Canon EF-M 18-150 F3.5-6.3 IS STM real-world sample gallery

When is the M6 due for release?

500 dollars?

Not a chance in canon hell.

Hell, my recently acquired 30mm f2 IS barely feels like a 5/600 dollar lens. I like it, but theres not much to it and the ghosting is terrible, even the old 50 1.4 - my warrior lens- doesn't have those issues.

And good luck shooting at f6.3 in late afternoon on crop...even f4.5 at those times of the day, the lower iso/low shutter combo sucks.

For me, this lens is quite worthless, regardless for the zoom range. But thats just me.

photos look fairly decent for a $499 lens. I think it's a good match for the EOS M5 for a walk around stills shooter.

As a Nikon shooter I'll say that these images are impressive. Maybe this combo could be my next system camera (besides Nikon D7200, Oly E-M10 II and Pana DMC-GM1).

I was hoping to see some shots between 100 and 150 mm. It is a zoom lens after all.
Can't believe all these shots are at the wider end of the lens.

Can someone clear something up for me?

• The images you see in the web browser are jpegs, and these jpegs are created by loading the raws into ACR, doing whatever corrections, then saving a jpeg, right?

• Are the jpegs you can download, just full-size versions of the ACR-converted jpegs? To my eyes they appear to be. They appear in-browser to be identical, no different than what you see when clicking the "100% details" button.

•If so, that means they're different from whatever jpegs you get from the camera, right? Because the camera chooses how to interpolate and post-process those. So the in-camera jpegs might have totally different colors, contrast, etc.

• So doesn't that mean all of these comments about the colors are off-base, because none of these colors were created by canon's software, either in camera or on the computer? These are 100% adobe's colors.

• If DPreview's jpegs are saved from ACR, shouldn't they be offering the camera's jpegs for download instead?

I just so like Canon Color ... the red pops ... so does yellows
Sony Color is cooler ... which i do not fancy ...
Nikon Color? Well, if they have the time in darkroom to tweak it to look like Canon Color this is good for them.

If you use any L lens the sky will be naturally bluer whites will be pure white. leaves will be natural green without red cast. those red flowers will look natural real red not like plastic flowers..
whether its the lens coating or processing L rendering is the only faithful from Canon.
except for some other EF lenses most show outstanding red hues ...which spoils the color purity and quality and natural look..

Have the dpreview staff any comments to offer in evaluation of this lens?

All sample under range 50mm, not tele photos?

The RAW images are locked and cannot be edited/ evaluated in DPP (v4).

I bought this lens with the M5, and have been fooling with it for the past two weeks. Nothing formal, and I am not much of a pixel peeper. I use the DLO corrections in-camera and shoot JPEGS (I spent 20 years sitting at a computer for work, that was enough).

I use the "fine detail" color pre-set, and when I fiddle with it I like the results less than the default. This is an improvement on my other Canons. I use Av set at f/5.6, which of course bumps to 6.3 as you zoom. I did some comparisons with f/8, and it is just a bit sharper at mid-zoom, but generally not worth fussing about. Grain at 100% is good up through 1600, OK at 3200, not OK at 6400. I have been using auto ISO set at 3200 - it only lets you set the maximum - but so far it has been making good choices.

This is a great casual photo setup. (For fancy, I grab my D6 with 24-70 f/2.8 ii.) I hope they come out with the rumored ef-m 15-85 f/3.5-5.6, I would like more at the wide end.

It is good that Canon joined mirrorless in a more serious way, finally. But there was no fanfare, they've come to the party very late. I hope the thing sells and I hope they don't treat it like the insane uncle, the way Nikon created and treated the 1 series, hiding it away at photo shows, sticking it FAR from the DSLR's on the store shelves, at least the ones I'd seen.

Nice pics. I have an M5 and I’m really interested in this lens. The image quality looks good. The only criticism I have is the significant amount of chromatic aberration, but I see this clears up nicely in DPP. But I’m a bit puzzled by the fact that none of these pics are taken at maximum aperture, and hardly any in the upper half of the zoom range. The extra zoom range is the main appeal over the 18-55, and with such a slow lens you are going to be shooting wide open much of the time. Oh well, still encouraging results for a super zoom. I'm probably going to get one.

Can not comment on the optical quality. However, $500 does seem a bit steep for a slow lens and the plastic mount is disappointing. I know plastics can be amazing, but when the 18-135 stm versions have metal mounts and a bit more speed for the same price. Even the under $150 stm primes have metal mounts. Still I prefer metal over plastic unless the price put the lens in a throw away category if something goes wrong. $500 isn't throw away for me. I will just continue to use my 18-135mm stm with adapter. With box versions can be had for about $300 as well.

To all those fussing over whether the JPEGs are corrected, DPR gave you the RAWs, so download them and check for yourself. I do agree that more shots at the long end of the lens are needed for a decent evaluation. Also, to those fussing about color, I am willing to bet at least half don't have a monitor that is even capable of SRGB, much less Adobe RGB or wider. Without the former, you can't evaluate the JPEGs and without the latter, you can't evaluate the RAWs. This summer, you should be able to buy a really good monitor for a sensible prices as QD is finally hitting the monitor market. The colors from this camera look very good on a QD monitor.

These look pretty good to me, but until the M5 comes down in price, it will attract people who are fussy and want lots of expensive lenses. I know this isn't Seattle and the sun is out, but the shadows seem really dark as in low dynamic range. Camera & lens for around $900-1000 seems about right.

I understand that DPReview has a fixed process (for our benefit!) when it comes to producing galleries like these, but for those (like myself) interested in this lens, you owe it to yourself to download the latest release of DPP4 from Canon and load the lens data for this EF-M 18-150. Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) does wonders for sharpness, distortion, and CA, and this lens really knocks it out of the park when properly corrected.

