What I took away from this video is that the kit lense is definitely good enough to hold you over while you save up for a more substantial lense, To me the best looking lense was that 32mm followed by the 22mm, idk what it is but something about 32mm really appeals to eye
I have an EOS M myself and I guessed the lenses correctly as I was watching. There's a minor difference in sharpness and detail and I feel that the primes are definitely better in those areas, but it's not a huge difference. Except for the 32mm. Something about that one is stupid good for some reason. With that said, all the lenses did really well to my eyes. No real reason to get rid of the 15-45 at all.
In the video part they all were comparable the 32mm is just such a beautiful lens ,I love that thing. But at the end of this video in the comparison between the two zooms the 15-45 out preformed the other it was usually a more crisp image even when they both were zoomed in and could see the fuzzy image the 15 45 was less fuzzy looking. I use my 15-45mm quite often especially when I'm walking around with my kids I switch between it and the 22mm to get more of the surrounding areas and I ALWAYS have my 32mm for a really nice blurry background photo of my family and of certain architectural shots or nice flowers or so on when i wanna be more artistic with my photos. It's hard to take a bad photo with the 32mm lol
Since the M50 has been my main camera for years now I could tell when the 15-45 was shown. The stand out was the 32mm with how sharp the image was. 15-45 kit lens has been my daily driver but every now and then I get the urge to switch to a different lens but always end up right back to the 15-45 bcuz of the great balance of size and image quality. Great video!
I agree! The kit lens is great for scenery for its 15mm. Next get a nifty fifty 50mm f1.8 lens, a viltrox ef-m adapter and a viltrox speed booster! woohoo!!! Expecting more? Get a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, A FeiyuTech Scorp Mini gimbal!!! All these are for budget hobbyist.
As a noob a out photography, the 32mm did let in way more light. The 18-55 felt a bit sharper all around. The 14-45 looks better on a wide view, the 18-55 better in a close up
Hi Mark...just picked up a Canon M50 in 2021, and I am very happy with it, but I got all caught up in the "best lens" debate. I bought a 22MM lens to add to the 15-45MM kit lens and was looking at what to buy next. Your video taught me to just use the two lenses I have and not worry too much about upgrading for now...what am I going to Sundance? Haha!
First, the ES-M 15-45mm is a masterpiece of lens science. It's not designed to be the end-all-be-all in lens perfection because it is, after all, a kit lens. It's designed intentionally to meet a sweet-spot of price, sharpness, quietness, stabilization, weight, and zoom range. I don't have the 18-55mm, but I'd be curious to know if the 18-55mm is louder during zoom and autofocus on video than the 15-45mm, because that would be points off for me. If not, it's probably also a fantastic lens -- possibly better. Second, I suspect they haven't made a faster "kit" zoom lens for the M mount because for it to be F1.8 to 2 for professionals, the lens itself would be considerably larger and heavier than the camera -- a bit like adding L glass and a speedbooster/adapter, except as an all-in-one M mount. It would be massive and three times the price of a prosumer-grade camera. The target audience for a lens like that is likely very small, given the propensity for most of us to simply get an EF-M adapter and buy the EF-S 55-250mm. It's not speedy, but the glass is bordering on L, with very little aberration or fringing under a wide variety of circumstances. I just switch back and forth between the appropriate EF-M lenses or the EF-S, 55-250, but honestly, the 55-250 is the lens I use 87% of the time. Third, if you've got the money for a speedy professional lens, you'll probably buy the Canon R5 and that line of lenses because, yeah, full frame is better than APS-C. After you increased your data-point from a field of one 15-45mm to three, you had better data. A mark of intelligence is the ability to change your mind when data change. Thanks for this excellent review. Be safe!
I've used this lens with my M5 for a while now. In some situations and certain light conditions, it can produce amazing images. However, in my opinion, it has three huge drawbacks. First, this lens has a quite dark aperture. At 24mm it's already f/4.5, and at 35mm it darkens to f/5.6, which makes it unusable in low light conditions. Second, it can't handle bright light. There's a huge loss of contrast, and if the sun shows in the frame, the shot in most cases is unusable. And the third, the chromatic aberrations are pretty strong, even with the camera corrections turned on. I was taking some pictures at the park and near the river. The leaves with the light coming through them had noticeably pink edges, and the reflections from waves on the river were violet. The only thing that makes this lens usable is its decent sharpness.
