55-200: Shots at 200mm

This lens is the largest tele in the M-line. Here are six photos from different subjects, with different distances to the subject, all taken at the maximum focal length of 200mm.

As a conclusion, I can strongly recommend this lens, although it has no large focal length and no large aperture. It is convincing because of its size, weight, IS and handling in general, and, finally, because of the results it is able to deliver.

Have fun in shooting with this lens

1 - a blackbird sitting at our roof

2 - a testshot: the left wind power plant has a distance of about 5 kilometers, the right one of about 6 kilometers, both with a height of about 120 m

3 - our dog, a young hovawart

4 - poppies in the field

5 - garden flower

6 - thimble plant in the woods

Digirame wrote:

Those look very good. I just got my EF-M 55-200mm lens more than a week ago. I puchased a nice hood for it too. I've only been able to try it out a few times. I've been real happy with the performance and the size and weight.

I read there's two third party EF-M 300mm FL lenses available (fixed focal length). I also read that Canon is rumored to have designed an EF-M 100-300mm lens too. But that's strictly a rumor unless someone knows more about it that they could share with us.

If Canon produce such a lens (in fact ANY EF-M lens) I will eat my hat (with pleasure!)

Here's a recent photo I got from my Canon EF-M 55-200mm lens (also at 200mm FL).

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65207730

Digirame wrote:

Those look very good. I just got my EF-M 55-200mm lens more than a week ago. I puchased a nice hood for it too. I've only been able to try it out a few times. I've been real happy with the performance and the size and weight.

I read there's two third party EF-M 300mm FL lenses available (fixed focal length). I also read that Canon is rumored to have designed an EF-M 100-300mm lens too. But that's strictly a rumor unless someone knows more about it that they could share with us.

Here's a recent photo I got from my Canon EF-M 55-200mm lens (also at 200mm FL).

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65207730

Thanks for your feedback and for the story in combination with the first photo of your new M50 Mark II.

There really was (is?) a rumor about a possible EF-M 100-300mm lens. But as others have already posted, "action speaks louder than words". I don't believe it until it is really going to happen. But if there was such a lens, I would be very interested in it

Great lens indeed - sold my 70-200 f/4L after getting this lens (for my M50) as I was not using it anymore

Jack Calypso wrote:

IoannisZ wrote:

Like you said it's the only ef-m at this zoom size. And there are many that have preferred ef lenses with adapter instead of this lens.

I am kicking myself for getting the EF-S 55-250, rather than the EF-M 55-200. Even without the adapter, it's longer, heavier, and slower. I thought the extra reach would be a plus, but I find I'm reluctant to carry it around due to the size.

To each his own. I don't find the EF-S 55-250 IS STM too big for the m6ii. I find it balances nicely, and appreciate the reach and the decent maximum apertures. I probably shoot half my photos with this lens alone and appreciate the consistent sharpness of the lens at all focal lengths across the frame, at max aperture.

I find it does not have enough reach for me at times, and sometimes use a MC7 2x teleconverter with it, also with good results. I modified my 55-250's mount to mount on EF and not just EF-S accessories. I enjoy having a 500mm IS lens! Although its 500mm IQ is not up to the Canon 400 and 500mm telephotos, it's still relatively small and light and easy to carry around.

Larry Rexley wrote:

Jack Calypso wrote:

IoannisZ wrote:

Like you said it's the only ef-m at this zoom size. And there are many that have preferred ef lenses with adapter instead of this lens.

I am kicking myself for getting the EF-S 55-250, rather than the EF-M 55-200. Even without the adapter, it's longer, heavier, and slower. I thought the extra reach would be a plus, but I find I'm reluctant to carry it around due to the size.

To each his own. I don't find the EF-S 55-250 IS STM too big for the m6ii. I find it balances nicely, and appreciate the reach and the decent maximum apertures. I probably shoot half my photos with this lens alone and appreciate the consistent sharpness of the lens at all focal lengths across the frame, at max aperture.

I find it does not have enough reach for me at times, and sometimes use a MC7 2x teleconverter with it, also with good results. I modified my 55-250's mount to mount on EF and not just EF-S accessories. I enjoy having a 500mm IS lens! Although its 500mm IQ is not up to the Canon 400 and 500mm telephotos, it's still relatively small and light and easy to carry around.

