Canon has been renovating its entire catalog of consumer grade zoom lenses over the past several years to great effect. I’ve used a number of Canon’s previous generation consumer grade zooms, including the 18-55mm kit lens, the 18-135mm and 18-200mm superzooms, and the 55-250mm (IS II) telephoto lens. When I began getting into photography those lenses were staples of affordable general purpose photography, and it wasn’t until I was more personally invested in my photography that I moved beyond them to more expensive options. I recognize that the price of many of Canon’s professional grade lenses is beyond the reach of the average photographer, but fortunately Canon has addressed some of the most important shortcomings of many of its consumer lenses with the STM refreshes over the past couple of years. Upgrades include improved optical performance, much better autofocus, and even a slightly improved build quality. The Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM is a prime recipient of many of these updates and improvements.
I used the predecessor of the 55-250 STM (the IS II) for a period several years ago, and while it was a good lens, the STM version is certainly an upgrade in almost every aspect.
The main engine of change in these refreshes is centered around the STM part of the name. STM stands for “Stepping Motor”, and is the new autofocus system that Canon has been putting into a number of lenses. The “stepping” refers to the AF system’s mean of smoothly moving from one focus point to another. The previous generation of lenses had older micromotor autofocus motors that tended to be “buzzy” in operation and often weren’t as fast or accurate as Canon’s higher grade USM (ultrasonic motor) AF system. The STM motors are a marked improvement in almost every regard over the micromotors, with much quieter, smoother focus that is often a bit faster and more accurate as well. Canon has begun to include AF Servo autofocus during video capture on a number of its APS-C (crop sensor) cameras (like the Rebel/xxxD line along with more “pro-sumer” bodies like the 70D/7DII). Most of the older designs of AF motors don’t play very well with autofocus during video, with a lot of hunting and noise as they try to make focus transitions. STM motors focus smoothly in this environment because they were specifically designed for that purpose. That is definitely true here, as the 55-250 STM is a very smooth, quietly focusing lens. You’ll note the key word here is smooth – that is the single best aspect of STM focus motors.
Features and Build
But Canon’s improvements don’t end with the autofocus system. This lens has always had a great focal length (roughly 4.5x zoom with a 35mm/FF focal range equivalence of 88-400mm).
55mm:
250mm:
That is a great deal of reach in a compact lens, and this lens perfectly meshes with the 18-55mm kit lens to provide two lens coverage from 18mm to 250mm. This encompasses nearly all the focal ranges that the average photographer might need.
The 55-250 STM is reasonably small for its impressive reach, with an overall length of 4.38”/111.2mm. This is minutely larger than its predecessor (108mm). It is also very light, with a weight of only 13.23 oz/375g (15g less than 55-250mm II).. The optical formula is a little more complex than the previous lens with 15 elements in 12 groups, with a seven bladed aperture that retains a circular shape even when stopped down. It has a very modestly sized 58mm front filter thread, and that front filter ring does not rotate during autofocus, allowing you to use circular polarizers without issue. The lens also no longer changes length while autofocusing (but will when zooming), which might account for why it is slightly longer than the previous lens. Both of these attributes result in a lens that is better to use in the field.
Another impressive statistic for the lens is its minimum focus distance, which is only 2.79’/85mm. At that range on the 250mm end the resulting maximum magnification is an impressive .29x, or nearly 1/3rd life size magnification. This provides a lot of versatility, allowing you to do both telephoto and macro-like photography with one lens. While the lens focuses more closely than its predecessor the rated maximum magnification figure is surprisingly a bit lower (the older lens figure was .31x). This suggests that the lens is exhibiting some additional “focus breathing” compared to the older lens (the lens’ focal length is shorter than its maximum length when focusing near minimum distances). This is fairly common with many newer lenses, as they often employ “floating elements” that allow for better resolution at those minimum focus distances. So, the lens has marginally less magnification but will focus more closely and produce better results at minimum distances. These shots show the lens is capable of very impressive results at that minimum focus distance.
The build of the lens is a mild upgrade over the previous lens, with a slightly sleeker design. The overall dimensions are highly similar, but the STM lenses have a new design philosophy that is moderately different from the previous generation of lenses. I was also reviewing the Canon EF-M 55-200mm STM for the EOS M mirrorless system, and that lens definitely felt like the more premium product in both its build and operation (read my review here). This lens has a plastic lens mount (which has been par for the course for Canon’s budget options). That probably won’t be an issue due to the relatively light weight of the lens, but my personal preference is always to see the metal mount. The lens is dominated by zoom ring, which is very wide and easy to find. The zoom action is generally fairly good, though I found when compared to the EF-M lens that the resistance through the zoom range was less consistent. There were a few points where the effort required was a bit higher, resulting in a slightly less smooth zoom action. This could improve with more use as the lens is “broken in”. There is no zoom lock, but the light weight of the front element along with the amount of resistance in the zoom ring suggests that zoom creep is not particularly likely. There is always the risk that as the lens is broken in the possibility of zoom creep might increase, though I’m not personally very concerned.
The lens has two standard switches on the barrel – AF/MF and ON/OFF for the IS (Image Stabilization) system. The final ingredient is a much more narrow manual focus ring at the end of the barrel. Manual focus rings rarely have prime real estate on STM lenses because in many ways they are less emphasized than ever. STM has many strengths, but manual focus is really not one of them. To its credit, the STM system does always provide full time manual override (which the micromotors did not), but STM is far from my favorite manual focus system. Unlike most manual focus systems, there is no direct connection to the lens elements. STM lenses rather take input from the manual focus ring, route it electronically through the autofocus motor, which then makes gradual adjustments to the focus as input. This is often referred to “focus-by-wire”. There are a couple of significant drawbacks, including a general lack of tactile feedback when manually focusing, sometimes a bit of a lag between your movements and the actual focus, and the unfortunate reality that the camera must be on and prepared to receive input before any change will be made. You cannot “prefocus” by manually focusing to a specific point in advance. In fact, even if the camera has gone “to sleep” while you waiting for a shot there is a very strong chance that the previously selected focus point will be lost. I am appreciative of many aspects of STM focus, but it is far from my favorite AF system.
I will offer up as a general observation that while some third party manufacturers based in Japan (namely Tamron and Sigma) have taken some heat over outsourcing some of the manufacturing to China and the Philippines (generally on their consumer grade products), I noted etched into the mount in a barely discernible text the words, “Made in Malaysia”. I offer no criticism but only the observation that the expedient of outsourcing manufacturing in the modern economic climate is clearly not reserved for the third party lens makers alone. Still, the placement suggests that Canon is clearly not advertising the fact.
AF Observations
Fortunately the autofocus system is quite reliable, with consistent results on the 70D and EOS M3 bodies I tested it on (the latter via the EF to EF-M adapter). I initially purchased this lens with the intent of using it on both bodies rather than purchasing the EF-M 55-200 STM. The EF-S lens had a longer focal range, closer minimum focus distance, and a slightly faster aperture. The trade-off was significantly larger size, but the price was also a bit lower (in this case less is truly more!) My experience with EF 40mm f/2.8 STM and 50mm f/1.8 STM led me to believe that autofocus would be quite snappy through the adapter, as the STM lenses all seem to perform well on the M3.