I think part of the reason why "by default" people generally don't like the 15-45 kit lens is just because it is a "kit lens" . I believe it is human psychology that we people don't tend to appreciate what we get free in general. The 15-45 focal length range is definitely better than 18-55 because many people buy it as a "vlogging camera" because of the compact sizes of the canon EOS M range of cameras. Anyways, your video was helped me a lot to appreciate my "freebie lens". Cheers!
Excellent excellent. I so much agree. People go with trends these days as opposed to personal taste. People seem afraid to say they like something that they are not supposed to like and vice versa. It bothers me a lot. The fashion/trend thing is stifling creativity in photography, music, art, and all artsy pursuits.
For sure, and some of the greatest movies, photos, art, etc was produced with gear that's not even close to as good as the most basic camera these days!
Mine is definitely not that sharp at all. It's fuzzy and I had a hunch early on but thought it was a kit lens but your test and many others I saw online says otherwise. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for your videos you are helping me out... I decided to sell my camera t3i and get an M50 and learn about lenses from you. I never understood lenses until you thanks
When I got a 2nd hand M100 together with the 15-45mm Kit lens, I really didnt expect much. However, I was pleasantly surprised, the lens clearly is much better than I was used from older EOS kit lenses (18-55mm). Given its low price, small size and low weight, and its well working image stabilization, I have to say it's mighty useful and I've used it for many very nice photos so far. I've been surprised again and again by what this tiny and cheap lens can do. Maybe I'm just lucky and got a good example. I'd expect quite some sample variation in this range of lenses. In contrast, when I got one of those praised 22mm f/2 EOS-M lenses, I was very disappointed... it was clearly decentered and unacceptably soft in wide parts of the image at any aperture setting, so I returned it. So I guess you need to be lucky with those lenses to get a good example.
Handy review. I like the focal range of the 15-45 but nearly gave up on it in favour of ef adapted Sigma 18-55. Your reviews made me think again and appreciate the light weight and small size and ended up bringing the lense out again more often. The switch to enable the lense is annoying at first but appriciate the reason to keep the lense smaller in the bag which also is important for travel use on my M6 mii. Thanks so much for the effort put into your videos and providing a good user review.
@@markwiemels Just recently came across your channel and I'm glad I did. I'm wanting to get into photography as a hobby and am going to pick up the m50 m2. Outside of the kit lens what would your recommend as your go to for city shooting and landscapes?
I bought a m50 mk2 without a kit lens with a viltrox + 24-70 2.8, And after a 1 month, I just boghtet the kit lens, just becouse its so compact and versitile, and I love it!
I know I said it on the other video but I'll say it here. Sell the kit lens and buy the 18-55 ef-s lens with that money. The 5.6 aperture at tele will allow you to run higher shutter speeds during day for moving subjects or lower iso at night when you are making compromises for exposure.
@@sdhighroller A $40 adapter is required to mount to the ef-M body. All my ef-s lenses work very well with the adapter. The choices for EF/EF-S lenses is simply far superior so I recommended adapting DSLR lenses instead of using underwhelming mirrorless only lenses.
Can someone explain why a 32mm is better than the 15-45mm set to 32mm? Same with the 22mm? I am new to this. I know it is better in low light, but what other advantages?
Glad you focused (sorry) on how sharp a lens is. I used to use an F2 Zeiss lens. It was too sharp. It resolved everything. I want a 'Goldilocks' measure of softness.
If you’re working with bright conditions, this lens works pretty well. But Once I got the EF 50 mm that’s when I realized the kit lens was mega ass for low light.
Hi Mark, like the channel. I've had the opposite experience. 18-55 has good build quality, but the images just seem to always lack some character and sharpness. I did a side-by-side with the EF-S 18-55 and found the EF-S lens to provide better / clearer images than my EF-M 18-55 at the same settings (that might be a good test for you to try sometime), could just be my copies though. The 15-45mm seems to a better job with sharpness and have a tad bit more character for me, but having to "unlock" the lens each time you use it is annoying (surprised you didn't mention that in your review). If you can handle using a prime lens, the 22mm f2 lens is the one to get. Sharp, loads of character, and I'm always pleasantly surprised how good they always turn out for me.
Yes, agree the 22mm is super star lens, small, sharp, well priced. I think the issue with these zoom lenses, is thats there is lots a variability lens to lens.
Thank you so much for this video. I am finally going to buy a camera. This video has proven that listing anonyms crying about the quality of lenses on the Internet is a waste of time. This is the best video that shows the truth about the lenses scientifically. Thank you again, take care!
