Could you please rank the EF-M lenses like in a tier list fashion?

[Photography Raptor]

I'm new to the system and there's too much to digest.

So far my conclusions are that the 32mm f/1.4 is the best lens and the 18-55mm the least good.

Am I right? What about the rest of the Canon lenses? Anyone to avoid or a must buy? What about third party.

Thanks in advance.

P.S. I'm referring to IQ

 

[Alexis]

I own 5 EF-M lenses and my experience used on M50 amd M50 Mkii shooting weddings, events and sports is as follows (based on IQ):

Sigma 56 f/1.4
Sigma 30 f/1,4
Canon 50-200
Canon 15-45
Canon 20/2 (I'm in the process of trading this for the Canon EF-M 11-22)

regards

Alexis

 

[MAC]

I'm new to the system and there's too much to digest.

So far my conclusions are that the 32mm f/1.4 is the best lens and the 18-55mm the least good.

Am I right? What about the rest of the Canon lenses? Anyone to avoid or a must buy? What about third party.

Thanks in advance.

P.S. I'm referring to IQ

32 f1.4 (you are correct on this one)

56 f1.4 siggy

16 f1.4 siggy

11-22

28 macro

22 f2

18-150

 

[dan the man p]

Of the native EF-M lenses I've owned:

Tier 1:

• Sigma 30mm f/1.4

Tier 2:

• Canon 22mm f/2

Tier 4:

• Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
• Canon 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3

I skipped Tier 3 because Tier 1+2 are pretty significantly better than the others. If I included my adapted lenses, the EF-S 55-250 and EF 50 f/1.8 STM, I would put those in Tier 3, though maybe Tier 2.5 would be more appropriate because they are closer to Tier 2 than 4. In other words, the kit zooms are really not very good.

 

[M4Mobility]

All Canon EF-M lenses from best (excellent) to good:

EF-M 32mm

EF-M 28mm Macro

EF-M 22mm

EF-M 11-22mm

EF-M 55-200mm

EF-M 18-150mm

EF-M 15-45mm

EF-M 18-55mm

 

[KEG]

32

28

11-22

55-200

18-150

22 due to vignetting

15-45

no idea about the 18-55.

 

[lumenite]

I'm new to the system and there's too much to digest.

So far my conclusions are that the 32mm f/1.4 is the best lens and the 18-55mm the least good.

Am I right? What about the rest of the Canon lenses? Anyone to avoid or a must buy? What about third party.

Thanks in advance.

P.S. I'm referring to IQ

First of all, every lens has its own position and role. So the verdict on them varies according to their use.

However, as far as IQ is concerned, I would say:

Class 1: EFM 28mm 3.5, 32mm 1.4, Sigma 16mm 1.4, 30mm 1.4, and 56mm 1.4

Class 2: EFM 11-22mm, 22mm

Class 3: EFM 18-150mm, 55-200mm

Class 4: EFM 15-45mm, 18-55mm.

I did not consider other lenses such as many third party manual ones.

 

[supersport100]

1. Sigma 56mm F1.4 DC DN

2. Canon ef-m 11-22mm f/4-5.6 is stm

3. Canon EF-M 32mm f1.4 STM

4. Sigma 16mm F1.4 DC DN

 

[PVDL]

A week ago I was on a little family trip in southern France, visiting little villages in the Provence, and had my M50ii with the Sigma 30 f/1.4, the EF-m 11-22, the EF-s 24 pancake and the EF-s 60 Macro adapted. (OP did not ask for EF-s but nevertheless sharing my experience...)

Tier 1: the Sigma 30 is insane sharp. IQ is great, but I always think that the colors are a little bit cooler. This lens is completely insane, and very nice in combination with Eye-AF and servo. This one or the Canon 32 are no-brainers. I bought the Sigma because it was cheaper, but perhaps if I could buy again, I would choose the Canon for the colors SOOC.

Tier 2: all the other lenses. The EF-m 11-22 is sharper than my recently sold EF-s 10-22 but one can see that the viewing angle is not as wide. IQ/colors look the same. But size/weight difference versus the EF-s adapted is a relief.

The EF-s 24 f/2.8 is a fun lens, and even adapted it is small. IQ perhaps like the EF-m 22. More than good enough for me. I'll keep this lens.

