Fed Up with EF-M 18-150mm

J Peters wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to do this. You've given a well-balanced appraisal of the lens I think.

I'm wondering if I'd be happier using an adapted EF/EF-S lens for this focal length range.

Could be.

I have 55-200, 55-250 and 70-300L also and of course the L is the by far the best of them.

but in real life the difference in between them is the range and flexibility rather than IQ.

Of course this is written from someone with M6 mk II so your mileage may vary.

I don't have any experience with M5 but I own M6 mk I which I  believe are pretty close and I have never had any issues with af speed using it.

KEG wrote:

J Peters wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to do this. You've given a well-balanced appraisal of the lens I think.

I'm wondering if I'd be happier using an adapted EF/EF-S lens for this focal length range.

Could be.

I have 55-200, 55-250 and 70-300L also and of course the L is the by far the best of them.

but in real life the difference in between them is the range and flexibility rather than IQ.

Of course this is written from someone with M6 mk II so your mileage may vary.

I don't have any experience with M5 but I own M6 mk I which I believe are pretty close and I have never had any issues with af speed using it.

The EF-S 55-250 IS is a gem. Make a Rexley custom teleconverter and you have real reach too.

I initially thought this lens was atrocious, but after a fair bit of testing I realized the worst of my complaints with this lens were due to its extreme susceptibility to shutter shock on the M6II.

Curse the lack of EFCS!

(On a related note, as I bought this as a kit lens combo with the M6II, it’s a poor choice by Canon for a lens/body kit pairing.)

The focal range is fantastic for a walk-around travel lens.  I could probably get by with this alone as a travel combo.  So much space and weight saved.

That being said, the workarounds to avoiding shutter shock can cause headaches:  shutter speed always as fast as possible, and switching to ES when necessary (which apparently gives a penalty of reduced bit depth).

It doesn’t really compete with the EF 24-70 2.8II for colour saturation, contrast, or sharpness, but for a general-purpose travel zoom I’ve been happy with it.

Again, my biggest complaints stem back to its susceptibility to shutter shock with a mechanical shutter.

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.

ex human wrote:

I initially thought this lens was atrocious, but after a fair bit of testing I realized the worst of my complaints with this lens were due to its extreme susceptibility to shutter shock on the M6II.

Curse the lack of EFCS!

(On a related note, as I bought this as a kit lens combo with the M6II, it’s a poor choice by Canon for a lens/body kit pairing.)

The focal range is fantastic for a walk-around travel lens. I could probably get by with this alone as a travel combo. So much space and weight saved.

That being said, the workarounds to avoiding shutter shock can cause headaches: shutter speed always as fast as possible, and switching to ES when necessary (which apparently gives a penalty of reduced bit depth).

I don’t think that’s correct. The R5/6 have reduced bit depth in e-shutter (usually not noticeable) but the R and M6II don’t. I could be mistaken, of course. Almost all my M6II shooting is with e-shutter. I love it, and have never noticed any IQ penalty.

It doesn’t really compete with the EF 24-70 2.8II for colour saturation, contrast, or sharpness, but for a general-purpose travel zoom I’ve been happy with it.

Again, my biggest complaints stem back to its susceptibility to shutter shock with a mechanical shutter.

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.

-- hide signature --

Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/94301219@N03/

J Peters wrote:

Thanks everyone. I did some more tests last night (albeit brief). Comparing the 18-150 to at the long end to my 55-200 was an open and shut case. The 18-150 is pretty lousy by comparison - though not as bad as the first copy I had. Even things that are supposedly in the plane of focus are blurred when I look critically, and there's noticeable chromatic aberration. I've compared these two before though, and this was no surprise.

What shocked me though is when I compared the short end to my 18-55. The 18-150 was better! And by quite a margin. I wasn't expecting that at all. I don't think I'd run that comparison before.

If the 18-150 behaved like that through the range, I'd be very happy. However mine seem to fall apart around about 70mm, and over 100mm it's useless for critical shots, or where any cropping is needed. I am now wondering if it's worth buying a third copy (third time lucky?). I'd be grateful if someone can post an example of their 18-150 at or near 150mm with no post processing (by which I mean no contrast or chromatic distortion correction). That should help me judge if mine's a lemon.

You should definitely read this article: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/03/rogers-law-of-wide-zoom-relativity/

Roger has written other similar pieces over the years, but his takeaways are the same:

• Zooms have lots of copy-to-copy variation (even the most expensive ones);
• You can never have a zoom with peak performance at all focal lengths - you can either have one excellent extreme and a crappy one, or mediocre performance all over;
• Zooms suffer even more from differing quality at different focus distances than primes, and so distance to subject can have a massive impact on their focal plane characteristics, aberrations, and general resolution;
• Burning through copy after copy of zooms is mostly a waste of time because, unlike primes, you can never have peak performance at all focal lengths and distances.

Keep in mind two other things as well: each one of us examines images on different monitors, different software, with different eyesight and different criteria. What constitutes “sharp” to me can be “mush” to you, or vice versa. Also, better zoom lenses do exist; the newest 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses, for example, still do have a better focal length and optimal focus plane distance, but their baseline performance is so good that they just feel “super sharp all around” to most users. This is not the case with cheapo consumer zooms, like, ever.

I think it does no good when you have too many lenses to choose between. You may loose focus on subjects in favor of gear selection and technical aspects.

It is best to keep things as simple as possible. YMMV...

Dareshooter wrote:

Maxmolly7 wrote:

I think it does no good when you have too many lenses to choose between. You may loose focus on subjects in favor of gear selection and technical aspects.

It is best to keep things as simple as possible. YMMV...

That’s been my experience with the M . I’ve used all the Canon M lenses except the 32 mm. It doesn’t strike me as anything I’d find regular use for despite it’s awesome reputation. At one time I had the 22 pancake ,28mm macro and run compared the results with the 18-150 at third respective focal lengths . The primes were sharper and had better contrast but the difference wasn’t night and day so they stayed in my bag . Sold them and other than their compactness I don’t miss them at all.

Well, 22 mm is really bad at 150 mm and 18-150 is truly horrible at f/2.0, same with 32 mm at 18 mm and the zoom at f/1.4 so I have all 3.

No text.