Imagine my disappointment when I received the lens, put it on the adapter and then onto the M3, pressed the shutter down halfway, and then watched the less creep like paint drying into focus. It was shockingly slow, and I was seriously disappointed. The autofocus on the lens when mounted on my 70D was quite good, but something was not working with the M3. I put the word out about this on CanonRumors to see what other photographers were encountering. Another user let me know that there was a firmware update via Canon for the EOS M3 specifically for helping focus speed with the EF-S 55-250 STM. I downloaded it, but didn’t notice any measurable improvement. I shared this. He pointed out that there was a second firmware update for the lens itself specifically for the M3/lens combination. I downloaded and installed it, and voila, suddenly the lens focuses almost as quickly and confidently as the native EF-M 55-200 STM lens. The focus isn’t as fast as with the 70D (unsurprising), but the difference isn’t much. The lens focuses very fluidly for video as well. Other than the notable size difference, the operational difference between the two lenses is now minimal. In the meantime, however, I had purchased the EF-M lens and decided that I liked the smaller size of it enough to keep it.
The 70D has a very nice AF system, and I was able to track action fairly well with the lens. There are times when the lens might be severely defocused and takes a bit longer to make an AF adjustment than what I might like (STM emphasis smoothness over speed), but overall I found the lens generally did what I wanted. My overall experience is often with lens costing many, many times more than this lens, but those really aren’t the best standard of comparison here. The STM autofocus is a significant upgrade over the former AF system of its predecessor and should suit your needs quite well. In addition, if you want to shoot video using AF Servo you will get better results with the STM lens than even much more expensive options.
The lens has an effective image stabilizer built in. One cannot overemphasize how important IS is on a telephoto lens. Without the image stabilizer one would need to keep the shutter speed very high to eliminate camera shake, and keeping the camera steady when trying to compose a shot can be difficult. IS allows you to both use much lower shutter speeds and does an effective job of keeping the viewfinder steady so that you can effectively compose your shot. I found the image stabilizer quite mannerly in this application with a minimum of movement when activating and very little noise when operating. With a static subject you can handhold very low shutter speeds of 1/10th second at 250mm, but always remember that IS doesn’t keep your subject from moving – it only corrects for movement of the camera itself. If you are shooting a subject that is going to move you are going to need to raise the shutter speed to eliminate blur due to subject motion.
Image Quality
The 55-250 STM is a significant upgrade optically over its predecessor. The older IS II lens frequently required it to be stopped down to f/8 to get decent image quality across the frame, but this lens is generally pretty good at most focal lengths even wide open. The EF-M lens (55-200) that I’ve been also evaluating has better image quality, but at the cost of a slower aperture and reduced focal range. Relative to price this lens is providing quite excellent image quality, with nice detail and resolution. I’ve not been disappointed with the images the lens has produced at all, and definitely feel this lens is worth the additional price over the older version on the merit of its image quality alone. Note the great detail in the image of the chipmunk in the photo and crop below:
Color rendition is quite good, and both vignette and chromatic aberration control are strong. Vignette is one area where this lens was definitely superior to the EF-M version.
This lens isn’t a fast one in terms of its aperture value at any point in its focal range. The f/4-5.6 aperture variation isn’t an uncommon one (even my $2000+ 100-400L II has a similar aperture value) but the 55-250 STM does move towards f/5.6 very quickly.
Aperture
f/4
f/4.5
f/5
f/5.6
EF-S 55-250 STM
55-63mm
64-99mm
100-154mm
155-250mm
Variable aperture lenses need decent light to be effective, but often compensate by being comparatively small and compact when compared to their fixed aperture brethren. The Canon 70-200 f/4L, for example, is considerably longer and heavier while having a reduced focal range. It previously had a significant sharpness advantage, but that gap has closed with this current update. The bokeh from the L series lens will be a little better, and it has an aperture advantage throughout most of the focal range. It gives up the image stabilizer, however, and that does defeat some of its aperture advantage.
Canon has persisted in its refusal to include lens hoods with its consumer lenses, so this lens does not ship with a lens hood. The ET-63 lens hood is an additional $24, but if the budget is tight you can grab this one from Vello for for half that. It is probably a worthy investment, however, particularly if you plan to do some shooting with the sun directly in the frame. I found that in some situations the lens was prone to veiling (a hazy effect where the image appears washed out due to the sun being in the frame).
This was more true at telephoto focal lengths, and it is here where a lens hood would come in handy. A lens hood will also often allow for a bit more contrast due to preventing stray light from reaching the lens. If there is good news here it is that the kinds of situations where the sun is right in the frame in a destructive way is less frequent with telephoto lenses. Still, if you are planning on shooting some backlight portraits you may want to consider a different lens for this reason.
The lens bokeh is somewhat of a mixed bag. I’ve found it to be quite decent in a number of situations. In fact, I shot a scene of beautiful lit autumn maples leaves with a number of combinations (all of which were more expensive than this lens), but settled on an image from this lens as my favorite of the bunch.
In some situations, however, the lens will exhibit a bit of a nervous look and it certainly shows the tendency towards “cat-eye” shaped bokeh towards the edges of the frame. This is probably nit-picking at this price point. If you get close to your subject, the lens will do a fine job of throwing the background out of focus and creating some delineation of the subject from the background. Delineation isn’t always a strength for APS-C cameras anyway, however, as the larger sensor of the full frame cameras (and medium format beyond) allow for increasingly shallow depth of field. Here’s a little gallery to allow you to draw your own conclusions:
All in all, though, this lens is providing a LOT of bang for the buck when it comes to image quality. Relative to its price it is a fantastic option.
Conclusions
If you have a limited budget but need a telephoto lens there is really no need to look any further. The Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM gives a lot of performance for its relatively low purchase price of right around $300. The redesign of its optics makes it a legitimate competitor of much more expensive options, and, while it may lack the higher grade build of those lenses, it is actually surprising how close this lens comes in optical performance. It really doesn’t have a lot of optical weaknesses other than being a little prone to veiling when the sun is in the frame (at telephoto lengths), but that isn’t really a situation that will come up all that much. The maximum apertures at most focal lengths suffer relative to competitors, but the great wide open image quality as means you don’t have to stop the lens down as much. The build quality isn’t impressive, but it’s not terrible, either, and the lens handles fine overall. I found the image stabilizer to be effective, and, while STM focus is not my favorite AF system, the lens performed quite ably in most situations. If I didn’t have the EF-M 55-200 STM I would be very tempted to keep this lens even as a travel option because it is so light and compact. This is an excellent upgrade of a compact telephoto lens with a great focal length. Nicely done, Canon!
Pros:
Excellent optical performance to cost ratio
Optical improvements across the image circle
Effective image stabilizer
Improved autofocus performance in accuracy, speed, and noise
STM provides smooth AF Servo video focus
Low chromatic aberrations and vignette
Compact size and low weight
Cons:
Prone to veiling on telephoto end
STM manual focus still frustrating
Build suffers compared to the EF-M version
Plastic lens mount
Lower maximum magnification figure than predecessor
Notes: I reviewed a retail copy of the lens that I purchased myself and is thus representative of what you can expect.
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52014 in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
In photography there are moments when we have “fortunate accidents”; can we also have those with gear purchases?
I didn’t originally set out to purchase the Canon EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM telephoto lens. It wasn’t readily available in the North American market and I initially decided that I would purchase the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens to use on both my 70D and the EOS M3 bodies (via the EF Adapter). The EF-S lens had a longer focal range, closer minimum focus distance, and a slightly faster aperture. The trade-off was significantly larger size, but the price was also a bit lower (in this case less is truly more!) My experience with EF 40mm f/2.8 STM and 50mm f/1.8 STM led me to believe that autofocus would be quite snappy through the adapter, as the STM lenses all seem to perform well on the M3.