To my mind the 55-200 is typical for the M-system: small, light, good handling, a compromise concerning FL and aperture, but often underrated, especially concerning its results. It is sharp, also at max. FL and max. aperture.

Although I sometimes think it could be nice to have a larger FL, I always come back to the conclusion that I prefer a lens which can easily be carried all around.

rz64 wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

Jack Calypso wrote:

IoannisZ wrote:

Like you said it's the only ef-m at this zoom size. And there are many that have preferred ef lenses with adapter instead of this lens.

I am kicking myself for getting the EF-S 55-250, rather than the EF-M 55-200. Even without the adapter, it's longer, heavier, and slower. I thought the extra reach would be a plus, but I find I'm reluctant to carry it around due to the size.

To each his own. I don't find the EF-S 55-250 IS STM too big for the m6ii. I find it balances nicely, and appreciate the reach and the decent maximum apertures. I probably shoot half my photos with this lens alone and appreciate the consistent sharpness of the lens at all focal lengths across the frame, at max aperture.

I find it does not have enough reach for me at times, and sometimes use a MC7 2x teleconverter with it, also with good results. I modified my 55-250's mount to mount on EF and not just EF-S accessories. I enjoy having a 500mm IS lens! Although its 500mm IQ is not up to the Canon 400 and 500mm telephotos, it's still relatively small and light and easy to carry around.

To my mind the 55-200 is typical for the M-system: small, light, good handling, a compromise concerning FL and aperture, but often underrated, especially concerning its results. It is sharp, also at max. FL and max. aperture.

Although I sometimes think it could be nice to have a larger FL, I always come back to the conclusion that I prefer a lens which can easily be carried all around.

The 55-200 looks like a fine lens, the samples I've seen show excellent sharpness and IQ. I'd give it a try if it wasn't redundant to what I already have. iI would be hard to justify given that I use the EF-M 18-150mm and the EF-S 55-250 IS STM (usually around 250mm) quite a bit.

The 100-300 rumor is over a year old now and was speculating on 5 new lenses. But Covid was only a couple months old then. The 100-300 is speculated as an f/5.6 - f/8.0.

F/8.0 at 300mm from 20 ft still gets some surprisingly thin DOF for small birds and such.  5.6 at 100 is about where their current telephoto zooms fall, I suspect.

Jack Calypso wrote:

IoannisZ wrote:

Like you said it's the only ef-m at this zoom size. And there are many that have preferred ef lenses with adapter instead of this lens.

I am kicking myself for getting the EF-S 55-250, rather than the EF-M 55-200. Even without the adapter, it's longer, heavier, and slower. I thought the extra reach would be a plus, but I find I'm reluctant to carry it around due to the size.

It's a gem of a lens and goes with me everywhere, even attached to the shoulder strap of my backpack (with a quick-release plate) when I mountain-bike..

I agree, this lens is underrated. Closing to f:8 for maximum sharpness makes me think of the original EF100-400.

Jack Calypso wrote:

Alexis wrote:

Jack Calypso wrote:

IoannisZ wrote:

Like you said it's the only ef-m at this zoom size. And there are many that have preferred ef lenses with adapter instead of this lens.

I am kicking myself for getting the EF-S 55-250, rather than the EF-M 55-200. Even without the adapter, it's longer, heavier, and slower. I thought the extra reach would be a plus, but I find I'm reluctant to carry it around due to the size.

It's a gem of a lens and goes with me everywhere, even attached to the shoulder strap of my backpack (with a quick-release plate) when I mountain-bike..

Maybe I'm over-reacting. After all, I have gone walking around with my 100-400L attached to my50D.

I suppose I could just gt both

Small size is the reason of existence for the M, that's why I bought M-lenses.

Although I do not hesitate to fit my existing EF(-S) lenses too.

Beautiful photographs - thank you for sharing. 

Wow, looks nice. I didn't know this lens was this sharp wide open. I considered it back when I didn't have anything above 85mm other than a 55-250mm that has seen better days.

Excellent photographs - thank you for sharing. 

Sue Anne Rush wrote:

Excellent photographs - thank you for sharing.

Thank you for your kind feedback