6 ii where you slated both camera and lenses because of the lenses. You stated (from memory) that the lenses were poor and particularly the zooms, and then stated that (if I understood you correctly) that you had only tried 18-150mm and a borrowed 55-200mm. Perhaps you should try some of the primes and the excellent 11-22mm ?

Also, what are you comparing against ? If you are trying to get similar IQ from M6 ii + 18-150mm as you get from a FF + 24-70L f2.8, it is hardly surprising that you are disappointed.

As others have said, perhaps your copy of 18-150mm is not good and you should try to get it repaired while it is still under warranty ? Might have been better to have dealt with this within the first couple of weeks rather than waiting 6 months though.

Read the other comment here about 18-150mm - generally it is quite well thought of for a compact versatile superzoom.

Colin

Not quite as easily to deal with the lens issue whilst the supplier’s been closed due to the coronavirus virus lockdown (as I have, and continue to be).

I thought you said that you got it in December last year, which was 4 months before Covid-19.

Also, it hasn’t taken six months to deal with the problem, just six months to post my review! And I never ‘slated the camera’!

I think (from memory) you gave the M6 ii a 3 star rating, which is not exactly glowing.

Within one week of getting both camera and lens I travelled to France and to the USA, so had plenty of opportunity to test both.

So why didn't you deal with the poor lens issue back then ?

And the reason I haven’t tried the other lenses you mention is because, as per my original post, I wanted a zoom for travelling, so why would I look at non zoom lenses? (The question’s rhetorical, by the way).

Well - how can you state that Canon has handicapped the camera (to the extent of only making it worth 3 stars) because of poor lenses when you have only tried two of the admittedly limited lens range, and none of the primes, which are actually quite good lenses, and you haven't tried the 11-22mm, which is arguably the best UWA zoom (at least for APS-C) available.

I was also not comparing the M6 with a full-frame body.

I think in you camera review you commented that the IQ was much poorer than you expected or were used to, and since you list two FF bodies in your gear, it is reasonable to assume that you were comparing with a FF.

Not sure where you get that from...? The camera was bought on the basis of its spec, plus the review published by DPReview, and because it meets my criteria for a camera with which to use when travelling.

I’ve read all of the replies about both the camera and the lens. The lens may well be ‘quite well thought of by others’, but my experience tells me otherwise.

Perhaps because you were unlucky and got a bad copy (it happens - with every manufacturer). I bought a Canon 24-105L ii a couple of years ago, and it was awful, and I returned it immediately (within a week) for a full refund. I later found out that there had been a recall in 2017 on some of that lens, so it can happen, even with a L series lens.

More importantly - and I’m repeating myself - it’s incomprehensible to me why Canon should produce an excellent camera, but without a range of quality optics to compliment it...? (This question is also rhetorical!)

And I am repeating myself - you haven't tested most of the Canon, let alone other EF-M lenses, so it is incomprehensible that you can make a statement as general as that without actually trying at least a larger sample of the range, and on the basis of trying a potentially defective lens. In the Canon range, the 22mm, 32mm, 28mm, 11-22mm all get very good reviews, and the 3 newer Sigma EF-M lenses all have very positive comments. And yes, I am aware that they are mostly primes, and you wanted a zoom.

Anyway, moving on ....

Colin

 Andy01's gear list:Andy01's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon 6D Mark II Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon EF-M 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM +5 more
Wayne Larmon Forum Pro • Posts: 10,484
I had a bad one. Canon replaced it.
2

Michael Leek wrote:

neilt3 wrote:

Sounds like you've got yourself a faulty lens that needs returning from where you bought it for replacement .

Did you buy it new from a shop with a guarantee , or second hand off eBay ?

Bought new in December.

So it still should be in warranty.   I bought one, took it on a trip and was disappointed with all the images I took with this lens.  I have what I consider to be good copies of the 15-45mm and 55-200mm lenses.  I took comparison shots in my front yard with all three lenses attempting to match the scene with each lens at the same focal lengths.  After doing a number of comparisons, it was obvious to me that my 18-150mm lens was very deficient compared to the other lenses.

I went to Canon's web site and triggered a service request.  At some point I summarized my test procedure.  Canon told me to send the lens in.

I did and they replaced it with a different lens.  The replacement works fine.  It is comparable to the same focal lengths in my other lens now.  So I can leave the other two lenses home now and just use the 18-150mm.

Wayne

Herlein Forum Member • Posts: 94
Re: Useless!
2

The forum is more than happy to help identify an issue with gear should there be one. If I had a lens that I wasn’t getting good results out of 2/3 of the lens range, I would expect there is a problem. A negative review won’t fix that. It is best to base a review on correctly working equipment. As others suggested, I would spend the time getting the lens fixed under warranty if is it defective. I have this lens and really like it. It is a super zoom so I know the sharpness does fall off a little towards the end of the range. However I have images I like at all focal ranges.

 Herlein's gear list:Herlein's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS M50 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon EOS M5 +21 more
Trevor Sowers
Trevor Sowers Senior Member • Posts: 1,122
Re: Useless!

Michael Leek wrote:

A very disappointing lens! Probably the worse lens I’ve owned! Image quality is awful at any focal length above about 50mm, even in almost perfect light conditions - such as often found in the mid west USA. In frequent low light conditions, such as in Scotland, where I live, this lens is worse than many point-and-shoot cameras!

I bought this lens specifically for travel, alongside my Canon M6 MkII. Whilst the camera body is good, I have no idea of its true potential with this piece of inferior glass attached. It almost makes the camera body useless.

Canon should be ashamed of themselves for producing and marketing a product that fails to deliver against Canon’s hyped-up claims.

You are posing in the wrong forum.  This is an SLR lens forum, you should be in the M forum

-- hide signature --

www.TrevorSowersPhotography.com

 Trevor Sowers's gear list:Trevor Sowers's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS Rebel SL2 Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +17 more
drsnoopy Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: Useless!

Michael - I have an M5 but don't own the 18-150, however the 11-22, 18-55 and 55-200 Canon EF-M lenses are all very good, and comparable in IQ to the similar lenses on my 80D.  I would therefore expect the 18-150 to be broadly in line with the 18-135 STM on the 80D, which is a reasonably good lens given it has a very wide zoom range, and which I use for travel allowing for its minor limitations.  A friend of mine who is a similarly experienced photographer has the 18-150 on his M5 and finds it very good.  We both also have full frame outfits so we understand image quality.  The-digital-picture website has an extensive review of the 18-150 and concludes it is broadly similar in IQ to the 18-135, and I rate his reviews highly.  So it sounds as it you have a lemon - you should return in to WEX, I have found them helpful with problems like this in the past.

I would also point out that you are using a superzoom lens, with all its inherent optical compromises, on the most demanding APS-C body in existence!  Try that body with a truly excellent lens such as the 22mm, 35mm, or one of the Sigma primes and you will see what is possible.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads