Brilliant video. I too was debating selling my EF 70-200 and getting the EFM version instead. My only fear was that the EFM lens was 2 stops slower. I haven’t used my FF camera ever since I got the M50 in May 2018. Maybe it is time to ditch all that heavy Canon EF glass and move boldly to EFM especially since there are rumours for at least 1 new body and 4 or 5 more M lenses from Canon now. Hiking in the Scottish highlands is a lot easier with an EFM system than a FF system.
Hi Navin and thanks for your comment. Your thoughts are exactly the same as mine and I haven't used a DSLR since moving to EOS M in 2013. From what I can work out, Canon has effectively stopped development of EF lenses. RF is the way forward for FF and it seems that EOS M will be Canon's APS-C line so we can expect to see more EF-M lenses. I am just about to sell some EF lenses and one will likely be the EF 70-200 f/4L IS. By the way, the EF-M lens is 1 and a third stops slower, not two stops. I've seen the same rumours. An EOS M body specced above the M6 Mk2 with IBIS would be very nice!
Phil UK Net I try to caution those getting into serious photography to look long term and either invest in RF glass or at best EF L glass and to leave the lesser glass alone. For everyone else the EFM will more than suffice especially if they introduce IBIS. Canon has been very lethargic in introducing IBIS. Olympus, Panasonic, Sony etc have had IBIS for almost a decade now!
This is funny to see because I am the exact opposite. Purchased an M50 in February of this year and I am looking forward to upgrading to full frame :-) Perhaps I do not have as much faith in the future of the M line as you do. Has the recent M50ii changed your mind?
@@SteveHiemstraAKAspeg FF is good for those getting into professional photography. For the rest of us who only want a camera to document travels APSC or micro 4/3 does fine. Modern mobile cameras are very good. For my wife that is her only camera and she takes some very nice pictures with it. It is only under more challenging conditions that a dedicated camera works better. The M50II, Sony 6100, Fuji XT200 all are good kits that can get you started with 3-4 lenses for little over $1000 or less and are light enough to carry almost anywhere. If you want to go FF be prepared for heavier glass, bigger bodies, and a kit that will cost you about 3 times that.
Ok, try to use this 70 to 200 mm lens on your m6 with a speedbooster! It will reduce your crop from 1.6 to 1.1 and give 2.8 f instead of 4. Now it is no near 55-200
I actually ordered a Viltrox speed booster online a few months ago, but some additional expenses came in so I canceled. I like the 1.6x crop factor on telephoto lenses. I really wanted the speed booster for my EF 17-40 and EF 85mm f/1.8. I still plan to get one some time in the future. Thanks for your comment!
What an extraordinary review. Exceptional good compairson. Keep up the good work and you will have lot more subscribers in the future. Greeting from Denmark.
I initially had mixed a experience with the EFM 55-200. But I have pulled off some handheld shots that I considered improbable. The IS makes a huge difference. It is also easier to handhold than my 135 f/2.8 with the adapter because of the light weight. I am an advanced beginner to intermediate level photographer. I was able to verify that at 200mm the 800 ISO is a bit noisy - but not much worse than others. I use an M50 Mark 2 and I limit the auto ISO to 640 to 800. In good lighting it typically selects ISO 200. However, I think the camera over compensates the ISO. I think I will start limiting ISO to 320 in most cases. Canon made a huge mistake in discontinuing the M50 Mark 2 and the M6 Mark 2! Or they could have made the R-crop sensor mounts compatible.
Your experience with this lens sounds very similar to mine. I wasn't impressed at first, but when you understand its limitations and work around them, it can give good results. I'm really upset about Canon discontinuing the M system. I've been an M user since 2013. I loved the form factor of the original M, but it was slow. As the system evolved and eventually resulted in the M6 Mk2, it was all I really needed. I've wanted an EF-M 32mm f/1.4 for a long time, but money has been tight. I can now afford it, but I'm reluctant to continue investing in a dead system. I will now have to move to R/RF. I can understand Canon wanting to put all their resources into one line. I also understand that the EF and EF-M mounts have limitations that RF doesn't have. I see the business logic, but I still think that they could have continued M in order to offer a very small and light system. Anyway, we can't do anything!
