Fed Up with EF-M 18-150mm

I recently mentioned in another thread that I'm fed up with my 18-150mm. It was going off-topic so I've decided to post a new thread. I keep this lens on a second camera body as a general-purpose walkabout kit. I have done comparisons with the 18-55 and 55-200 which I also have. I've sadly come to the conclusion that my 18-150 sucks - and this is my second copy. Am I just unlucky?

The problems seem to be poor focus (sporadic), poor definition and poor contrast.

This example shows the first two (the contrast isn't bad in this shot). The focus point was squarely on the statue, specifically on the nearest arm, but in fact the flowers to the left are in much better focus. The statue is badly blurred - if you zoom in you'll notice, though it wasn't visible on the camera. The flowers, though in better focus, still look mushy to me. I feel certain the 55-200 would have done far better.

I really want to ditch this lens - it's let me down too often, and some shots you never get a second chance.

J Peters wrote:

I recently mentioned in another thread that I'm fed up with my 18-150mm. It was going off-topic so I've decided to post a new thread. I keep this lens on a second camera body as a general-purpose walkabout kit. I have done comparisons with the 18-55 and 55-200 which I also have. I've sadly come to the conclusion that my 18-150 sucks - and this is my second copy. Am I just unlucky?

The problems seem to be poor focus (sporadic), poor definition and poor contrast.

This example shows the first two (the contrast isn't bad in this shot). The focus point was squarely on the statue, specifically on the nearest arm, but in fact the flowers to the left are in much better focus. The statue is badly blurred - if you zoom in you'll notice, though it wasn't visible on the camera. The flowers, though in better focus, still look mushy to me. I feel certain the 55-200 would have done far better.

I really want to ditch this lens - it's let me down too often, and some shots you never get a second chance.

The point of focus appears to be the front of the balustrade in the left bottom corner. If you were in single point AF, this is a bad miss from the foucusing system!

On the upside, corner sharpness is pretty good.

J Peters wrote:

I recently mentioned in another thread that I'm fed up with my 18-150mm. It was going off-topic so I've decided to post a new thread. I keep this lens on a second camera body as a general-purpose walkabout kit. I have done comparisons with the 18-55 and 55-200 which I also have. I've sadly come to the conclusion that my 18-150 sucks - and this is my second copy. Am I just unlucky?

The problems seem to be poor focus (sporadic), poor definition and poor contrast.

This example shows the first two (the contrast isn't bad in this shot). The focus point was squarely on the statue, specifically on the nearest arm, but in fact the flowers to the left are in much better focus. The statue is badly blurred - if you zoom in you'll notice, though it wasn't visible on the camera. The flowers, though in better focus, still look mushy to me. I feel certain the 55-200 would have done far better.

I really want to ditch this lens - it's let me down too often, and some shots you never get a second chance.

For starters, I’d ditch the M5 instead.  This would take care of issue #1.  There’s little that’s more frustrating than a misfocusing camera!  Something like the M6ii is miles ahead of that body (I started with the M5 myself).

Then see how the lens behaves.

R2

I'll agree that the 55-200 renders stronger optical performance, however, the 55-200 is a 4x zoom. The 18-150 is an 8.3x zoom. The benefit to using the 55-200 is when you want more reach, but still want to be compact (no adapter needed, and even larger lens attached), and/or want more image quality within the 55-200 range.

Where the 18-150 "wins" is in it's intended use; no swap scenarios. Example, apart of me wishes I had a 18-150 on me last night for carnival, I brought only the 15-45. Now I'll say being super-compact ala 15-45 served me well as I was riding rides, and shooting, but the 18-150 had I been more conservative with riding rides and instead favoring moment capture, would've been the ideal lens. Parks and the unexpected also bode well for the 18-150 as you simply don't miss the moment being unprepared, having to swap a lens, etc.

.

I'm going to second other here, I've had an M5 before myself, do consider upgrading to an M with DIGIC8 onboard: M50, M50 Mark II, M6 Mark II.

.

Regarding 18-150 copy variance, I've had 3, and yes, some are better than others. However, even my "poor" copy still bode well when it did. That said, all of my (AF) lenses suffered on the M5. I say it that way as the Rokinon MF glass I shot with my time with the M5, it's in fact some of my most prized (emotionally) shots to date.

.

If you're looking to ditch the 18-150, I can say I have felt the same way myself in the past. Your frustration is misplaced. That M5 is the weak link in the chain. I wish I still had my 18-150...

My "poor" copy, via M5. Not optically poor at all, but of the 3 I've owned, this was the least sharp. Can't say it stopped me, or in fact was poor frankly.

My sharpest copy, which I kept from the short time I had with a refurbish M6 (Mark 1) which I carried over when I picked up the M6 Mark II. All lenses become more "fun" on the M6 Mark II or M50's compared to older EOS M's that do not contain DIGIC8

filibuster wrote:

That shot sure is wacky! Nice flowers though.

Don’t suppose for one moment, you have a photo friend that harbours an ‘M’ camera. (Member of your photo club perhaps, that could test your suspect lens?)

Good suggestion Fili’.  That’s exactly what we do in our photoclub.

R2

J Peters wrote:

Thanks for all the replies. I don't want to sound argumentative, but I have 6 other lenses and they seem fine to me....so why all the comments that the camera's the problem? I'm just trying to understand the logic.