Imagine my disappointment when I received the lens, put it on the adapter and then onto the M3, pressed the shutter down halfway, and then watched the less creep like paint drying into focus. It was shockingly slow, and I was seriously disappointed. The autofocus on the lens when mounted on my 70D was quite good, but something was not working with the M3. I bit the bullet and imported the EF-M 55-200 STM from Japan (it has since become available in North America!) I’ll come back to that in a moment. Let me finish the story on the EF-S lens for those of you considering it…
I put the word out about this on CanonRumors to see what other photographers were encountering. Another user let me know that there was a firmware update via Canon UK for the EOS M3 specifically for helping focus speed with the EF-S 55-250 STM. I downloaded it, but didn’t notice any measurable improvement. I shared this. He pointed out that there was a second firmware update for the lens itself specifically for the M3/lens combination. I downloaded and installed it, and voila, suddenly the lens focuses almost as quickly and confidently as the native EF-M 55-200 STM lens. It isn’t as fast as with the 70D (unsurprising), but the difference isn’t much. The lens focuses very fluidly for video as well. Other than the notable size difference, the operational difference between the two lenses is now minimal. We’ll come back and examine the pros and cons of both these lenses at the end of the review, but let’s get back to the actual lens at hand.
Nicely Compact
Prefer to watch your reviews? Just click below:
After actually getting and using the EF-M 55-200 STM lens, I’m not at all disappointed at how things ended up. The lens has quickly found a place into my heart for a number of reasons I’ll detail throughout the review.
The 55-200STM is a nicely compact lens for a lens that has an effective 88-320mm full frame equivalent focal length. Doubtless the choice to have a slightly slower aperture at all focal lengths when compared to the EF-S 55-250mm helped to enable this size. The EF-M 55-200 STM is basically 1/3rd stop slower at all focal lengths.
Lens
f/4
f/4.5
f/5
f/5.6
f/6.3
EF-M 55-200 STM
————-
55-62mm
63-99mm
101-163mm
164-200mm
EF-S 55-250 STM
55-63mm
64-99mm
100-154mm
155-250mm
————–
The EF-M is not a fast lens when it comes to aperture by any stretch of the imagination, but the trade-off is a fantastic size for a telephoto: 2.40 x 3.41″ (60.9 x 86.5 mm) and only 9.17 oz (260 g). It’s not a lot bigger than the size of the EF-M 18-55mm kit lens [2.40 x 2.40″ (60.9 x 61.0 mm)] and is only 50g heavier [7.41 oz (210 g)]. Both share a small but common 52mm filter size (a relief, as so far Canon’s EF-M lens filter sizes have been all over the small end of the map.) Like the 18-55mm, the 55-200 STM has a seven blade aperture iris. The blades on the 55-200 STM are rounded and do an effective job at producing fairly nice bokeh.
What the EF-M 55-200 STM doesn’t share with its little brother is a metal bayonet lens mount, substituting a plastic mount like the EF-S 55-250 STM instead. The lens is so light that this surely won’t ever provide any issue, but as a matter of principle I prefer the better build of a metal mount and had hoped that this would be status quo for the EF-M lenses from Canon. Perhaps the metal mount was sacrificed for weight savings, but it was probably more a cost saving move.
I have been very pleased with the overall look and build quality of the EF-M lenses. They seem like more premium lenses than the EF-S counterparts. I like the sleek barrel design and the fine texture of the zoom rings. They give you a metal instead of plastic feel, though this is just perception. The texture on the zoom ring feels like it has been machined into metal. I like it. This lens continues to the EF-M tradition of having no external switches, relying on the camera body to turn the IS on/off or to switch from AF to Manual Focus. Fortunately the M3 has a dedicated switch for this, making the transition less abrupt than before. The relatively small manual focus ring on the lens is a quick reminder that manual focus is really not much of a priority on STM lenses, and I still really dislike the disconnected feel of manually focusing STM lenses (which use an electronic “focus by wire” rather than a mechanical coupling to the lens elements for manual focus).
The inner barrel of the lens protrudes about 1 ¾”/5cm when at its 200mm end. The zoom design is a single barrel extension that feels secure and without any wobble. The zoom action is exceptionally smooth and very well damped. The smoothness feels more like an internal zoom action than an external one and is noticeably superior to EF-S lens which feels a little crude by comparison.
The 55-200 STM is noticeably smaller than the EF-S 55-250 STM lens. The EF-S lens is reasonably compact and light, but is an inch longer (4.38”/111.2mm), thicker around, and weighs a third more (375g). To use it on the M3, though, one must also add another inch in length for the EF Adapter along with another 110g of weight. The end result is 485g, which is uncomfortably close to twice as heavy and nearly 50% longer. The visual difference is even more striking than the numbers suggest. It ends up feeling fairly front heavy on the compact M bodies.
All in all I’m very thankful for the compact size and this has become instrumental to the way I actually use the lens. The combination is small enough that I have taken to bringing it along when I go out to shoot landscapes with a full frame wide angle kit (my current combo is the Canon 6D, Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 VC, and the Fotodiox WonderPana filter system.) The option of having a telephoto look at landscape scenes has already produced some new favorite images. It’s a small combination, but the great sensor of the M3 and the great optics of 55-200 STM are a winning combination. One of my favorite small bags for the M (and now M3) system has been the Vanguard 2GO 10. It’s nicely made and very compact, and I’m able to still fit this combination into it and have great protection for the combo. It is also discrete enough that I have started taking it along to non-critical events like school events and capturing the board room, for example:
The 55-200 STM is a fairly complex optical instrument for its diminutive size, with 17 elements in 11 groups. This is a bit more complex than the EF-S lens at 15 elements in 12 groups. It continues the trend of the EF-M lenses being optically superior to their EF-S counterparts, although the EF-S 55-250mm is already a fairly impressive lens for its very low price point. Still, the 55-200 STM manages to provide an optical advantage across most of the focal range, with perhaps a very slight advantage at 200mm for the EF-S lens (which is still not at the end of its own focal range). Still, you could not really ask for a better optical performance from this lens. It is essentially perfectly sharp from corner to corner save at 200mm, and even then it is near flawless. The image quality in fact is fairly close to the amazing Canon 70-300L, though the full frame lens enjoys other advantages. All in all this is really a very impressive little lens optically.
One area where it does give up an advantage to the EF-S lens is in the area of vignette. The extreme corners show a full 3 stops of shading compared to less than half that for the EF-S lens. The lens has to be stopped down to f/8 to really compete with the 55-250 STM wide open. If there is any advantage for the EF-M lens here it is that the vignette is extremely linear and is thus easy to correct for and in many cases actually quite flattering. Overall this must be considered one of the major optical shortcomings of the lens.
Another shortcoming is one shared with the EF-M 18-55 STM – a somewhat lackluster performance when it comes to flare resistance. While the lenses exhibit a fairly decent resistance to veiling when the sun is placed in the frame (particularly at wider focal lengths), there are a number of ghosting artifacts that show up at various focal lengths and apertures. The EF-M lens is better in the veiling department than the EF-S lens but worse in the ghosting artifact department. Canon has continued its unfortunate tradition from its EF-S mount lenses of not including a lens hood with the EF-M lenses. The 55-200 STM could probably use one in some circumstances. Contrast remains fine with the sun in the frame, but you just might end up with one of those green blobs floating across your image. I know from experience that those aren’t much fun to try to edit out in post. My advice is to keep the sun out of the frame for the most part (which is easier to do with a telephoto!)