Not particularly. The maximum aperture isn't very big. For night-time photography you want a large aperture to let more light in. Similarly, a larger aperture gives a shallower depth of field, which is better for portraiture. If you want an EF-M lens, the EF-M 22mm f/2 or the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 would be good choices. If you have an adapter for EF lenses, there are many EF lens options depending on your budget. However, the EF-M 55-200mm is not a lens I would recommend for portraiture or low light photography.
Nice video explaining the mirrorless lens. Im about to buy a canon m50, so this is a lens im very interested in, what sort of zoom range, in terms on distance do you think this lens could be used for ,say to photograph wildlife?
I have taken bird shots with it (large birds), but generally it's not long enough for bird photography. Birds fly off well before you are close enough. Unless the wildlife is quite large and you can get quite close, it's not a lens I would recommend for wildlife. For wildlife I like my EF 400 f/5.6, but it's a big lens for an EOS M body. As a compromise I was considering the EF-S 55-250 STM. It's a bit longer than the EF-M 55-200, a bit faster, but it's not huge.
The 55-200 is certainly a slow lens. The maximum aperture of lenses used to be no more than f/5.6, but now f/6.3 is common and even slower. Fortunately, high ISO performance has really improved in recent years and the IS on the 55-200 is great so you can use slow shutter speeds, but this is no good for action. The 70-200 is a more flexible lens, but the IQ isn't actually that great.
I don't tend to use this lens indoors. Because of low light indoors it's always best to use lenses with big apertures, which the 55-200 doesn't have. The IS works exceptionally well - better than the 3.5 stops it is rated at. This allows you to use slow shutter speeds and ISOs, but it won't help with fast action and moving subjects.
The difference in IS performance between these lenses is more likely to be the weight of the glass which has to be moved, rather than the overall weight of the lens. With the smaller diameter of the glass in the EF-M, the IS will be able to react & move the glass quicker than IS on the EF/L
Quite possibly. The EF lens is rated at 4 stops IS and the EF-S lens at 3.5 stops, so the EF lens should be better but that's certainly not what I find in the real world. But you're right. The internals and glass in the EF lens will be a lot heavier and the IS mechanism will need to do a lot more work. With the EF-S lens I have been quite amazed at how sharp images are with insanely slow shutter speeds.
No tengo experiencia con el 28-80, pero es más ancho y rápido que el EF-M 55-200. Esto lo convertiría en un mejor objetivo para la fotografía callejera.
Gr8 review, now feel my decision to pay the extra £50 more for the Canon M50 with both 15 - 45mm & 55 -200 EF-M Lens was well justified . Currently £699 PC World
Thanks! At the moment the EF-M 55-200mm is retailing for $349 at Adorama in the States, which is about the cheapest country to buy camera gear. Therefore, an extra 50 quid seems excellent value. This is quite surprising for rip-off Britain! It's not the fastest of lenses and it has limitations, but if you keep an eye on the ISO and use it within its limitations it's capable of excellent results. Thanks for your comment!
yep, thats the one i went for a year ago, look on ebay for Dorr extension tubes for around £78, they are fully eclectically connected so all your lens stuff works and they are brilliant on the 55-200mm for getting close ups as the 55-200 is very good lens
great review Phil, something i played with on the M50 is using the Taumar vintage M42 screw mount lenses with the eos-m to m42 adapter, those takumar vintage primes like the 55mm 1.8 are really good lenses for very low prices, fully manual of course but well worth it.
Thanks for the tip, Laura. I still can't make out where Canon is going with the EOS M system. There still aren't that many lenses and all the development seems to be going into EOS R and RF. I too have seen fast third party EF-M mount lenses, but Canon seems to have gone off the boil a little. I really like the system so it will be a shame if they discontinue it.
@@PhilUKNet i think the M line is a good way for canon to bring in new users, like myself in fact, they probably expected people to either stick with the M line up as hobbyist/amateur photographers or upgrade to their full frame / more pro range. It makes more sense for canon to keep the M line going or at least to keep supporting it because there are alot of people liking the small form factor, not just the bodies but the lenses too. i recently found the limitation of the dual pixel focus system and nearly sent my M50 back thinking it was a fault. the way the dual pixel array is set out in L/R pattern it cant auto focus when there are only horizontal lines in the frame, nothing else, therefore canon are developing a quad system, be nice to see an M50 with that in it.
