I've been thinking of picking up an M6 Mark II and it comes with this lens. Your video was really helpful in showing me what it can do and the limitations it has. I've got several EF and EF-S mount lenses, but the adapter is close to $200.00, so I'd probably be using the kit lens for awhile.
Thanks! The Canon adapter is expensive, but remember there are no optics. If there were optics I'd be wary of using a third party adapter, but as there are no optics - just electrical connections - a cheaper third party adapter should be fine. Viltrox sells an adapter for about $30. I have the Viltrox speed booster, which is an EF to EF-M adapter with a lens element. The quality is fine. Although I've never used the plain Viltrox adapter (the one without a lens element), I'm sure it will be fine and the price is very affordable. You can then use all your EF and EF-S lenses. Edit: $36.99 on Amazon VILTROX EF-EOS M Lens Mount Auto Focus Adapter, Compatible with Canon EF/EF-S Lens to Canon EOS M (EF-M Mount) Mirrorless Camera Body EOS M100 M50 M3 M10 M6 M5 a.co/d/4yYeGIv
I use this lens on my little M5 as a lightweight alternative to my EOS-R or R3 with a heavy RF-L a lens, It really is a case of Horses for courses, this lens combined with the M5 gives me a really lightweight set up that still gives acceptable image quality for everyday shooting, also I can go into slightly rougher areas of town without worrying about being mugged for my camera gear 😁
LOL! I laugh, but from what I've heard about London these days, mugging is a real problem. I've been living in Thailand since 2003. I've got two EF-M 15-45s, but I never use them. I prefer the EF-M 18-55, 11-22, or 22 lenses. I gave my original EOS M to my son, along with an EF-M 15-45 and, as you say, the IQ is perfectly acceptable. These days, even the cheapest lenses have very acceptable IQ.
I compared this lens with the well-respected EOS m prime 22mm. It stood up remarkably well basically at F8 it is nearly as good as the prime. Just a bit worse in the edges. Some have said that it's contrast is a tiny bit better than the 18-55mm. At any rate it is certainly exceptionally good value for money...
Interesting comment, thanks. Just like the 55-200, I had negative feelings about this lens from the start but it's probably better than I thought. I don't tend to use it because having the 18-55 and 11-22 there is no need. The cheapest deal I could find on an M6 came with this lens, which is why I have it.
Just wanted to let you know how much I'm enjoying your channel and your photography. I look forward to more videos from you in the future as I catch up on those you've already produced. I will definitely suggest your channel to others as well.
I have this lens plus an EF50mm F1.8. Now I want to go a bit of wide aperture in the wide angle ends. Cleary this lens doesn't support a wide aperture. So what is my cheapest option to go wide angle and have a wide aperture provided I have the EF adaptor ? ( My camera is an M6 Mark II )
I only have Canon lenses so I can't tell you anything about third party lenses. Wide apertures aren't too important with wide angle lenses. Wide angle lenses have a very deep depth of field so there's no real bokeh effect when using a wide aperture. Also, high ISO performance is so good these days that you don't need particularly fast lenses. This lens - the 15-45mm - isn't particularly wide on an APS-C sensor. My favourite wide angle lens is the EF-M 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. It may be a non-L EF-S lens, but the image quality is great and it's capable of some very nice images. It will work fine with your adaptor and it will give you an effective focal length of 16mm.
@@850Tech Pleasure! I've had this lens for many years. When I first moved to EOS DSLR I decided I wouldn't buy any non L or EF-S lenses. This lens broke both rules, but it's one of my favorites. There's no IS, but I've never found it to be a problem. Canon also makes a 10-18mm. This one has IS and it's cheaper, but the focal range is reduced and the IQ isn't as good.
Generally speaking, if you are shooting in low light you will want a big aperture to let more light in. I would put the camera in AV mode and dial in the maximum aperture - the value varies with this lens depending on focal length. Your model will be quite still, so a fairly slow shutter speed should be OK and you have IS to help keep things steady. I would start off with ISO 100 to get as much detail as possible but - depending on the amount of light available - you could increase the ISO if the shutter speed is too slow. Cameras today have pretty good high ISO performance and my M6 at ISO 800 still looks pretty good. If some grain creeps in and looks distracting you can remove it in post-processing. This will also remove some detail, but with a portrait it may even look more flattering.