The upside is that chromatic aberrations are exceptionally well controlled. I have searched though a number of images that I know from experience would be likely suspects but simply can’t find the CA. This is a very nice performance and contributes to the good overall image quality.
Contrast is very good, as is color rendition, resulting in crisp, detailed images from the lens that just look good…and sometimes great!
One final area that I’m a little disappointed in when comparing to the EF-S lens is that the minimum focus distance is higher for the EF-M lens (3.28’ vs. 2.79’) and the combination of that plus a shorter maximum focal length results in a considerably lower maximum magnification figure of .21x vs the .29x figure for the EF-S lens. This is still a useful figure, obviously, but the 55-250mm lens’ figure is even more useful. Here’s one near minimum focus from the 55-250 STM:
And now one from the 55-200 STM:
Handling in the Field
I doubt any of you will be surprised to hear me report that the EOS M line of cameras leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to sports action. Even the M3 (read my review here) though a delightful little camera in other areas is seriously underspecced when it comes to competing with, say, a Sony A6000 when it comes to burst rate and AF Servo tracking. Since there isn’t a great body to evaluate AF Servo tracking on, right now my assessment of the lens will limited by the limitations of the system it was designed for. If you are looking for top of the line option for sports, neither the M system nor this lens are your top choices. The lens performs fairly well within the constraints of the M3’s AF Servo and Continuous AF systems. I moved from one distance to another while firing off shots and got generally well focused results, and I’ve had no issues in normal mode using One Shot AF and capturing normal, reasonably still targets.
But trying to use the lens to capture fast moving action (like my dog playing fetch) is generally a disaster. The M3/EF-M 55-200 STM combo just doesn’t track. If I were using my EOS 70D for a sequence of the dog charging towards me I would have 7-10 frames, and, depending on the lens, they might just all be in focus. I was lucky to get the camera to even take a picture under the same circumstance, and even if it did do a bit of a burst (like in this brief four frame sequence), even the first picture wasn’t particularly well focused and it was clear that the camera did not refocus at all during the sequence. Focus stayed at the same point.
If you need a camera to track action you simply have to look elsewhere. The M system is not at all satisfactory for this type of shooting.
It can also be a bit of a frustration if you are trying to track, say, a bird flitting from branch to branch. The improved screen refresh rate of the M3 is an improvement over the M1 I used before, and the EV-F helps further, but the system is still a bit limited at telephoto distances when trying to track a moving target. Still, if you own a EOS M3 camera body, this lens is one of the better uses of its EV-F DC-1 electronic viewfinder. I find the EV-F helps to isolate you from distractions and enables you to more quickly latch onto a moving target visually.
I should also add that of all the EF-M lenses I have used, this is the most likely to miss focus and severely defocus before attaining the correct focus. It doesn’t happen often, but it typically just doesn’t happen at all with the other EF-M lenses. For the most part, however, the AF performance is fine for most of what I need the lens for.
I guess the point that must be made is that you need to have reasonable expectations for what you are going to get out of Canon’s mirrorless system and this, the lone telephoto lens. Mirrorless just isn’t a replacement for a good DSLR when it comes to action shooting, so if that is a priority for you, this isn’t your combo. If you are willing to accept those constraints and use the system to its strengths, you will be far more satisfied.
Strengths
I’m very happy to have this lens myself because of the focal range. I’ve already mentioned that this is a great option for landscape work. Often a telephoto focal length is just what the doctor ordered for many landscape scenes. It is either bring distant details close, compresses scenes in a flattering way, or enables you to isolate important details. I wrote an article about this that you can read here. I’ve often taken along my 70-300L telephoto lens for a telephoto perspective when shooting landscapes or traveling. There have been moments that I have regretted packing it along, however, mostly because it isn’t light and I didn’t end up using it very much. Since adding this lens to my kit I have elected to sell my 70-300L in lieu of the 100-400L II. The latter is the better wildlife telephoto option, and I have instead chosen to carry the M3/55-200 STM combo when traveling or shooting landscapes. I mostly need the focal length when traveling, not speed or action, and this combination produces some very, very good results that aren’t much behind what I could get from the 6D/70-300L under similar circumstances. So, when used to its strengths, it is a great option.
The 55-200 STM also has an effective image stabilization (IS) system. I have found that with careful technique I can get great results at 1/10th second and even reasonable results as low as 0.4 seconds at 200mm.
That becomes very useful when shooting static scenes (if there is any subject movement you HAVE to get your shutter speed up to stop action). When you do have a static scene, however, you can use a low shutter speed and help keep the ISO setting down. This helps a lot for various travel and general shooting situations. It is also a blessing when shooting video. The IS does a very credible job of providing a stable platform for video capture. The lens is rated at 3.5 stops of camera shake, which is a bit lower than the 4 stops that is often the standard in regular DSLR lenses, but I would say that the IS is actually very well implemented here. It is essentially silent in operation, doesn’t cause any jump of the “viewfinder” image (on the LCD or EVF), and does a great job of holding the image steady on the screen. It’s so good that you forget it is working, save you have a very steady screen and steady results.
Vs. the EF-S 55-250 STM
If you perform the firmware updates to the lens and EOS M3 body, the EF-S 55-250 STM remains a credible alternative to the EF-M 55-200 STM. It is larger than what feels natural for the system, of course, but I’ve used the combination for at least 100 shots and found it to not be a burden to use, either. The improved grip and ergonomics on the M3 body help in this regard. AF speed is just a fraction slower with the adapted lens, but is very usable after the firmware updates. The EF-S lens has a $50 advantage in price, but that advantage vanishes if you don’t already have the EF adapter. There is also the advantage of being able to use the lens on another APS-C body (in my case I also own a Canon EOS 70D). Here’s a brief breakdown of pros for each lens:
EF-M 55-200mm STM
Significant size advantage
Construction and handling are superior
Better overall image quality
Better balance on EOS M/M2/M3
Greater portability (retains the compact nature of the mirrorless system)
EF-S 55-250 STM
Price advantage (if you own the EF adapter)
Longer focal range
About 1/3rd stop aperture advantage at all focal lengths
Can be used on EF-S mount cameras as well.
Better minimum focus distance and maximum magnification
As you can see, there is no clear winner. For my own purposes I will probably just keep the actual EF-M lens. Its small nature makes it a logical companion for travel and it is the more natural fit for the M system – which is where I will primarily use it as I have better telephoto options when using my DSLRs. Still, my unique needs may not be yours, and if you are looking for a 1 lens telephoto solution to share across a couple of camera bodies, the EF-S lens may be the better choice for you.
Conclusions
All in all the EF-M’s lone telephoto option at the moment is at least a good one. It is very compact, has a great focal length, is nicely built (despite the plastic lens mount), and delivers excellent image quality. It is held back by the focus limitations of the M system when it comes to action photography, but it is a very fine option for general purpose shooting and landscape. It is even a decent portrait lens in a pinch. Its only real optical shortcomings are being prone to ghosting with the sun in the frame and a fairly heavy vignette, though I’ve not really noticed a big issue with the latter in the field and the former can be fairly easily avoided. It has a very effective image stabilizer, is cosmetically pleasing, and mechanically functional. It has a quickly found a niche in my own kit, and it can do the same for you, but only if you have realistic expectations about the limitations of the M system.