I did not use the EF-s 60 very much. It's a very sharp lens. But already to much tele. That withholds me to buy the Sigma 56 f/1.4. On the other hand, this Sigma 56 would fit better in my ThinkTank Mirrorless Mover 25i. If they ever release a new M body (50iii or 300) I will probably add that body to my kit, with the 56. I am a 2-body fan: one with a wide zoom, another one with a 30 or 50.

I think that next time on a city trip, I will leave the EF-s 60 at home: to big, and not enough use. Depending on what you shoot of course. YMMV.

 

[Alexis]

That withholds me to buy the Sigma 56 f/1.4. On the other hand, this Sigma 56 would fit better in my ThinkTank Mirrorless Mover 25i. If they ever release a new M body (50iii or 300) I will probably add that body to my kit, with the 56. I am a 2-body fan: one with a wide zoom, another one with a 30 or 50.

Me too (2 body fan) so I have 1xM50 and 1xM50ii - If I find a good price to sell, I would replace the M50 with another M50ii.
My M50ii has the Sigma 56/1.4 "glued" on it and on the M50, the 30/1.4, 22(which I am now swapping with a 11-22) and the 15-45 (I have a great copy ideal for parties with flash). For sports I just take 2 lenses: 56/1.4 on the M50ii and the 50-200 (also a good copy) on the M50...

 

[nnowak]

You should be choosing your lenses based on the ability of that lens to fulfill a specific photographic need, and not on which specific lens is sharpest. For example, you are correct that the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 is the sharpest lens in the lineup, but it is utterly worthless for photographing birds in flight. It is also a pretty poor choice for handheld video.

Second, many of the EF-M lenses suffer from sample variation issues. The zooms tend to be more problematic and the EF-M 15-45mm is by far the worst offender.

Finally, there is more to optical quality than just sharpness. While the EF-M 32mm is sharper than the Sigma 30mm, the Sigma has better bokeh. Someone shooting landscapes would prefer the Canon while someone shooting portraits would prefer the Sigma.

These lenses tend to have good optical quality and low sample variation:

• EF-M 32mm f/1.4
• EF-M 22mm f/2.0
• EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS
• EF-M 11-22mm f/4.-5.6 IS
• Sigma EF-M 16mm f/1.4
• Sigma EF-M 30mm f/1.4
• Sigma EF-M 56mm f/1.4

Some comments on the above lenses.... A good copy of the EF-M 22mm will be a bit better optically than a good copy of the 11-22mm, but they really serve different purposes and a case can be made for owning both. The 32mm is sharper than the 30mm, but the 30mm has better bokeh. While the 28mm is the only macro lens in the lineup, it is an awkward focal length for most typical macro uses and the aperture is a bit slow for general use. Even though is tends to be quite sharp, opinions on the 28mm tend to be quite polarized. If you are shooting handheld video, only two of the above lenses have stabilization.

Honorable mention goes to these lenses:

• Viltrox EF-M 23mm f/1.4
• Viltrox EF-M 33mm f/1.4
• Viltrox EF-M 56mm f/1.4

Theses lenses are not quite as good as the comparable alternatives above, but they are still optically better than the kit zooms and are quite inexpensive.

The following zooms will range from OK to horrendous depending on your copy:

• EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.6 IS
• EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (discontinued)
• EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS
• EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS

Good copies are quite serviceable, but none of these zooms are lenses that will make you go "wow". Given the amount of sample variation, ranking them would be a challenge, but I would not call the 18-55mm the worst of the bunch. That award probably goes to the 15-45mm, but most people tend to prefer the wider 15mm view over the 18mm wide end of the other lenses.

The only other autofocus EF-M mount lens not included in the above lists is the Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 IS. This lens is discontinued and has had multiple firmware issues with previous M system bodies. Given the previous firmware issues and lack of any future updates, I would not recommend this lens. Also, most people tend to prefer the size and optical quality of the EF-M 18-150mm over the Tamron 18-200mm.

That's it. A total of 15 autofocus EF-M lenses, with two being discontinued. If you want to go further, there is the entire catalog of EF and EF-S glass that can be adapted. Also, there are numerous third party, manual focus lenses in EF-M mount as well as most old manual focus SLR lenses from any mount being adaptable to the M system.

 

[dan the man p]

I fully agree with most of your post, but I'm surprised you put the 55-200 and 18-150 in the "OK to horrendous" category. I've not used either of them but have heard mostly good things about them here and elsewhere.