@@messylaura I,for one, would be sad if they discontinued it but Canon know what is best for their bottom line and with so many people using phones these days to take photos a compact/budget camera system may not be profitable. Huge resources are being poured into R/RF and it seems to make sense for Canon just to have one mount. Maybe there will be a compact APS-C body with an RF mount to replace EOS M? For a long time there has been talk of an M body specced higher than the M6 II, but nothing has transpired. Anyway, I think there's enough inventory out there to keep M fans happy for a few more years at least!
Thanks Dude! It's a comparison I've personally wanted to make for a long time. I always want to carry the smallest, lightest lenses but I was concerned about the trade off in IQ. As it turns out, IQ differences are very small. If you're shooting action the 70-200 is a lot faster, but with the stuff I shoot I don't need speed. Bokeh is better with the 70-200 and there's more detail if you pixel peep, but for me it's more important to have small, light lenses if the differences in IQ are small. The 55-200 is a great little lens and the IS is amazing. When I first got it I hated it, but now I really like it!
Phil UK Net I understand how u feel sir, and all valid points! I too think the m mount is inferior but perhaps much of it is psychological as u have proven so well, at least for photography. IQ & bokeh aren’t everything, if it has all those in a package that doesn’t want to be carried, there wouldn’t be any IQ to speak of.
@@dude1diligence DD, I'm having more problems with YT regarding comments. I just posted a fairly lengthy reply to someone and YT deleted it. My reply included a few external links and I'm guessing YT thought it was spam and threw it in the bin. After this, I found one of your comments in my spam box (under a different channel name), but it disappeared before I'd had a chance to reply. Also, YT doesn't notify me of all comments so I miss quite a few. It's really frustrating and annoying. Anyway, hope you're well.
@@PhilUKNet ahh that's weird of YT Phil. Hope u are well sir. Try a channel search for Unravel Stuff and it should come up. Only uploaded one video so far but one more should be coming soon 🙂 Pet project, partly inspired by u too 😊 Hey, the R6 should have u thinking, Canon fan. Away with M6MkII 🤣
Hey Phil, would you recommend the 55-200mm for filming outdoors? Scenes like social experiments and such, where the camera man needs to distance himself from whatever he's filming...
Firstly, I have mainly used this lens for still photography and have done very little video but the videos I have done have been OK. On a crop body camera the lens will give you 320mm, which is quite a good focal length for doing candid work. You can get far enough away so that the subject isn't aware of the camera. The lens is also quite inconspicuous because it's small and it doesn't draw a lot of attention. I would actually recommend using it outdoors rather than indoors. The maximum aperture is quite small and when the light gets low the ISO goes up and video starts to get grainy. If you are filming outdoors in good light I would think the lens would be suitable for this purpose.
I have no experience of this lens, I'm afraid. The old film lenses have a unique look that lots of people like. Optically, these old lenses may be inferior to modern lenses but the look may be appealing. You'll probably find that if you do tests purely to measure IQ, then the modern lenses will be better. However, subjectively you may prefer the look of the old lens. Just give it a try!
Interesting test , I was very sceptical of the M series lens so I bought the 18-200 , I would be interested in doing a similar test , I bought the M5 same reason as you ‘ weight ‘ everything is a trade of I saw some excellent results with M series cameras I’m not a pro and have used MFT cameras with more than acceptable results and , I decided to use the 24mm instead of the none imaged stabilised ef-m 22mm and didn’t bother with the kit lens i opted for the ef-m 11-22 . The 24mm being the lens that stops on the camera most of the time , I also considered buying a R series but what I have cost less than a R series body
I love the M series. The APS-C sensor is basically the same as the sensor used in Canon's APS-C DSLRs and IQ is great. I'd much rather have a small and light body. I was in awe of the EF 70-200 f/4L IS and I considered the EF-M 55-200 the weakest EF-M lens. Thus, the comparison surprised me. The R bodies and RF lenses look great, but my personal situation has changed and I simply can't afford to start building yet another system. I'm very happy with my EOS M6 Mk2 and mostly use EF-M lenses, but I still have a few EF lenses for certain situations. IS is great, but I've never really missed it on the EF-M 22mm. It's a super, compact little lens and f/2 allows me to shoot fast enough to handhold without any camera shake. Thanks for your comment!