Pros:
Overall excellent optical performance across the focal range
Excellent contrast and color rendition
Compact and light
Nicely designed cosmetically
Mechanically very functional (great zoom action!)
Great chromatic aberration control
Effective image stabilization system (IS)
Cons:
Highlights limitations in the EOS M AF system
Has fairly heavy vignette on the wide end
Is prone to ghosting artifacts with the sun in the frame
Will occasionally hunt when acquiring focus
Has less focal range and smaller maximum magnification compared to EF-S equivalent
I reviewed a retail copy that I have personally purchased an added to my own kit. Here is a collection of more images that I’ve taken with the lens over the past few months:
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52014 in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The EOS M has long been the “red-headed stepchild” of Canon’s camera lineup. Canon wanted a piece of the growing mirrorless system market with their DSLR-like sensors and miniature bodies, but when the EOS M came to the market in June of 2012 it felt a step behind the competition in many ways. It was also priced a little too high to be competitive, and sales lagged. Interest (if not profits) got a temporary boost in the North American market in the middle of 2013 when the “firesale” began that saw the price drop by well more than half. I jumped in at that point, and found that despite some obvious shortcomings the camera was actually very, very useful. I’ve used it in multiple countries as a lighter option when I didn’t want to carry heavier kit, and I’ve added a bunch of images to my personal portfolio that I think are fantastic. The sensor on it was good – really good, in fact. It put other crop sensor bodies that I used to shame in the image quality department.
But development stalled. The system launched with only two available lenses (the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM and the EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM). The lenses were both lauded for excellent build quality and optical performance (particularly the 22mm “pancake”), but photographers wanted more options. But things got a little weird. Canon eventually did produce two more excellent lenses (a 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM wide angle lens along with later producing the 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM telephoto), but did not release either lens to the American market (arguably the largest in the world). They eventually released the EOS M2 in early 2014, but it was widely viewed as a very incremental update and again was not released to the American market. In the meantime stock of the existing EOS M gear was dwindling on shelves and in warehouses, and the system seemed to be dying a slow death.
But then earlier this year the EOS M3 was announced and then released to the Asian market, with some interesting marketing videos and a feature set that seemed to address a lot of the current criticisms. I found it interesting enough that a few months ago I took the plunge and imported one from Japan. My son Samuel took over the original M body, and is producing some amazing images with it. You can follow his Instagram account here: Samuel Abbott. Before getting into the meat of this review, let me just say that I’ve really enjoyed using the M3 and feel like its new 24.2 MP sensor is better than ever.
I got excited a few months ago when I got the announcement that Canon was taking another swing at the North American market on the strength of the M3 and announcing not only the camera but the lenses that had never been released. I’ve also been following mention of different EF-M lens patents with the hope all of this signifies that Canon finally has a real plan in place for advancing the EOS M system. It’s ironic how sure-footed Canon has been with its DSLR line and how comparatively awkward they have been in the mirrorless segment.
One exciting thing to note is that since the announcement to bring the EOS M3 to the North American market there has been an announcement from Rokinon of both a 50mm f/1.2 (I’m very excited about that!) and a 21mm f/1.4. The former provides (finally) a [very] fast portrait prime lens for the mount (about an 80mm equivalent) while the latter provides a fast(er) wide angle prime (approximately 35mm equivalent). Both of these will be manual focus only, but fortunately the M3 is far more forgiving of manual focus than, well, just about any other Canon body. I’m less excited about the 21mm simply because Canon’s 22mm f/2 STM is a fantastic lens already plus has autofocus. It is my most used lens with the system.
In a few weeks the EOS M3 will be available to purchase in the North American market (you can preorder here:): should you buy it?
Before we jump in, though, you might want to read:
Finally, if you prefer to watch your reviews, take a look here:
First, the Bad News
My time with the EOS M3 says that Canon has made some excellent advances but still has some room for improvement. In some cases it even seems like they have taken some steps backward from the EOS M Classic. I’ve been using the M3 quite extensively for the past three months, and certain “quirks” have made themselves manifest during ongoing usage of the camera. Here are the standouts:
1.Auto Exposure bracketing reverts to single shot speeds of about 1 frame per second, making it very difficult to do handheld HDR (and negatively impacting HDR from a tripod, too). There is an HDR mode on the camera, but that mode takes over all control of aperture, shutter speed, and also reverts to JPEG only. The exposure blending is done in camera (with all of the inherit limitations) and you are left with only the combined single JPEG image. This is far from what serious photographers are looking for. Using AEB (Auto Exposure Bracketing) does allow for the shutter to be hit only once and three bracketed shots will be taken (limited here to a maximum of +/-2 stops rather than +/-3 stops on my DSLRs), but again the shutter speed drastically drops to something like a fifth of its normal frame rate. The ironic thing is that the HDR mode shoots at the normal (faster) rate. This is clearly just a firmware issue (and one that the original M did not have), but my reaching out to Canon Japan produced this response, “Regarding shooting with AEB on the EOS M3, rather than the shutter being released three times during continuous shooting, three images are automatically shot with one release of the shutter.” This didn’t exactly address the question I asked! I’m hoping that a firmware update will eliminate this bug, but at the moment it is a serious shortcoming.
2. The second issue is also one that the original M did not have. When you are shooting with something like the 22mm f/2 STM lens there will be many times when you need to focus more precisely than what the fairly large box on the screen is centered on. For example, you may be wanting to focus on a subject’s eyes but the focus square on the LCD covers a large portion of their face. The original M allowed you to tighten up your focus by being able to “zoom” into the image 5x or 10x and then refocus. The M3 also allows you to zoom in, but when you partially hold down the shutter to focus, the zoom function temporarily reverts to the non-magnified view to focus. Once focus is locked the image returns to the previous state of zoom. This quirk prevents you from being able to achieve more “pinpoint” focus. Ironically you can manually focus while zoomed in, but you cannot autofocus. Considering that this was not a part of the original M’s functionality, this feels like another bug that needs fixing by a firmware update. On a positive note the overall autofocus is much more accurate than the original M.
3. On this same note, another quirk is that you cannot magnify the image at all when in video mode. This isn’t unusual during video capture, but the M3 doesn’t even allow for it before video capture commences. This is another step back from the M Classic and quite a frustration for those of us who like to use manual focus lenses for video. I have had to shift over into a stills shooting mode, dial in my focus, and then come back to video mode.
4.Body’s construction (not shape) feels like a step back from the M Classic. When I first got the M1 I was immediately impressed by how solid and dense it felt despite its small size. The M3 feels less professional grade and more commercial grade despite having a more robust shape and grip. One a positive note I must confess that my M3 has already easily survived a small fall from an open case to a linoleum floor. The battery door popped open but I can’t see any other effect from the fall. It made me wonder if the battery door popping open was by design to transfer some of the energy. The camera still feels well made, but it didn’t have the same impact on me that the original M did. But this is only perception: the M3 is actually made from magnesium alloy and coated to match Canon’s high end camera bodies. The slightly more “plasticky” feel is nothing more than perception.
5. Another oddity is that the choice to select AdobeRGB color space is missing from the menu; I can’t recall using a Canon camera without this option, including the original M. Furthermore, the menu design is a departure from the typical Canon design. I can’t say at this point whether it is better or worse; it is just slightly unfamiliar. The amount of custom functions is rather sparse, and I feel like several of the things that I have addressed above are items that I should have been able to address in the custom function portion of the menu.