My personal experience with two copies of the 18-55 and one of the 15-45 is that the 18-55 is noticeably better (sharpness, color, and contrast, especially at the long end) but that neither are anything to write home about. The 15-45 is okay at the wide end and useful if one wants something sort of wide but doesn't want to pay for the 11-22. The 15mm is also better for vlogging, if one cares about that.

 

[nnowak]

I fully agree with most of your post, but I'm surprised you put the 55-200 and 18-150 in the "OK to horrendous" category. I've not used either of them but have heard mostly good things about them here and elsewhere.

Both of those would tend more towards the OK end of the spectrum. There have been a few horrendous copies of the 18-150mm, but it tends to be a rare occurrence with nowhere near the frequency of the 15-45mm.

My personal experience with two copies of the 18-55 and one of the 15-45 is that the 18-55 is noticeably better (sharpness, color, and contrast, especially at the long end) but that neither are anything to write home about. The 15-45 is okay at the wide end and useful if one wants something sort of wide but doesn't want to pay for the 11-22. The 15mm is also better for vlogging, if one cares about that.

A good standard zoom should be a cornerstone of a camera system, but there are just so many compromises with the 15-45mm that it completely fails at this role.

 

[Alexis]

I fully agree with most of your post, but I'm surprised you put the 55-200 and 18-150 in the "OK to horrendous" category. I've not used either of them but have heard mostly good things about them here and elsewhere.

My personal experience with two copies of the 18-55 and one of the 15-45 is that the 18-55 is noticeably better (sharpness, color, and contrast, especially at the long end) but that neither are anything to write home about. The 15-45 is okay at the wide end and useful if one wants something sort of wide but doesn't want to pay for the 11-22. The 15mm is also better for vlogging, if one cares about that.

My excellent copies of 55-200 and 15-45 are testament of what you are saying. They are both fine lenses, especially the 55-200

 

[dan the man p]

I fully agree with most of your post, but I'm surprised you put the 55-200 and 18-150 in the "OK to horrendous" category. I've not used either of them but have heard mostly good things about them here and elsewhere.

Both of those would tend more towards the OK end of the spectrum. There have been a few horrendous copies of the 18-150mm, but it tends to be a rare occurrence with nowhere near the frequency of the 15-45mm.

My personal experience with two copies of the 18-55 and one of the 15-45 is that the 18-55 is noticeably better (sharpness, color, and contrast, especially at the long end) but that neither are anything to write home about. The 15-45 is okay at the wide end and useful if one wants something sort of wide but doesn't want to pay for the 11-22. The 15mm is also better for vlogging, if one cares about that.

A good standard zoom should be a cornerstone of a camera system, but there are just so many compromises with the 15-45mm that it completely fails at this role.

I guess the 18-150 is the closest thing to a decent standard zoom in the system. It's not fast, of course, but it does cover the focal lengths and seems to have good IQ except for the few horrendous copies you mentioned.

 

[MAC]

I fully agree with most of your post, but I'm surprised you put the 55-200 and 18-150 in the "OK to horrendous" category. I've not used either of them but have heard mostly good things about them here and elsewhere.

Both of those would tend more towards the OK end of the spectrum. There have been a few horrendous copies of the 18-150mm, but it tends to be a rare occurrence with nowhere near the frequency of the 15-45mm.

My personal experience with two copies of the 18-55 and one of the 15-45 is that the 18-55 is noticeably better (sharpness, color, and contrast, especially at the long end) but that neither are anything to write home about. The 15-45 is okay at the wide end and useful if one wants something sort of wide but doesn't want to pay for the 11-22. The 15mm is also better for vlogging, if one cares about that.

A good standard zoom should be a cornerstone of a camera system, but there are just so many compromises with the 15-45mm that it completely fails at this role.

I guess the 18-150 is the closest thing to a decent standard zoom in the system. It's not fast, of course, but it does cover the focal lengths and seems to have good IQ except for the few horrendous copies you mentioned.

I just did a parade.

A one lens solution was critical.

I took the RP + RF 24-105 F4L. For me the 24 mm was critical.

 

[dan the man p]

I fully agree with most of your post, but I'm surprised you put the 55-200 and 18-150 in the "OK to horrendous" category. I've not used either of them but have heard mostly good things about them here and elsewhere.