The 32 really jumps out at you, but then again everyone seems to know that lens is great. Of the kits the 15-45 seems a bit better, but they both have a "Flat" look to them, I think it's a mix of not picking up as much contrast, colors, and detail. Though, for a 3x zoom that's light weight and comes with the camera I think it can be very passable for longer than people have the pride to admit.
Your kind honest words kept me hooked in the video through out. You detail showed "Let's finally settle this." I was excited. Seeing the test very carefully, being honest, there was a CLEAR difference in image quality, all other factors aside. Is the 15-45 great/the best for the context of what it is? HECK YESSSS!!! Sharpness? 7/10. I've owned some of the best lenses as my background. Should people own it if they have an EOS-M camera? heck yes!!! But do other primes beat this lens if the context for the right shooting/filming is there? Also yes. All that said, thank you for this video buddy. much appreciated!!! 😎👌
I just picked one up for like $80 used. Even if it were bad I wouldn't mind given the price. I use many big EF lenses on my m50 and have yearned for a kit lens like I used when I got into photography years ago. Super excited for a compact everyday walk-around lens again.
Having just purchased a 15-45 for my new (to me) EOS-M2, your video title gave me a minor heart attack, but looking at your examples, it sort of seems that the 18-55 was a shade less sharp than the 15-45. A good lens is a good lens is a good lens, I suppose, and your 15-45 looks to be a winner. Thanks for your review and the edification.
It doesn't suck but the 18-55 is a nicer lens to have and use. It's built better and the manufacturing variations seem to be smaller. My latest 15-45 is going to go down the road included with a camera because I don't enjoy using it. I don't like seeing something, swinging my camera up to take a photo and then having to stop, unlock the lens and hope that whatever I was taking a photo of didn't gallop off. Also the 18-55 is a bit faster, not a lot but we have to beg for whatever we can get. You locked the aperture at f/4. That's nice but while the 15-45 is at f/4 the 18-55 can go to f/3.5 Again, not huge but that gap widens at 45mm. At 45 the 15-45 is at f/6.3 whereas the 18-55 is at f/5. Not massively faster but with it's metal mount, less quality variations and slightly faster optical formula it's still the more desirable lens. Also another advantage of the 18-55 is that you can still sell them. You can't get rid of the 15-45 as nobody wants them (which is why I'm including it with an M10, I can't sell it alone). So if I were just starting out and had a choice I'd buy the 18-55. If I don't like it I can still get rid of it. The nicest thing about the 15-45 is the size.
Wow, that’s good insight, I did not realise the 18-55 let in that much more light. Great information. Thanks for sharing. I have also had good and bad copies of the 15-45, but all my copies of the 18-55 have been pretty good.
I recently put a MEIKE EF to EF-m adapter in front of the EOS M mk1, paired with a cheap 1990s 28-80mm V USM, and... although that lens is not suited for video, it's noticeably best than the 14-45 mm.
Yes it does suck (from a photographer who makes large prints' standpoint). I've had 3 of the 15-45, all had soft corners stopped down, and all 3 were decentered, with L side much softer than the R. Decent copies may exist, but they seem the exception, rather than the rule. This is much less critical for video use, and the focal range and small size/weight may still make it a useful addition.
Yes, agree that sharpness is far more critical for photo than video, especially if you make large prints. Size and IS does make it a good video lens. Interesting observation about the decentering, I will have to check my copies.
That’s what I don’t like about this lens. You’ll get better results with the EF 24-70mm and a speed booster. I get sharper images with ef-s 55-250mm than the Ef-m 50-200mm. Maybe it’s me. The sharpest ef-m lens I’ve tried is the 22mm f2.
I just got an M6 Mark II and I will be doing a similar test soon. I just got a Canon 17-55MM 2.8 lens (used) and its a $900 peace of glass. I ditched the little 15-45 and started using the big lens. I was doing some nature photo's and switched to the kit 55-200 to get closer to a frog on a lily pad and shot some photo's with both the 17-55 and the 55-200 on the same frog. When I got home, the 55-200 blew the 17-55 away in every aspect possible. Im new to photography, so I need to find out if my lens that costs more than my camera is not working properly, or if im not using it properly. Im sure skill has some aspect in it, but I just cant get this 17-55 to get sharp. It just always slightly out of focus.