6. One final quirk is that in some situations the M3 introduces a greenish cast that is both very “unCanon-like” and different from the original M. Here’s an example taken with the 22mm f/2 STM.
I’m not quite sure what causes this issue, but yet again it feels like a little quirk that a good firmware update could correct.
These items all contribute to the feeling of a somewhat unfinished camera. It unfortunately feels that the camera needed another few months of development before its release, and it is my sincere hope that the North American release of the M3 will signal some steps towards correcting some of these notable shortcomings. It feels like the development team didn’t start with all the good things about the EOS M and build upon them but rather started from scratch and overlooked some of the fundamentals. I’m afraid the end result will be a camera that for many potential buyers still seems to lag behind the competition.
At this stage it might seem that I’m down on the camera, but that’s not actually the case. I would suggest instead that it is the overall progress of the line in so many other areas that makes these particular issues stand out all the more (particularly those that seem like a regression in the M series). In many ways the M3 is great step forward for the M line. The ergonomics are significantly improved, the already excellent sensor performance is vastly improved, and the AF performance is more robust. The potential for greatness is there, but some of these issues seem unnecessary at this stage. In many ways I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the camera thus far, and here’s why.
Now for Some Good News
1. Improved ergonomics.
These photos show you a physical comparison of the original M and the M3 bodies.
The original M, while robustly made, had several ergonomic flaws. The first was an almost complete lack of a grip. There was a raised section the front of the camera that gave your fingers a little leverage, but it in no way felt like a mini-DSLR. The M3 adds a compact and yet fully formed grip that is nicely contoured and gives your hand a much more natural/complete purchase. This also allows for a more natural interaction with the shutter release button. It has one of the best physical designs of the small, mirrorless cameras. The M3 is a joy to carry and use as a result, and it is one of the few areas where it really shines in comparison to its mirrorless competition.
The M also lacked any kind of dial around the shutter release button (at least in a traditional sense). There was a bit of dial, but that was to choose between the three camera modes (Auto, M/AV/TV, or Video). As a result it was not unusual to inadvertently switch to the wrong mode. The M3 not only puts the shutter release button in a better/more natural position, but also gives you a fully functional dial that allows to change shutter speed in Manual mode or Aperture in AV mode. It also adds a fully functional dial for different camera modes (most of which had to be previously accessed through the menus) and also a second dial (THANK YOU!) for dialing in exposure value changes in up to 3 stops in either direction (+/-). It is fantastic to be able to quickly use that dial on the run to influence exposure in the way that you want.
The camera also adds two buttons to the back of the camera (exposure lock and zoom/focus point selection). These buttons can be programmed to other functions as well.
The original M had no built-in flash, but relied on the Speedlite 90EX that was sometimes sold in kit with the camera. If your kit did not come with that flash, you were out of luck. The M3 manages to fit in a very small built in flash, but it has a rather puny guide number of 5 (Meters coverage at ISO 100). The 90EX isn’t a ton better, but it has a guide number of 9. My flash head units of the choice (Metz 64 AF-1) have a guide number of 64, by comparison, but of course they are also bigger than the M3! Still, something is better than nothing here, and the M3 retains a fully functional hotshoe as well that is compatible with all portable flash units in the appropriate mount (including my Metz giants!). Just be aware if you are using a lens like the excellent Tamron 18-200 Di III VC that the lens will cause some shadow when used at wide angle with the on board flash despite it popping up fairly high. One nice aspect of the flash’s design is that you can use a finger to angle it upward to “bounce” the flash at capture, which can eliminate some of the shadows created by a larger lens and give a more pleasing end result.
I personally prefer to rely on the improved ISO performance on the sensor most of the time rather than attempting to use the flash, but I’m happy that it’s there.
2. Tilting LCD TouchScreen
One of the biggest ergonomic improvements to the already excellent touch screen on the EOS M is the inclusion of a tilting LCD. The LCD screen will tilt 180 degrees up and 45 degrees down. The only thing better would be in the inclusion of a fully articulating screen like the one on my EOS 70D. Have a tilting screen makes such a huge difference when you are shooting at unconventional angles (high or low) or when you are looking down and trying to stabilize the body on a platform of some kind (like when shooting video). I’ve already use it in so many different ways when either shooting events or just in the field. It is incredibly useful.
The primary problem with tilting as opposed to articulating is that it is really only useful when shooting in landscape/horizontal mode. If you are shooting vertically/portrait orientation the tilting screen doesn’t really do you much good. I’m rather partial to composing vertically myself, so I really miss that functionality. Still, the inclusion of the tilting LCD was on the primary selling features for me.
Canon does touchscreens really, really well, and the M3 is no exception. The combination of a great touchscreen and improved physical controls make this camera’s ergonomics very, very nice.
3. Improved AF performance (with caveats)
The original M was famous (infamous?) for its slow autofocus performance upon its introduction. Canon was later able to unlock MUCH better AF performance with a firmware update down the road. The M3 employs Canon’s Hybrid CMOS AF III system which uses a combination of contrast-based and phase-detect technologies and embeds 49 points across most of the sensor’s area (about 80% vertical and 70% horizontal coverage). Canon claims that it focuses up to 6.1x faster than the original M, and perhaps that is true of before the firmware update to the original M, but frankly the camera only feels marginally faster to me at best. The improvement is most obvious in single shot AF mode. It is also only a little better at AF Servo tracking but still doesn’t continually focus when shooting burst mode.
Canon is touting the increased speed, but I find the bigger upgrade to be in the focus accuracy department. It may only be slightly faster acquiring focus, but it definitely focuses with more accuracy and consistency. I’ve found my focus accuracy thus far to be generally excellent with the M3 and the 22mm f/2 STM, 18-55mm IS STM, and 55-200mm IS STM. I also use a Rokinon 12mm f/2 wide angle lens (which I love!), but it is manual focus and not really relevant to the current discussion.
The only time I encounter hunting is when using either an adapted lens (via the EF adapter) or occasionally with the 55-200 STM telephoto, which sometimes hunts back and forth for a split second.
Performance with adapted lenses via the Canon EF adapter is not really any better in my experience (in fact, it is worse). You will definitely want to turn off Continuous AF if using non-STM lenses, as the noise and continually hunting will drive you crazy! The single best lens that I’ve used to adapt to the M is the 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens, which seems almost like a natural part of the system in both size and operation. The new 50mm f/1.8 STM is another good fit. I was very disappointed when I tried the EF-S 55-250 IS STM lens. I thought that I could use it on both systems (Canon 70D + M3), but the AF performance was so painfully glacial that I decided against it and bought the EF-M 55-200. During this review I tried it on the original M via adapter (my son now owns my original EOS M) and discovered the AF performance was much better. In fact, I probably would have been satisfied with the combination if I were still using the original M.
But then something interesting happened. I put the word out about this on CanonRumors to see what other photographers were encountering. Another user let me know that there was a firmware update via Canon UK for the EOS M3 specifically for helping focus speed with the EF-S 55-250 STM. I downloaded it, but didn’t notice any measurable improvement. I shared this. He pointed out that there was a second firmware update for the lens itself specifically for the M3/lens combination. I downloaded and installed it, and voila, suddenly the lens focuses almost as quickly and confidently as the native EF-M 55-200 STM lens. It isn’t as fast as with the 70D (unsurprising), but the difference isn’t much. The lens focuses very fluidly for video as well. Other than the notable size difference, the operational difference between the two lenses is now minimal.