Both of those would tend more towards the OK end of the spectrum. There have been a few horrendous copies of the 18-150mm, but it tends to be a rare occurrence with nowhere near the frequency of the 15-45mm.

My personal experience with two copies of the 18-55 and one of the 15-45 is that the 18-55 is noticeably better (sharpness, color, and contrast, especially at the long end) but that neither are anything to write home about. The 15-45 is okay at the wide end and useful if one wants something sort of wide but doesn't want to pay for the 11-22. The 15mm is also better for vlogging, if one cares about that.

A good standard zoom should be a cornerstone of a camera system, but there are just so many compromises with the 15-45mm that it completely fails at this role.

I guess the 18-150 is the closest thing to a decent standard zoom in the system. It's not fast, of course, but it does cover the focal lengths and seems to have good IQ except for the few horrendous copies you mentioned.

I just did a parade.

A one lens solution was critical.

I took the RP + RF 24-105 F4L. For me the 24 mm was critical.

There is a lens very close to that in specs (equivalently speaking) for APS-C: the Tamron 17-70 f/2.8. Too bad they won't make it for EOS M.

 

[MAC]

I fully agree with most of your post, but I'm surprised you put the 55-200 and 18-150 in the "OK to horrendous" category. I've not used either of them but have heard mostly good things about them here and elsewhere.

Both of those would tend more towards the OK end of the spectrum. There have been a few horrendous copies of the 18-150mm, but it tends to be a rare occurrence with nowhere near the frequency of the 15-45mm.

My personal experience with two copies of the 18-55 and one of the 15-45 is that the 18-55 is noticeably better (sharpness, color, and contrast, especially at the long end) but that neither are anything to write home about. The 15-45 is okay at the wide end and useful if one wants something sort of wide but doesn't want to pay for the 11-22. The 15mm is also better for vlogging, if one cares about that.

A good standard zoom should be a cornerstone of a camera system, but there are just so many compromises with the 15-45mm that it completely fails at this role.

I guess the 18-150 is the closest thing to a decent standard zoom in the system. It's not fast, of course, but it does cover the focal lengths and seems to have good IQ except for the few horrendous copies you mentioned.

I just did a parade.

A one lens solution was critical.

I took the RP + RF 24-105 F4L. For me the 24 mm was critical.

There is a lens very close to that in specs (equivalently speaking) for APS-C: the Tamron 17-70 f/2.8. Too bad they won't make it for EOS M.

It was run and gun the whole hour

not since the 17-55 has canon played

maybe we'll see the R7 get something like the 16 - 50 f2.8 siggy or the 17- 70 tamy

 

[PVDL]

That withholds me to buy the Sigma 56 f/1.4. On the other hand, this Sigma 56 would fit better in my ThinkTank Mirrorless Mover 25i. If they ever release a new M body (50iii or 300) I will probably add that body to my kit, with the 56. I am a 2-body fan: one with a wide zoom, another one with a 30 or 50.

Me too (2 body fan) so I have 1xM50 and 1xM50ii - If I find a good price to sell, I would replace the M50 with another M50ii.
My M50ii has the Sigma 56/1.4 "glued" on it and on the M50, the 30/1.4, 22(which I am now swapping with a 11-22) and the 15-45 (I have a great copy ideal for parties with flash). For sports I just take 2 lenses: 56/1.4 on the M50ii and the 50-200 (also a good copy) on the M50...

May I ask if you have good results with sports and the Sigma 56? Is M50ii/56 fast enough? I mean fast for focusing and tracking the sporters?

 

[Marco Nero]

I'm new to the system and there's too much to digest.

So far my conclusions are that the 32mm f/1.4 is the best lens and the 18-55mm the least good.

Am I right? What about the rest of the Canon lenses? Anyone to avoid or a must buy? What about third party.

Thanks in advance.