I think they all looked good, but the 32mm to my eye looked the best, but not by much. I don't have the most discerning eye and it was difficult to see a difference between each one without clicking back and fourth on the timeline to see them frame by frame. Even when doing that there was marginal differences between them. Nice job! I think that bird was coming for your jugular!
The 32mm is a crazy sharp lens, love that lens but don't really use it enough, it a better photo lens than video, because of the focal length. The bird was a baby magpie, the adults attack people to protect their young in Spring, I was concerned that was what was happening, I was freaking out looking around for for the parents.
wait, light level is important factor here, it's bad for low light situation because of its aperture size i think. All your stuff was shot during the day
Yes, for sure max aperture is important, but this lens is similar to other budget zoom, and kit lenses, in it’s class. So there is nothing outstanding bad about the lens in that regard.
Neat idea to do this video. I have a number of M series bodies and lenses because I use them as my 'lightweight ICL carry" option. It is unfortunately the case that Canon hasn't put the effort into developing the M series lenses and given the current global problems in supply chains, we are unlikely to see new ones any time soon. My favourite is the M 32 followed by the 15-45, the 22 and the 11-22 but because of the excellent focus peaking on later M series bodies I find adapting my FD lens collection is very good too. I have an extensive collection of EF glass but apart from using my 70-200 L don't find that the majority of EF glass is that usable from a handling point of view.
Yah, I have similar feeling about the lens lineup. I previously had an 11-22mm that gave me terrible images, but just picked up another that is nice and sharp. I have added a small rig cage to my M6 which does help a bit with the larger lenses.
@@markwiemels Totally with you on using a cage. I had a Small Rig one for my M6 mainly because it improved the grip and stopped me accidentally hitting buttons on the back. I recently upgraded the M6 to the M6 MkII which is a very worthwhile upgrade but the body is slightly larger so it required buying a new Small Rig cage and that works even better for me than the original.
@@markwiemels I combine cycling and photography so every morning I take some photographs. My go to cameras for stills are my 7D MkII and 5DS and being an old age layabout, I cannot see myself upgrading those any time soon. However and for any video work, mirrorless cameras are far superior to DSLRs which is where the M series cameras come in and in this context, the M6 MkII has an awful lot to offer, certainly more than enough to meet my needs.
This really depends on what you are doing. The zooms have IS, which is a big deal if you’re shooting hand held. I prefer the 18-55 over the 15-45, but all those lenses have there place in film making.
I took some good cinematic videos from the kit lens. It’s bad in low light but I found it best on a cloudy day with an ND Filter. I use a sigma f1.4 32mm for detail and low light shots.
Dude! thanks for that, your videos are very useful for me, nice job again!. Got the m6markii and i love it, use a lot for commercial work. Could you make a video using the atomos ninja V with the m6markII, i would love to see some tests about the 10bit external rumor... Big hug from Brazil!
Yah, it’s pretty hard with no reference. In practical terms no, in clinical terms, yes, with a test chart to photograph and the knowledge of the results the lens should produce.
I shoot landscapes , portraits, Close ups and even Macro Close ups with a cheap Macro extension tube and the results were pretty great. ( provided I do use a CPL , UV filters and a tripod or monopod most of the time
great video. what i needed. amater at first may not tell the difference. but every next waching i can tell biger and biger difference. and that is even above f3.5
Biggest complaint I have with the EF-M 15-45 is the crap filter mount, which does not even reliably retain the cap, and the stupid lock button. The lock button "function" is OK I can deal with that, but it's difficult for old/ big thumb/ fingers to release, AND IMPOSSIBLE with gloves, even thin ones.
Hey best compression i have seen so far. Originality intact! Love it. Just one request, can you film just One ☝️ vlog in Flat profile and then color correct it and see the difference. Just a request, coz i have ordered my M-50 kit and few lenses and i am thinking to vlog on Flat profile and then add Luts for faster edit. Thank you
I have done this video on the M6 Mark II. Will try to do something similar with the M50. Here is the video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-u2EXbdaTVjY.html
i'm not sure why, but the 18-55 seems less real in ur pics/vids. It's funny because i myself have the 15-45mm and almost never use. I think partially because of how it feels so light (cheap). I'm a big fan of the 11-22 and a 35 manual focus most of the time. I might appreciate it more and not look down on it so much just because of its weight. Lets be real light weight can potentially be a benefit if your being logical and not "elitist". There is probably a better word for it, but that popped into my head. Cool vid, thanks.