I will be comparing the two lenses head to head for a while before deciding which to keep and which to sell. They both have their strengths. I only wish I had discovered this before I went ahead and purchased the second lens, so perhaps my experience can help others.
That aside, however, the fact that such an incredible difference could be made through firmware was startling. On top of this the fact that it took a two step process even with an STM lens (the focus motor that works best with EOS M3), suggests to me that either Canon has either outpaced itself with the AF system on this body or deviated from the norm. There is clearly a very different process at work with the AF system when compared with the former M body, and I suspect that such tweaks could probably help a number of other lenses…but will they get them?
Using other lenses in my kit (most of which are not STM) also worked better on the original M via the adapter. This makes me curious – is this a matter of the existing EF adapter being better tuned to the focus system of the original M, or is this something unique to my camera body/adapter combination. This patent makes me think that it more likely the nature of the adapter and that Canon probably needs to release an adapter more attuned to the focus system of the M3.
My own experience makes me conclude that Canon has perhaps oversold the AF performance improvement. It is better, yes, but I personally feel that it is incremental progress when radically better AF performance was needed to match what the leaders in the field are offering. The majority of current mirrorless cameras all focus more quickly than the EOS M3 and add a faster frame rate to boot.
The Manual Focus front is surprisingly better. Finally Canon has made some concessions towards the fact that some lenses are manual focus only and that some situations need manual focus. The EOS M3 allows you the option of enabling focus peaking (with a choice of three colors) when manually focusing (this can be programmed to one of the back buttons). The optional Canon EV-F DC-1 also helps (more on that in a moment), as does the ability to magnify any point on the LCD screen 5x or 10x. The latter feature was available before, but the implementation is more natural/usable on the M3. The EV-F makes a huge difference when manually focusing, as it shows the true depth of field and allows you to more easily achieve visual focus. The addition of focus peaking (I’ve assigned it to the video record button in stills shooting for easy on/off toggle) combined with the EV-F (and the potential to magnify the image in the EV-F) makes pinpoint focus pretty easy and opens up a lot of possibilities. I’m enjoying shooting some of my vintage glass on the EOS M3 (far more than the original M), and an old lens like the Super Takumar 150mm f/4 makes for a surprisingly good portrait lens (now if only Canon had in body stabilization!!)
One final nice addition when it comes to manual focus is the inclusion of a dedicated MF button (press the rear dial to the left). The EF-M STM lenses don’t have any switches on them, and this allows you to quickly turn on manual focus if desired. STM lenses are still far from my favorite lenses to manually focus because of the almost total lack of tactile feedback, but this does work better than using manual override. I often wondered if I was doing anything in the AF+MF mode on the EOS M cameras with STM lenses.
Frankly I am more impressed with the upgrades to the MF functionality to the EOS M3 than I am to the AF functionality. Both improvements are appreciated, but one feels more substantial than the other. Then again, Canon was able to vastly improve the first M’s AF through firmware update; maybe lightning can strike twice here.
4. Improved Connectivity
The M3 jumps into the modern era by the inclusion of both Wi-Fi and NFC (Near-Field Communication). I’ve previously written about the pros/cons of Canon’s Wi-Fi system on the Canon 6D (the implementation is similar here). One area that I find useful is that this is one of the most convenient ways to shoot long exposures with the M3 (access BULB mode by putting the camera into Manual mode then turning the dial past the longest native exposure time of 30 seconds.) Using the remote app you can simply hold the button down on your phone while the timer ticks off on your screen. There is no place on the M series to attach a remote shutter release, although you can also use one of the RC wireless remotes to achieve the same effect. Yes, you can hold down the actual shutter release button on the camera, but this is not recommended as you will invariably introduce camera shake.
I have an iPhone, so I can’t make use of the NFC technology that makes for a much easier “handshake” between the two devices (just tap the two NFC devices together to pair them). The Wi-Fi connectivity has not really progressed since the 6D was released, unfortunately. Canon has a long way to go in this area. Once you do get things connected, however, it is certainly useful. I use Wi-Fi connectivity to get images to an iPad, for example, and from there I can share them more simply with either clients or social media. I’ve also used the Wi-Fi connectivity for remote shooting on many occasions.
5. Improved Image Quality
The strength of the M system has always been in its sensor. I have been impressed time and again at the fantastic images a tiny camera like this can make. The M3 kicks it up even further, and moves from the 18mp in the original M to a new 24.2 sensor along with the newest DIGIC 6 processor. The image quality from the M3 rocks, frankly. It’s when you review your images that your appreciation for this camera jumps up. It definitely outperforms the sensor on my 70D. For the first time (ever) I don’t see a huge drop-off in quality when I compare images from my full frame bodies to this crop sensor (APS-C) body. Yes, full frame is still better, but the differences are more subtle now.
Less noise, better high ISO performance, and more detail/resolution are all apparent when using this body. I notice that I have more latitude when I go to process and have to push things a little bit. The amazingly clean images from my 6D bodies have always been a joy to process for this reason, and while the M3 cannot yet rival them, it’s getting closer. This is one area where Canon can most definitely compete, and if you prefer JPEG shooting, the M3 produces some really stunning JPEG output. It has always felt very empowering to have such strong imaging potential in such a small package, and the M3 only increases that feeling. I can put together a 3 or 4 lens kit in a tiny bag that I won’t even notice the weight of and yet produce professional grade images. My own personal EF-M kit covers from 12mm to 200mm and weighs next to nothing.
I directly compared the M Classic and M3 in higher ISO performance. Both sensors produce more grain/noise than what my full frame bodies do, but when the ISO starts to jack up (starting at ISO 1600) there is a noticeable difference in the overall look of the images. The M Classic images quickly develop the typical high ISO look, losing contrast and having some color banding in the shadows.
I didn’t see the color banding on the M3 at any setting save its extended range of 25,600 – even the native maximum setting of 12,800 avoided color banding and retained a nice dynamic range with good highlights and dark shadows – the images overall look good and contrasty, just noisy. The coarseness of the grain is noticeably heavier than that of the 6D at equivalent apertures, though the M3 actually has an arguably richer looking result when viewed as a whole. I would categorize its results as actually very good here.
I walked extensively with the M3 in New York City in August, and got a number of awesome images while scarcely noticing the weight of the camera. It was quite a difference from the days on the trip that I carried a full frame DSLR with a lens or two!
It is the image quality that tips the balance in favor of the M3 for me. I do get frustrated by some of its shortcomings because it really feels like most of them could have/should have been easily addressed. The camera at times feels like a BETA release. I’m never going to use it for action photography, and I don’t have to rely on it for my sole camera system, so I’m more easily able to overlook some of the shortcomings and just let the camera play to its strengths. I encourage you to check out the Image Gallery to see the camera in action with a variety of lenses.
6. Improved Battery Life
Battery life is not a natural strength for mirrorless bodies. Their small nature often means comparatively small battery packs, and the original EOS M seemed to be always burning through its battery. The larger LP-E6 battery pack that most of my DSLRs take often lasts for 1100-1200 shots. If you start the day with a freshly charged battery pack you simply aren’t going to have to worry about battery life. The EOS M was a different story. Its battery was rated at 230 shots, and you were lucky to get that. You simply had to plan on getting multiple battery packs or staying close to your charger.
