EF-M 18-150mm IS STM and M6 II

Is the 18-150 capable to resolve the 32MP?

I feel that my sample is good on M1, but less so on M2.

All primes seem to shine though.

Works fine on mine.

KEG wrote:

Works fine on mine.

It is probably the best non-L zoom I used so far and, yes it works, but it seems to miss some punchy character?

Maxmolly7 wrote:

Is the 18-150 capable to resolve the 32MP?

I feel that my sample is good on M1, but less so on M2.

the M1 and M2 are both 18MP they should look the same

if you are happy with the results with any lens on 18MP if you view the photos at the same size they will look better with 32MP

All primes seem to shine though.

Maxmolly7 wrote:

KEG wrote:

Works fine on mine.

It is probably the best non-L zoom I used so far and, yes it works, but it seems to miss some punchy character?

it is nice and sharp, even wide open on both ends of the focal range, there is nothing more to complain.

I have both 24 and 32 MP but have found almost zero reason to do an indepth analysis of them.

-- hide signature --

May THE LIGHT be with you!

davev8 wrote:

Maxmolly7 wrote:

Is the 18-150 capable to resolve the 32MP?

I feel that my sample is good on M1, but less so on M2.

the M1 and M2 are both 18MP they should look the same

if you are happy with the results with any lens on 18MP if you view the photos at the same size they will look better with 32MP

All primes seem to shine though.

I meant M 6 Mark I and II. 24 vs 32 MP.

KEG wrote:

Maxmolly7 wrote:

KEG wrote:

Works fine on mine.

It is probably the best non-L zoom I used so far and, yes it works, but it seems to miss some punchy character?

it is nice and sharp, even wide open on both ends of the focal range, there is nothing more to complain.

I have both 24 and 32 MP but have found almost zero reason to do an indepth analysis of them.

Thanx KEG for this. I may have deeper look myself and run a benchmark when time permits.

Maxmolly7 wrote:

Is the 18-150 capable to resolve the 32MP?

I feel that my sample is good on M1, but less so on M2.

24Mp is more forgiving. You're IQ isn't getting worse with 32Mp, in fact a little better, but smaller pixels allow for peeping harder.

All primes seem to shine though.

If you shoot compact zooms only 24Mp might make more sense, even though these lenses benefit as well from a higher Mp-count. The gains are smaller with compact zooms, while the files do get bigger.

If you shoot primes as well those bigger files are worth it. The M6II also has a better dynamic range, and this will improve the IQ even with softer lenses.

thunder storm wrote:

Maxmolly7 wrote:

Is the 18-150 capable to resolve the 32MP?

I feel that my sample is good on M1, but less so on M2.

24Mp is more forgiving. You're IQ isn't getting worse with 32Mp, in fact a little better, but smaller pixels allow for peeping harder.

All primes seem to shine though.

If you shoot compact zooms only 24Mp might make more sense, even though these lenses benefit as well from a higher Mp-count. The gains are smaller with compact zooms, while the files do get bigger.

If you shoot primes as well those bigger files are worth it. The M6II also has a better dynamic range, and this will improve the IQ even with softer lenses.

Good answer,  thanx.

I was disappointed with two copies of the 18-150 that I went sold them and went back to the EF-S 18-135 USM, far better results. Yes heavier and larger but worth it IMO.

For my "tele" needs I tested both the EF-M 18-150 and the EF-M 55-200 and I chose the latter despite it being an older lens (2016 vs 2014).

My non-scientific tests on an M50 showed that the 55200 was better optically and I appreciated the extra reach.

Maxmolly7 wrote:

Is the 18-150 capable to resolve the 32MP?

The question needs to be reordered, can the 32MP resolve the 18-150, yes. It does so better than the 24MP M5.

I feel that my sample is good on M1, but less so on M2.

These have the same resolving power. AF is quite improved on the M2, obviously the M6 II wins here.

All primes seem to shine though.

Primes do better than zooms, period. But then again they can’t zoom necessitates a prime swap…

I say this having owned all the above, not just regurgitating what others have said.

Too bad they don’t make a zoom that’s as good as a bunch of primes… If only Canon did, it’d be $3000, weight 1400g and be in the RF mount. Tongue in cheek aside, this whole 32MP vs lens thing is a total misnomer. I personally love the 18-150 and 22 pancake combo on the M6 II. If only Canon gave the R platform an R8 and RF-S 22mm…. They may btw, it’ll be 24MP though if I was betting…

-- hide signature --

May THE LIGHT be with you!

RLight wrote:

Maxmolly7 wrote:

Is the 18-150 capable to resolve the 32MP?

The question needs to be reordered, can the 32MP resolve the 18-150, yes. It does so better than the 24MP M5.

I feel that my sample is good on M1, but less so on M2.

These have the same resolving power. AF is quite improved on the M2, obviously the M6 II wins here.

All primes seem to shine though.