Yes, I agree. You pointed it out: the variation oft copies is to intense. I've owned 3 copies and only one is very good. The other two sucks pretty much. That's maybe why people are selling this copies.. ;-) When you getting a good one, it's fine and I`m loving it but I wouldn't recommend it.
Tbh I don't see anything too different between these lenses, but some might be good for long distance subjects if you can't reach close enough to them (so maybe 55-200mm for landscape and astrophotography) otherwise, I don't think I need extra lenses
@@markwiemels wow, I would have suspected mkii, I feel my camera did better before updating firmware. I looked back my first videos taken a few years ago, and I could film the sky without blowing highlights and noise wasn't as bad as I get now
@@therealiamlove Dynamic range is not great on this camera, but not terrible either, it will really be about the settings. Of note, on those days with the blanket of white cloud, with no patches of blue coming through, almost no camera will cope with that situation.
surprised you didn't include the 18-150mm ef-m lens as well, i now have all the ef-m line of lenses except the 18-55mm, i will get it to complete the set but its not a high priority, canon should make a 400mm ef-m prime lens :) , i have ef 400's but it would be nice to have a native monster
I recently bought an 18-150 lens that is replacing my 18-55. It's biggest fault short of cost is the size as it's about an extra inch longer than the 18-55. The photo quality from what I can see is the same and the variations between copies seems to be very small which you'd expect with a lens of that cost (although it has a plastic mount like the 15-45). The 18-150 sometimes can be a shade faster than the 18-55 but probably not enough to worry about. At 55 mm the 18-55 is at f/5.6 and the 18-150 is at f/5. Not a huge difference (and maybe within the reporting error of the electronics) but we don't have any real native fast zooms so it's just another benefit. Another look at speed - the 55-200 is a bit faster still. The 55-200 is as fast at 55mm as the 15-45 is at 25mm. It's as fast at 200mm as the 15-45 is at 45mm. These aren't massive differences but if you're holding it in your hands and it's not in bright sunlight then it helps. I carry the 18-150 around with me and neither the 15-45 or the 18-55 leave the studio anymore. For me the 55-200 is for special occasions when I know I will need all the zoom I can get. The 18-150 is a good all around lens.
@@haleycpoke ok, that’s an easy one. I would suggest the canon 22mm f2, the viltrox 23mm f1.4, or the canon 32mm f1.4. The 32mm is probably my top recommendation, as it’s one of the best lenses I have ever used on any system. I would take your kit les, set it at 23mm and 32mm and just walk around and shoot like it’s a prime lens, work out which focal length works best for you.
I grew up in Detroit, as a Redwings guy, but the flames were always my "second team". They were always on TV when I was up late, watching TV in bed as a kid, because of the difference in time zone.
It really doesnt suuck that bad it takes some pretty good everyday photos its not like a professional "" lens but its a great every day trip lens iv gotten some amazing images especially at 15mm i use it all the time for night photography when speed doesnt matrer that much i can just takr a longer exposure and iv gotten some spectacular photos
Stepping down the Canon M primes to equal the slow aperture makes this test ridiculous. I have the M50 with the kit lens as well as the M22mm, the 11-22mm M lens, the 32mm M lens and the 16mm Sigma lens. I have had these lens except the Sigma since 2018. I have not used the.kit lens since 2018. I despise it. Realistically no one would step down the primes to 4.0. Also have your eyes checked, I mean. It seriously.
The 11-22mm is good, I however stopped using it when I got the Sigma, 16mm 1.4 lens. It is that much better than either the kit lens or the 11-22mm. The main problem with the Sigma 16mm is the lack of stabilization while the Canon M 11-22 has it. For vlogging outside, walking around I now use the Pocket 2 which is not in the league of the Sigma 16 in picture quality but it is the only camera/lens combination that I actually use.
you started off strong and then when you got into the 4 minutes you just kind of start rambling . and then it's really starting to get boring from that and I can just can't watch anymore
Your explanation is very good. But I feel you spend too much time in showing yourself. In this particular video you spent 9.15 minutes showing yourself. It could be perfect if you should have narrated behind photos and videos. Your English is so clear and you have a good sense of humor. I watch your videos regularly. Good luck.
Too much up front talking - get to the point earlier - I almost stopped watching because you weren’t adding any value up front - I hope you take this on as constructive criticism - just would not want to lose potential subscribers because they don’t have the patience to wait for your high value content !!