Thanks for the review, this a very underestimated lens, a lot professionals use it and I have seen their results, for a very small lens that offers IS is excellent with better sharpness and contrast than the 18-55mm. It is used when you have to keep your equipment very light and and less obvious when travelling or Vlogging, I have seen it used on the Canon M50 body with excellent results and of course now with the Canon M6 II, don't ignore this lens it can produce excellent results, I use it on my M50 and M series cameras
I have to admit, I had a very negative attitude when this lens arrived and I did ignore it, but when I started testing it for this review I was quite surprised with the optical performance. Personally, I prefer the EF-M 18-55, but that is just my preference. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Subbed of course. It is an interesting review. I have this lens as my only with M6 kit. It is my spare/backup system. Being my only lens, I can’t compare but curious about 18-55 for sure. Being a backup system, it is unlikely I will add similar lens nor have I considered adding any until now...the 55-200. Isn’t too pricey used & will complete my backup system. My primary system is MFT, so there are no crossovers in lens for me. However we are on the same page in terms of the lightweight performance concept. Would u recommend the 55-200 for video & stills? Cheers
The EF-M 18-55 and EF-M 11-22 are better built than the EF-M 15-45 and I prefer them, but unless you are really picky the 15-45 is a decent lens for not much money. I bought the EF-M 55-200 for a low price and initially I wasn't over impressed, but I was making a silly mistake. Having realised my mistake, it's a lens that I quite like now. There's a video on my channel in which I explain my mistake. I've only used it for stills. When I shoot video I tend to use wide-normal lenses, not telephoto. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Phil UK Net I know about that 55-200 video. I subbed and commented and came to this video from that video. I do agree about the make of the 15-45. When I saw the plastic mount besides the plastic body...I went hmm because this is my first and only plastic mount lens so far. Maybe the 55-200 will be my second, because if memory serves me right, that is plastic mount too. I almost bought the 11-22, it will be great for video I figured, but too much money to spend because I already have a 15mm focal length, a compromise for a secondary system. A used 55-200 at a cheap price would be best to complete my kit. Thanks for your insightful videos 👍
@@Hatvocate Sorry, I wasn't paying attention! I do remember your other comment, thanks. The EF adapter and the first three EF-M lenses had metal mounts - 22mm, 18-55mm, 11-22mm. After that Canon started using plastic mounts, with the exception of the EF-M 32mm f/1.4. Yes, the 11-22 is quite expensive. Since buying it my financial situation has changed considerably due to politics and exchange rates and I probably couldn't justify buying it now. The 55-200 (new) was half the price of the 11-22. Thanks again for your comments.
@@PhilUKNet no worries! Family before lenses. I did see and realise before commenting that EOS M came bundled with the 22 & 18-55. What a treat. It seems around the time of the M6 & now M6.II are bundled with 15-45 or 18-150 as a the more expensive kit lens. Hope things are ok where u are & stay safe. And if u ever need a spare or replacement 18-55, let me know, I might be able to source a good secondhand one & send it ur way. Cheers
@@Hatvocate Crazy times. I'm trying to keep my bored kids amused at the moment and just flitting in and out of RUclips, not really paying much attention to what's happening on my channel. I bought the original EOS M bundled with the 22, 18-55 and 90EX. I bought the adapter separately so that I could use my EF and EF-S lenses. My M6 came with the 15-45, which I didn't particularly want but it was a good deal. Thanks for the offer, I'll let you know if I need one! You stay safe too.
The truth is that Canon know their market. They know that the majority of M users will find this lens perfectly acceptable and it's a cheap lens to manufacture. It does a job and it does it adequately. Those of us who come from SLR backgrounds and have higher standards will see its shortcomings, but we are in a minority. My one is permanently attached to my original M, which I hardly ever use now, but sometimes I will use it for a quick shot and it does the job.
I've been thinking of picking up an M6 Mark II and it comes with this lens. Your video was really helpful in showing me what it can do and the limitations it has. I've got several EF and EF-S mount lenses, but the adapter is close to $200.00, so I'd probably be using the kit lens for awhile.