(we can assume that Adobe will get around to building a proper profile and they'll get 90%-95% of Canon's solution eventually, but for now, you can use Canon's own software to evaluate the kind of final output the EOS-M5 and 18-150 combination is capable of)

The outcome looks pretty generic, like anything else.

those atomic reds though...

To me, the Sony 16-70mm f/4 is the PERFECT travel lens. Very small, f/4, and good image quality (I must have the only good copy in the world...or whatever). I own it, love it, and this lens is what will keep me with Sony for a light travel rig.

I can really see that it's not about image quality beyond a certain limit, these are great images even on my 60" UHD panel, and all thess cameras have crossed that limit so damn far. I see, IMO, what differentiates images is lenses creating different looks, DOFs at different FOVs giving an optical "look", like how wedding couples adore a 5DII + 85mm f/1.2 shots vs a Hasselblad MF back with a 100mm f/3.5. Simply due to that dropped off DOF and facial compression, everything else about the image (sharpness, CA, noise, DR, colours)? It's far beyond what 90% of the people want. They are struck by the look of the lens.

That's not to say that 10% group doesn't exist or have its needs, and they are very well addressed now with the newest affordable gear especially the likes of D810/5DSr/A7rII/Sigma ART glass and many more. They all give absolutely spactacular images with medium-format-like resolution, great colours, basically with lack of any IQ defects and they come at 3000-5000$ price point. It's a good time to be a photographer, but also a compdtetive time, so look out and keep marketing.

So what else am I looking for, why am I here on DP? Because I am a camera nerd and love to see (and sadly buy) new gear.

The M needs some fast native primes. f/1.4 or faster.
Mitakon Zhongyi has a 35mm f0.95 ... I'd take a Canon EF-M 35mm f/1.2 (or f/1.4) with IS and AF for $1000

Very poor gallery.

First, it's an 18-150 lens, yet only two shots are over 50mm; one at 62/f11 and one at 150/f9.

The 150 f9 shot has nothing in sharp focus, is this a photographer choice or is the lens really that soft at 150 f/9? If it's really that soft there is no point having the lens go to 150 as an upsampled 100mm would look better. Well, that could be the case for this type of zoom, but in this case we have to guess because there is no 100mm shot, or 80mm, or 135mm, etc.

Also, to keep lenses compact and easier to design, software corrections are allowed for. This happens automatically during raw conversion for many cameras. For example, M43 images carry image correction data in the image file which is applied automatically by most major converters. How does it work with EOS-M, as some of these images would clearly benefit from some basic CA and diffraction compensation.

Guys, you know I love you, but I find this content quite sub-par on several levels.

F10 equiv at the long end is less than ideal?

not bad considering there's been no CA correction which will tend to make these images look more "soft" especially to the extremities.

dpreview.. it would be nice when you are doing some of the samples to show the images with full corrections. same with your studio images. it's a little harder to determine . is this what you can expect (or in some cases .. going by the comments .. some even odder comments).

Considering the size of this lens.. pretty good results for a $500 lens.

expensive combo ($1500) imo

These look good if unspectacular. Certainly it looks better than the 18-135 STM copies I've had, but not L quality such as the 24-70 F/4 (we wouldn't expect it to be). Chromatic aberration is present but probably not too severe, and corner sharpness on par with what one would expect from such as lens.

Now, if Canon can only make a fast standard zoom (e.g. 16-50 f/2.8 or 17-55 f/2.8) for the M-mount ...

not my kind of lens..but i think looks more than acceptable for a super zoom

I have taken many great photos with my phone. I'm talking Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Huawei P9, HTC 10 and LG V20. That includes evening shots which normally would appear smudged. These phones have Pro Settings that enable me to use slow shutter speeds and thus capture more light. However, they are not going to replace cameras with big sensors any time soon. So while everyone has the freedom to bring their phones all the time and leave their more proper cameras at home, if I am going to a place that I'm visiting 1-2x in a lifetime, I won't do that. I will bring my DSLR, my mirrorless and the best most expensive lenses in my arsenal. This lens on the M5 simply means there are now more native options to Canon's mirrorless model. They're very late in the game but never ever underestimate Canon and Nikon.

DPReview comments have quickly become filled with ignorant people comparing phones to large sensor camera with zooms. All the information to educate yourself properly can be found on this site, so maybe take a look around. I assure you that your iPhones ability to capture a decent picture at one focal length (two for the 7 Plus) in broad daylight doesn't make it comparable to an interchangeable lens camera that can have full manual control and be of use in low light. Oh, and zooms from an equivalent of 28.8mm-240mm...But who cares about compression when you can digitally zoom, am I right? Haha jk

I expected better colours than Panasonic but they are even worse, and far behind Fuji, Panasonic, Sony.

IQ dissapointed.

Great colors, but IQ close to my phone. And, btw, my phone is much smaller and lighter =)

Better than I expected for a travel zoom, certainly better than the 18-135mm STM that I once owned. Sharp, but with a bit of chromatic aberration around the edges.

It's disappointing that the max aperture is only F6.3 at 150mm, particularly as there are plenty of reasonably compact (EF-S mount) tele-zooms that manage to go as wide as F4.5 at the 150mm setting, but I guess that is the price paid for an M-mount compact lens.

I guess with this slow lens I would use my phone instead. Sharp to the horizon, too... but small. Kitlenses are great to learn the cam and to work around, but a fast 35mm would be way more creative. Seem the EF-M System is dedicated to beginners, at the moment.

Color and contrast looks very good for a super zoom, but sharpness seems expectedly average.