Primes do better than zooms, period. But then again they can’t zoom necessitates a prime swap…

I say this having owned all the above, not just regurgitating what others have said.

Too bad they don’t make a zoom that’s as good as a bunch of primes… If only Canon did, it’d be $3000, weight 1400g and be in the RF mount. Tongue in cheek aside, this whole 32MP vs lens thing is a total misnomer. I personally love the 18-150 and 22 pancake combo on the M6 II. If only Canon gave the R platform an R8 and RF-S 22mm…. They may btw, it’ll be 24MP though if I was betting…

Thanx for adding this, btw I meant M6 mark 1 & 2, not M and M2 bodies.

I tried RP with 24-240mm zoom but did not like the bulk, so I rather bought M6 II used at as great bargain.

Maxmolly7 wrote:

RLight wrote:

Maxmolly7 wrote:

Is the 18-150 capable to resolve the 32MP?

The question needs to be reordered, can the 32MP resolve the 18-150, yes. It does so better than the 24MP M5.

I feel that my sample is good on M1, but less so on M2.

These have the same resolving power. AF is quite improved on the M2, obviously the M6 II wins here.

All primes seem to shine though.

Primes do better than zooms, period. But then again they can’t zoom necessitates a prime swap…

I say this having owned all the above, not just regurgitating what others have said.

Too bad they don’t make a zoom that’s as good as a bunch of primes… If only Canon did, it’d be $3000, weight 1400g and be in the RF mount. Tongue in cheek aside, this whole 32MP vs lens thing is a total misnomer. I personally love the 18-150 and 22 pancake combo on the M6 II. If only Canon gave the R platform an R8 and RF-S 22mm…. They may btw, it’ll be 24MP though if I was betting…

Thanx for adding this, btw I meant M6 mark 1 & 2, not M and M2 bodies.

I tried RP with 24-240mm zoom but did not like the bulk, so I rather bought M6 II used at as great bargain.

The RF24-240 is unwieldy, even on an RP. The M6 II + 18-150 is really “fun”. I’m hoping Canon does an M6 in RF form so we can have that 18-150. But again, it needs a 22 to go with it. That FF RF 24mm is too big for compact “fun” use. I haven’t tried it but it’s the same size as the RF35, which I had.

-- hide signature --

May THE LIGHT be with you!

Looked at my M6 i and ii photos in Lightroom, pretty much no difference between on my MacBook Air screen

KEG wrote:

Looked at my M6 i and ii photos in Lightroom, pretty much no difference between on my MacBook Air screen

👍

Maxmolly7 wrote:

KEG wrote:

Maxmolly7 wrote:

KEG wrote:

Works fine on mine.

It is probably the best non-L zoom I used so far and, yes it works, but it seems to miss some punchy character?

it is nice and sharp, even wide open on both ends of the focal range, there is nothing more to complain.

I have both 24 and 32 MP but have found almost zero reason to do an indepth analysis of them.

I may have deeper look myself and run a benchmark when time permits.

Well “character” if that’s what you’re looking for, isn’t something you can really benchmark.  A lens may be sharp enough, or fast enough to perform the tasks you ask of it (which the 18-150 is for me in its limited role).  But ask it to change its character and it’s a no-go.

Character must be built into a lens’ design.  All of the decisions that affect/influence character are made before the lens ever gets built.  So unfortunately if you’re looking for a different character than what the 18-150 is delivering for you, you’ll simply have to choose a different lens.  

Best of luck in your quest!

R2

There is something strange with mine, exif reports only 141 mm at tele... or is it Lr?

R2D2 wrote:

Maxmolly7 wrote:

KEG wrote:

Maxmolly7 wrote:

KEG wrote:

Works fine on mine.

It is probably the best non-L zoom I used so far and, yes it works, but it seems to miss some punchy character?

it is nice and sharp, even wide open on both ends of the focal range, there is nothing more to complain.

I have both 24 and 32 MP but have found almost zero reason to do an indepth analysis of them.

I may have deeper look myself and run a benchmark when time permits.

Well “character” if that’s what you’re looking for, isn’t something you can really benchmark. A lens may be sharp enough, or fast enough to perform the tasks you ask of it (which the 18-150 is for me in its limited role). But ask it to change its character and it’s a no-go.

Character must be built into a lens’ design. All of the decisions that affect/influence character are made before the lens ever gets built. So unfortunately if you’re looking for a different character than what the 18-150 is delivering for you, you’ll simply have to choose a different lens.

Best of luck in your quest!

R2

Maybe it was more about punch (or the lack of punch) and less about character.

When looking for punch compact crop zooms will be compact crop zooms. Nothing wrong with it. But primes will do better.

KEG wrote:

There is something strange with mine, exif reports only 141 mm at tele... or is it Lr?

A unholy combination of Lr UI on Windows 10 through Microsoft Remote Desktop, 150 mm didn't show up in the focal length browser :/