Thanks! The Canon adapter is expensive, but remember there are no optics. If there were optics I'd be wary of using a third party adapter, but as there are no optics - just electrical connections - a cheaper third party adapter should be fine. Viltrox sells an adapter for about $30. I have the Viltrox speed booster, which is an EF to EF-M adapter with a lens element. The quality is fine. Although I've never used the plain Viltrox adapter (the one without a lens element), I'm sure it will be fine and the price is very affordable. You can then use all your EF and EF-S lenses.
Edit: $36.99 on Amazon VILTROX EF-EOS M Lens Mount Auto Focus Adapter, Compatible with Canon EF/EF-S Lens to Canon EOS M (EF-M Mount) Mirrorless Camera Body EOS M100 M50 M3 M10 M6 M5 a.co/d/4yYeGIv
I use this lens on my little M5 as a lightweight alternative to my EOS-R or R3 with a heavy RF-L a lens, It really is a case of Horses for courses, this lens combined with the M5 gives me a really lightweight set up that still gives acceptable image quality for everyday shooting, also I can go into slightly rougher areas of town without worrying about being mugged for my camera gear 😁
LOL! I laugh, but from what I've heard about London these days, mugging is a real problem. I've been living in Thailand since 2003. I've got two EF-M 15-45s, but I never use them. I prefer the EF-M 18-55, 11-22, or 22 lenses. I gave my original EOS M to my son, along with an EF-M 15-45 and, as you say, the IQ is perfectly acceptable. These days, even the cheapest lenses have very acceptable IQ.
I compared this lens with the well-respected EOS m prime 22mm. It stood up remarkably well basically at F8 it is nearly as good as the prime. Just a bit worse in the edges. Some have said that it's contrast is a tiny bit better than the 18-55mm. At any rate it is certainly exceptionally good value for money...
Interesting comment, thanks. Just like the 55-200, I had negative feelings about this lens from the start but it's probably better than I thought. I don't tend to use it because having the 18-55 and 11-22 there is no need. The cheapest deal I could find on an M6 came with this lens, which is why I have it.
Just wanted to let you know how much I'm enjoying your channel and your photography. I look forward to more videos from you in the future as I catch up on those you've already produced. I will definitely suggest your channel to others as well.
Thank you Christina, you are very kind. Your comment was much appreciated!
I have this lens plus an EF50mm F1.8. Now I want to go a bit of wide aperture in the wide angle ends. Cleary this lens doesn't support a wide aperture. So what is my cheapest option to go wide angle and have a wide aperture provided I have the EF adaptor ? ( My camera is an M6 Mark II )
I only have Canon lenses so I can't tell you anything about third party lenses. Wide apertures aren't too important with wide angle lenses. Wide angle lenses have a very deep depth of field so there's no real bokeh effect when using a wide aperture. Also, high ISO performance is so good these days that you don't need particularly fast lenses. This lens - the 15-45mm - isn't particularly wide on an APS-C sensor. My favourite wide angle lens is the EF-M 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. It may be a non-L EF-S lens, but the image quality is great and it's capable of some very nice images. It will work fine with your adaptor and it will give you an effective focal length of 16mm.
@@PhilUKNet thanks for the prompt reply mate. I will check on the 10-22mm
@@850Tech Pleasure! I've had this lens for many years. When I first moved to EOS DSLR I decided I wouldn't buy any non L or EF-S lenses. This lens broke both rules, but it's one of my favorites. There's no IS, but I've never found it to be a problem. Canon also makes a 10-18mm. This one has IS and it's cheaper, but the focal range is reduced and the IQ isn't as good.
Thank you.Could you tell us how to best set this lense for indoor low light half body portrait?
Generally speaking, if you are shooting in low light you will want a big aperture to let more light in. I would put the camera in AV mode and dial in the maximum aperture - the value varies with this lens depending on focal length. Your model will be quite still, so a fairly slow shutter speed should be OK and you have IS to help keep things steady. I would start off with ISO 100 to get as much detail as possible but - depending on the amount of light available - you could increase the ISO if the shutter speed is too slow. Cameras today have pretty good high ISO performance and my M6 at ISO 800 still looks pretty good. If some grain creeps in and looks distracting you can remove it in post-processing. This will also remove some detail, but with a portrait it may even look more flattering.