Even through 720p video resolution you can clearly see more sharpness in the 70-200 shot compared to the 55-200 (statue’s face and the branch on the left. That doesn’t even take into account the 70-200 gathers alot more light, so the difference at 6.3 vs 6.3 should be enormous. Calling it a draw in Contrast and Sharpness is crazy, 55-200 has strong ghosting even in the centre (see statue’s face). In the end you cannot cheap physics, and you get what you pay for, simple as that
I have EF70-200mm f/4 IS II and EF-M 55-200mm and I did a pixel peeping test between the two setting the EF in the worst case at f/4, the EF-M from 55 to 135 is just bad, really bad losing contrast and detail, and if I compare the EF-M from 70 to 135 to the EF IS II, the difference is night a day, really huge, you can see the difference in color, detail (note that detail is different from sharpness), contrast, probably your copy of EF 70-200 is really bad for not seeing the difference. I prefer to take the EF in place of the EF-M even if the weight is 3 times more and the size is 2 times more, the difference between the two is really big. The EF-M is just a little acceptable at 200mm only, if anyone is planning to buy one don't do it because is a waste of money.
From what I have read, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Mark 2 to Mark 3 upgrade was just a refresh, but the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS Mark 1 to Mark 2 upgrade was a significant upgrade. I'm using the original version. I think the key phrase in your comment was 'pixel peeping test' and you have to think about why we buy camera gear and why we take photos. Is it simply to analyse each frame at 100% on a high quality monitor to try to detect minute flaws, or is it to record memories of our lives? Trips we've been on, events that have taken place, and our children growing up? For me, it's the latter. Just recently, I've been using the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS quite a lot to take photos of my son playing football. Football is fast action and this lens is 1 and 1/3 stops faster at the long end than the EF-M lens. It therefore gives me much faster shutter speeds. However, when outdoors in good light and not shooting action the EF-M 55-200mm is perfectly fine. I don't pixel peep at 100% and usually reduce image sizes for on-line use to a width of 1000-1500 pixels. Here's an example taken with the EF-M 55-200mm. flic.kr/p/2or4YNh I do not agree that the EF-M is a waste of money. I bought mine new for around 150 US dollars and its small size and light weight make it perfect for travel, especially when I am travelling with my family and have a lot to carry. The lens you are using is around 10x more expensive. The EF-M lens has limitations and I'm not claiming its IQ is perfect, but when used normally within its limitations - as opposed to pixel peeping - it is perfectly satisfactory and its low price makes it something of a bargain. Anyway, thanks for your comment.
I haven't used that lens, but it's in a completely different league! For starters, at the long end it's 2 and a 1/3 stops faster, which is a huge amount considering that each f stop is a halving or doubling of light. It's an L lens, so it will be ruggedly built with weather sealing and it will contain special lens elements. It's also considerably bigger, heavier and more expensive than the EF-M. This L lens is the lens of choice for many professional photographers and photo journalists. The EF-M lens is a slow budget telephoto lens in a very small package for EOS M users. Granted, if you had lots of light and took a photo with each lens of the same subject it would be difficult to tell them apart, but really you are comparing apples with oranges with these two lenses. As you imply, it would be dramatically different!
Phil UK Net Right, I agree with your assessment. I’m kind of thinking it’s a bit of overkill for something like a EOS M3 or M6mk2 body. No doubt you’ll be able to capture some pretty amazing wildlife or action shots in low light and with some great bokeh, and you have the flexibility to use it on other systems such as EF, Ef-S and R. But there’s also the weight penalty of having to lug that lens with you while going on long hard hikes.
@@tsizzle It's a combination that will work and produce great images, but it seems to be a mismatch. EOS M /EF-M is all about small size and weight, but IQ is compromised. This fast L lens is all about IQ and ruggedness, but it is big and heavy. This is why I think the combination is mismatched. There are a number of lenses that would be a good compromise. Better IQ than the EF-M 55-200, but smaller and lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/4L lenses are good and I've read good things about the EF-S 55-250 STM. There are other options as well.