I was previously thinking using the 18-55 as a knockabout lens was the way to go. A shame I'd lose the 56-150 range, but I'd rather have higher IQ.

Focus settings: I always use single point (standard size rectangle thingy) and one-shot for static subjects.

Poor focus (sporadic) is the worst !    Does not always do it ?

Lenses like that tend to make me do throwing it against the wall tests !

If I could not return it I would have to sell it on ebay for parts or repair only.

J Peters wrote:

Thanks for all the replies. I don't want to sound argumentative, but I have 6 other lenses and they seem fine to me....so why all the comments that the camera's the problem? I'm just trying to understand the logic.

I was previously thinking using the 18-55 as a knockabout lens was the way to go. A shame I'd lose the 56-150 range, but I'd rather have higher IQ.

Focus settings: I always use single point (standard size rectangle thingy) and one-shot for static subjects.

If I had this issue (and I have an EF-M 18-150mm lens), I would try this:

a) Is it possible that camera shake happened when shooting this picture?

b) Have you tried to shoot using a tripod?

c) Have you checked the lens IS?

d) You can check where is your focus point within the camera or Canon DPP. Where is it?

e) Is your lens firmware updated?

You can find the latest firmware here:

Canon EF-M 18-150mm firmware

I processed your image using stabilize setting on Topaz Sharpen AI, and here is the processed image:

Sharpen stabilized image processed with Topaz Sharpen AI

I agree with previous postings, check your AF settings, to me it seems that the focus lies closer to the flowers. This can happen e.g. when touch focus (single focus field) is active...

Try auto AF mode too before you ditch the lens!!!!!

I  am convinced that neither the camera, nor the lens is at fault!

RLight wrote:

I'll agree that the 55-200 renders stronger optical performance, however, the 55-200 is a 4x zoom. The 18-150 is an 8.3x zoom. The benefit to using the 55-200 is when you want more reach, but still want to be compact (no adapter needed, and even larger lens attached), and/or want more image quality within the 55-200 range.

Where the 18-150 "wins" is in it's intended use; no swap scenarios. Example, apart of me wishes I had a 18-150 on me last night for carnival,

I went on a trip with only RF 16 and 35 and I had to swap both frequently, I am halfway jokingly starting to ponder that I should get a 15-35, but yes, 18-150 is wonderful for this exact scenario to the degree that I am starting to wonder how I managed before.

I brought only the 15-45. Now I'll say being super-compact ala 15-45 served me well as I was riding rides, and shooting, but the 18-150 had I been more conservative with riding rides and instead favoring moment capture, would've been the ideal lens. Parks and the unexpected also bode well for the 18-150 as you simply don't miss the moment being unprepared, having to swap a lens, etc.

.

I'm going to second other here, I've had an M5 before myself, do consider upgrading to an M with DIGIC8 onboard: M50, M50 Mark II, M6 Mark II.

.

Regarding 18-150 copy variance, I've had 3, and yes, some are better than others. However, even my "poor" copy still bode well when it did. That said, all of my (AF) lenses suffered on the M5. I say it that way as the Rokinon MF glass I shot with my time with the M5, it's in fact some of my most prized (emotionally) shots to date.

.

If you're looking to ditch the 18-150, I can say I have felt the same way myself in the past. Your frustration is misplaced. That M5 is the weak link in the chain. I wish I still had my 18-150...

My "poor" copy, via M5. Not optically poor at all, but of the 3 I've owned, this was the least sharp. Can't say it stopped me, or in fact was poor frankly.

My sharpest copy, which I kept from the short time I had with a refurbish M6 (Mark 1) which I carried over when I picked up the M6 Mark II. All lenses become more "fun" on the M6 Mark II or M50's compared to older EOS M's that do not contain DIGIC8

J Peters wrote:

why all the comments that the camera's the problem? I'm just trying to understand the logic.

Because I shot with the M5 for 2 years and many tens of thousands of shots. AF was poor even with static subjects, and esp with slow lenses. I upgraded to the M6ii the day it was released and the difference in AF performance is stunning.

Don't forget, you posted a shot that shows gross misfocus. Contrary to some others' opinions in the thread (some who have not even shot with the M5), it's not the lens that's doing that.

Like I said, try a different body, then see how the lens performs. We'll take care of the original issue, then see where it goes from there!

R2

I must have got lucky. This was a shot (high contrast) taken on a snowy day in Queenstown (New Zealand) with my M5 + 18-150mm. Not EF 100-400L ii quality, but acceptable.

I would suggest that while the AF on the M5 is certainly not class leading, there shouldn't be much of an issue for a static statue. Taken at similar camera settings as the OP's.

I obviously have to test my 18-150 with my M3 but I can confirm that it works very well with both M6 I and II, even wide open.

R2D2 wrote:

Because I shot with the M5 for 2 years and many tens of thousands of shots. AF was poor even with static subjects, and esp with slow lenses.

How in the world were you able to put up with a camera like that ?

I can't say that about any Canon body I have owned. Not even my original M.

You had a lemon ?

m100 wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Because I shot with the M5 for 2 years and many tens of thousands of shots. AF was poor even with static subjects, and esp with slow lenses.

How in the world were you able to put up with a camera like that ?

I can't say that about any Canon body I have owned. Not even my original M.

Simple.  It’s why I bought the M6ii the day it was released.

You had a lemon ?

That’s just how the M5 behaved.  There was plenty of discussion about its AF in the forum back then.

R2