Thanks for the review, this a very underestimated lens, a lot professionals use it and I have seen their results, for a very small lens that offers IS is excellent with better sharpness and contrast than the 18-55mm. It is used when you have to keep your equipment very light and and less obvious when travelling or Vlogging, I have seen it used on the Canon M50 body with excellent results and of course now with the Canon M6 II, don't ignore this lens it can produce excellent results, I use it on my M50 and M series cameras
I have to admit, I had a very negative attitude when this lens arrived and I did ignore it, but when I started testing it for this review I was quite surprised with the optical performance. Personally, I prefer the EF-M 18-55, but that is just my preference. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Subbed of course. It is an interesting review. I have this lens as my only with M6 kit. It is my spare/backup system. Being my only lens, I can’t compare but curious about 18-55 for sure. Being a backup system, it is unlikely I will add similar lens nor have I considered adding any until now...the 55-200. Isn’t too pricey used & will complete my backup system. My primary system is MFT, so there are no crossovers in lens for me. However we are on the same page in terms of the lightweight performance concept. Would u recommend the 55-200 for video & stills? Cheers
The EF-M 18-55 and EF-M 11-22 are better built than the EF-M 15-45 and I prefer them, but unless you are really picky the 15-45 is a decent lens for not much money. I bought the EF-M 55-200 for a low price and initially I wasn't over impressed, but I was making a silly mistake. Having realised my mistake, it's a lens that I quite like now. There's a video on my channel in which I explain my mistake. I've only used it for stills. When I shoot video I tend to use wide-normal lenses, not telephoto. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Phil UK Net I know about that 55-200 video. I subbed and commented and came to this video from that video. I do agree about the make of the 15-45. When I saw the plastic mount besides the plastic body...I went hmm because this is my first and only plastic mount lens so far. Maybe the 55-200 will be my second, because if memory serves me right, that is plastic mount too. I almost bought the 11-22, it will be great for video I figured, but too much money to spend because I already have a 15mm focal length, a compromise for a secondary system. A used 55-200 at a cheap price would be best to complete my kit. Thanks for your insightful videos 👍
@@Hatvocate Sorry, I wasn't paying attention! I do remember your other comment, thanks. The EF adapter and the first three EF-M lenses had metal mounts - 22mm, 18-55mm, 11-22mm. After that Canon started using plastic mounts, with the exception of the EF-M 32mm f/1.4. Yes, the 11-22 is quite expensive. Since buying it my financial situation has changed considerably due to politics and exchange rates and I probably couldn't justify buying it now. The 55-200 (new) was half the price of the 11-22. Thanks again for your comments.
@@PhilUKNet no worries! Family before lenses. I did see and realise before commenting that EOS M came bundled with the 22 & 18-55. What a treat. It seems around the time of the M6 & now M6.II are bundled with 15-45 or 18-150 as a the more expensive kit lens. Hope things are ok where u are & stay safe. And if u ever need a spare or replacement 18-55, let me know, I might be able to source a good secondhand one & send it ur way. Cheers
@@Hatvocate Crazy times. I'm trying to keep my bored kids amused at the moment and just flitting in and out of RUclips, not really paying much attention to what's happening on my channel. I bought the original EOS M bundled with the 22, 18-55 and 90EX. I bought the adapter separately so that I could use my EF and EF-S lenses. My M6 came with the 15-45, which I didn't particularly want but it was a good deal. Thanks for the offer, I'll let you know if I need one! You stay safe too.
its not bad... its light, and small.. and slooooooooow...
The truth is that Canon know their market. They know that the majority of M users will find this lens perfectly acceptable and it's a cheap lens to manufacture. It does a job and it does it adequately. Those of us who come from SLR backgrounds and have higher standards will see its shortcomings, but we are in a minority. My one is permanently attached to my original M, which I hardly ever use now, but sometimes I will use it for a quick shot and it does the job.