Phil UK Net Thanks for the feedback and advice. My goal is to be able to shoot photos with a landscape in the background (eg mountain) and subject in the foreground (eg person) and create that compression effect look where the background looks a lot bigger and there a nice softening/bokeh but doesn’t have to be super soften/bokeh. I’m just wondering if this can be achieved with a 55-200 with F6.3 at max aperture on the 200mm end or would I need a faster lens? This is why I was contemplating the 70-200 F2.8. But your review makes a lot of sense, those big L lenses either the F2.8 or F4 are so heavy that hand held shots would result in blur with 1/8-1/30 shutter speeds. I may need to use a tripod for those situations. Another consideration is getting a Tamron 18-200 F3.5-6.3 VC for EF-M which provides tremendous range and have the convenience of not having to swap lense.
They're both good for candid street photography. The EF-M, being black and small, is better because it's less conspicuous. White lenses tend to draw more attention.
I think you might remember your 70-200mm being better cos it probally was. I would say if you got your 70-200mm seviced and paired with body it probally be back to how you remember it.i would say your ef 70-200mm is not working right. My 70-200mm out performs any lens i have including 55-200mm ef-m , but i had my 70-200 serviced and focus refined and paired to camara as wasnt right. Only cost 140 pound and that was camara and lens fine tuned to each other and serviced. Get 70-200 serviced and fine tuned and i bet be back on your camara again
Thanks for your comment. I've been using the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS recently with my EOS M6 Mk2 and have taken some very pleasing shots. It's a great lens and I don't believe mine is in any need of repairs or adjustment. The AF is spot on. For the video test I did some pixel peeping, which I have never done before, and I noticed some very minor problems - which I have never noticed before. Canon acknowledged that this lens wasn't optically perfect when they introduced a Mk2 version. If the lens had been perfect, there would have been no justification to bring out a new version. The EF-M 55-200mm is slower and has its limitations, but with regular shooting (not pixel peeping) it does an excellent job. As I said in the video, the EF 70-200mm is better at resolving fine details and has more responsive AF, but the EF-M 55-200mm will do an equally good job for a lot of people. I'm pleased that you got your lens sorted out. Many years ago I had problems with an EF 300mm f/4L IS lens and ended up taking it to the Canon service centre in Singapore. They adjusted it, but there was no difference. I actually think the problems were more serious than simply an adjustment. Back in the days when I used DSLR's I remember a lot of stuff on-line about the importance of getting lenses calibrated and matched to bodies. There was also a micro-adjustment tool in some Canon bodies so that you could do your own calibration and set the micro-adjustment for each individual lens. Nowadays, with mirrorless bodies and dual pixel AF, I don't believe this is necessary.
@@PhilUKNet like any lens i suppose you get diifference in sharpness. My 70-200mm mk is sharpest lens ever owned and beats all my other lenses and primes but i had lost that after few years and few nocks and i did notice hence why i serviced it and had it calibrated. Ef-m is great lens but nowhere near as good as my 70-200mm mk1. Just an amazing piece of glass and 55-200mm for me no where near as sharp and focusing not even close. I only said might need servicing cos of what you said thinking it was sharper than it was. That happened to me but mine just needed service. Just slightly off. After service it was then back to my sharpest lens ever. . I used someones mk 2 and no difference to me at all. Maybe i just got great version and calibration service got it back on track. Maybe my 55-200mm not good version, but not even in same class as my 70-200mm. Glad lens ok then.
I bought a speed booster after doing this, but I can only use it on the EF lens. The EF-M lens would still have the crop factor and I'd then be comparing 320mm to 227.2mm at the long end. It would also be time-consuming to do it again and at the moment I don't have a lot of free time. I did a review on the speed booster, but it wasn't very popular! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-an07LPz5wE8.html
Thanks for that video. I am literally looking at buying the 70-200 off amazon for a decent 33% discount as I thought it would be a big improvement over the 55-200mm that came with my Canon m100 and after this review I now know I was barking up the wrong tree entirely.
Before I did the comparison I was expecting the L lens to wipe the floor with the EF-M lens, but that wasn't really the case. It's faster, resolves a bit more detail, and the bokeh is more pronounced. The colors, saturation, contrast and sharpness on the little EF-M are very close and I find the IS to be more effective. This video used the first version of the 70-210 f/4L IS. According to reviews, the Mark 2 version is significantly better. Just don't use the EF-M in auto ISO mode because the camera will select an ISO that is far too high.