P.S. I'm referring to IQ

The four lenses that I carefully picked out for my own uses are all of the same 'tier' though each has its own strengths and purpose....
.
In order of sharpness, performance and operational speed...
* EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM
* EF-M 11-22mm f/4 - 5.6 IS STM
* EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS Macro STM
* EF-M 22mm f/2 USM
.
.
* EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM (43mm filter)
Canon's sharpest and fastest/brightest native lens but also one of the sharpest primes Canon has ever made. Personally, I find that I prefer a 24mm f/1.4 lens on an APS-C camera sensor but 32mm gives me a little more reach at close to 50mm. The bright, wide aperture produces smooth and attractive bokeh and just the right amount of subject separation. Colors are great and operational speed is excellent. Even startup speed with this lens is faster than others (especially the EF-M 22mm f/2 lens). Slightly more expensive that other EF-M lenses, it is one of the most popular lenses due to the aperture and reputation for sharpness. This is a very good lens for the EF-M and being a Canon brand lens you can benefit from in-camera lens correction. This is the lens many owners tend to just leave on their camera all the time. It's fine as a travel lens, takes excellent closeups (not quite a Macro lens but VERY good for closeups) and doesn't vignette with circular polarizing filters.
.
* EF-M 11-22mm f/4 - 5.6 IS STM (55mm filter)
One of the very sharp lenses Canon has produced for use as a landscape and architecture. At 11mm it produces a clean, sharp, ultra wide-angle view that eliminates the need to layer together multi-shot panoramas for stitching together via software later. At 22mm it produces unusually nice portraits with just enough background defocus to be flattering. Bokeh itself isn't particularly notable with these apertures, which were designed for lens size and image clarity. There's not presently an alternative lens to match this one. But it's quite versatile and easy to use. It's light enough that I'll often clip mine to my chest straps when hiking or prospecting. This lens is so wide that it can produce sky banding with a circular polarizing filter at 11mm. This can be resolved by turning the filter to minimum or by zooming towards 22mm (or by removing the filter).
.
* EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS Macro STM (43mm filter)
Quite a magnificent wide-angle Macro lens. Lightweight and affordable but also small and portable. I'm presently using this to photograph jewellery as it is completed and after gem setters are finished. It's been a staple lens for both landscapes and wildlife photography. Oddly enough, the lack of aggressive distortion coupled with sharpness means it makes for fine panoramas if you want to manually stitch them. This lens has a polymer mount to keep the weight at minimum. It has a double half-moon "ring" light on the front of the lens, which in turn is beveled to enable more light to the macro subject if shooting with or without a flash. Larger EF lenses (like the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro lens) work on this camera just fine although they tend to require a lot more working space and don't offer this unique and useful closeup performance or perspective.
.
* EF-M 22mm f/2 USM (43mm filter)
This was the original Kit Lens for the EOS M cameras and a bit of a workhorse for a lot of users. I find it gives comparable image quality to one of Canon's more expensive EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM lenses and that the difference in Bokeh isn't quite as vast as expected. It's present but not bold until you're withing a few feet of the subject. This is a tiny "pancake" lens that fits in your pocket and makes for a very useful overall lowlight lens. I find it's the perfect lens for product and food photography. It's also a great street photography lens. It's also one of the most useful Astro lenses for Milky Way photography I've used on the EOS M cameras, with just the right field of view and brightness. This lens is possibly the perfect balance of price and performance and value because it's bright and sharp. The FOV and small scale makes it ideal for travel.
.
.
The EF-M lenses I have been advised to avoid by other members here in the past for various reason (specifically sharpness) include...
* Canon EF-M 15-45mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM
(Subject to copy variation, no major strength, often soft)
* Canon EF-M 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM
(allegedly not as sharp as it should be)
.
Third Party Lenses:
I'm not a fan since there's no guarantee that they will work with future camera models (this especially applies to Sigma). I'm also not a fan of companies that reverse-engineer existing lenses to speed up their own production, thus taking away sales from Canon or Nikon without putting in the hard work of their own R&D (this also applies to Sigma). Canon will not resolve an issue with your camera should you experience one with a non-Canon lens and any such non-EOM lenses must be removed before sending the camera in for examination or repair. Some lenses such as those by Samyang/Rokinon are now much better quality optically (and build-wise) than they were in the past and can offer alternatives if there's something lacking from the existing lens lineups.
.
.
Whilst there are other lenses out there with the EF-M mount, and many others that fit with the lens adapter, these are the four native lenses I've opted to use for practical reasons that relate to both my own curiosity at the time of their release, and my own needs as a photographer. Your needs may be different. If I had to eliminate my lenses down to just two, it would be the 32mm and the 11-22mm. If it was necessary to reduce my lenses to just one, then I'd retain the 32mm lens.
.


32mm


32mm


32mm


11-22mm


11-22mm (at 22mm)


11-22mm


28mm


28mm


28mm


28mm


22mm


22mm


22mm

--
Regards,
Marco Nero.