On paper the M3 doesn’t have a big advantage. It’s LP-E17 battery pack is only “rated” for 250 shots, but real life shooting for me (and everyone else that I’ve dialogued with) show real life battery performance is MUCH better. It’s not unusual to not just get double that, but triple that. One primary difference is that the means that the rating is produced involves using the flash at least 50% of the time. The M Classic did not have a built in flash, so its rating did not include that impact on the battery life. I personally almost never use the M3’s flash and have set it to go to “sleep” faster (meaning the LCD screen turns off more quickly). As I result I will often get 700-800 shots from a single charge, making the battery life in my style of shooting not far off of my DSLRs. I’ve never had the battery go dead in a day of use on me, so it means that even when traveling all I need to do is remember to charge the battery every day or two and I’m golden. There was no “magic bullet” with the M Classic – battery life was poor no matter what, so this is actually a significant area of improvement on the M3. Some have reported getting nearly 1000 shots out of a charge in ideal circumstances.
There are a number of factors that can impact battery life, but my experience says that real life battery performance is actually very strong for a mirrorless camera.
7. Somewhat Improved Burst/Buffer
The overall speed isn’t really higher with the M3. It is rated for 4.2 FPS, which is about par with the M Classic. The file sizes are of course 25% larger, which accounts for part of the reason why the burst rate isn’t further improved. Nor is the buffer with those big RAW files improved. What has improved, however, is the burst rate with JPEG files. Before the buffer would fill after 17 JPEGs, but now you can essentially shoot until the battery is dead, though it’s hard to imagine a scenario where you would actually be testing this limit.
In short this is a marginal improvement, at best, and the competition has gotten much, much better during this same period. Canon has definitely fallen behind here.
8. Screen Refresh and overall Speed
One irritating aspect of the original M was how it would take for the camera to be ready to shoot again after capture. The screen would go blank for a few seconds before it would refresh and be ready to compose again. The M3 has completely eliminated that, and the camera is ready again to shoot nearly instantly after capture. The camera feels more responsive overall.
Video Features
Another area where Canon is falling behind here is in the video capture. There are some pluses. The built in stereo microphones are notably improved, and the overall tracking is superior and smoother when compared to the M. I used it at a recent family events to record speeches around the table. I was just handholding it with the 22mm f/2 lens attached (the must have lens for the camera!) and it did a great job of the simple tracking needed along with very acceptable audio recording. If you just need a quick camcorder replacement, it is is just fine.
Video quality is quite good, and I periodically use the camera to shoot footage for my YouTube channel. It does have a jack for an external microphone and standard mini-HDMI output, but it doesn’t have a headphone jack or clean HDMI out.
But the camera is lacking when it comes to video modes. Forget 4K – that’s not even on the radar. In fact, the slow motion spec is a somewhat apathetic 720P/60 FPS. Basically all of the competitors are offering a 60FPS/1080P standard, so the M3 is really lagging in this regard.
None of this is to say that the M3s video is bad (it isn’t), but it is to say that this is one more area where Canon is lagging behind its mirrorless competitors. People expect more in 2015.
Accessories
The big new player for the M3 is the Canon EV-F DC-1 EV-F viewfinder. It’s actually a very clever and useful device, sensing when your eye comes near and automatically switching between the EV-F and the LCD screen. It can be tilted up to give you more flexibility in how you use it. The screen resolution is pretty decent, although it does lag a bit when you are rapidly moving the camera. But many people are going to mostly notice two things:
It isn’t built into the camera, but instead mounts on the hotshoe. It adds a fair bit of size (height) to the camera, and as a result the M3 may not fit in your typical bag of choice with the EV-F mounted.
It is a separate expense. You can purchase it in a kit with the M3 like I did, but if you buy it separately, it is a whopping $229. You can live without it, obviously, but many of the M3’s rivals come with a built in EV-F.
Once the elephant in the room has been cleared, here are my thoughts on the EV-F. I like having it, obviously, but there are pros and cons to it being a separate item. It’s nice that the M3 can stay more compact by not having it built in, and perhaps nice that you don’t have to pay for it if you aren’t going to use it. There are also some serious downsides, though. First of all, there have already been a number of times that I’ve thought of the EV-F while in the field and remembered it was sitting in my photography cabinet at home. It doesn’t do you any good if you don’t have it with you. You can obviously forget using a flash unit and the EV-F simultaneously, too, as the DC-1 mounts on the camera’s hotshoe. Other manufacturers have figured out a way to incorporate the EV-F without blowing up the size too much, so surely Canon can do the same. One plus is that is the DC-1 will work with several other bodies (some of the Powershot G series cameras), so you may get additional value there.
Do you need the EV-F? It depends on your shooting style and what lenses you are using. The LCD on the M3 is very good. It rarely gets washed out in bright sun, and for general purpose shooting it works very well, particularly because you can tilt it into a useful position. But I discovered when doing the Tamron 18-200 VC review on the EOS M Classic that I didn’t particularly enjoy the experience of shooting telephoto focal lengths with the LCD. The slight refresh lag and inability to completely isolate what’s on the screen with your eye made trying to track anything an exercise in frustration. The EV-F certainly helps with this, and I really like it mounted when I have the 55-200 STM mounted.
It is also very beneficial when shooting manual focus. The EV-F shows true depth of field (like the EG-S focus screen I have in one of my EOS 6D bodies), and the ability to zoom in the EV-F (5x or 10x) plus the addition of Focus Peaking makes getting accurate focus with manual focus lenses quite easy.
If you are mostly going to just use the 11-22mm, 18-55mm, or the 22mm lenses, you may not really need the EV-F at all.
Another important accessory for the system is the EF Adapter. This has been one of the Canon’s main talking points for selling the M system along with their chief excuse for not developing more lenses for it. Virtually any lens that will autofocus on an EF camera will autofocus (at varying speeds) on the EOS M system via the adapter. This includes all the EF-S lenses. This is a big deal for those of us already invested in the Canon ecosystem, as it means that we already have lenses to use on the EOS M/M2/M3 bodies. Not all lenses translate as well to the smaller mount, however, and some lenses are fairly unusable due to slow autofocus or unwieldy size. If you want to use the continual AF Servo focus (particularly in video mode), you will be best served by the STM lenses. They focus more smoothly and much more quietly. A number of other lenses work fairly well in One Shot mode, however, and it is very nice to be able to get a fresh look at some of your lenses. I particularly like the EF-S 24mm f/2.8, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, and 50mm f/1.8 STM lenses on the M system (along with the aforementioned 55-250 STM after the updates). A couple of other nice options are the EF 35mm f/2 IS and EF 85mm f/1.8 lenses. The new Tamron 35mm f/1.8 and 45mm f/1.8 VC lenses work quite nicely, too.
I mentioned earlier in the review that the EF adapter needs some revisiting, however. The process of focus has clearly changed from M Classic to the M3, and the adapter that worked quite well on the M works less well on the M3 despite its more robust AF. A new EF adapter made for the newer M3 would really help breathe life into the process of adapting EF lenses to the system.
One closing note is that the vastly improved grip on the M3 makes using slightly larger/heavier lenses a more natural experience than the M Classic.
Lenses
Another area where Canon has really failed to support the M series in is in EF-M lenses. There are a few good third party lenses in an EF-M mount from Samyang/Rokinon and Tamron, but most people are not looking for manual focus lenses (which accounts for almost all of them save the Tamron 18-200 VC). To date Canon has had but four lenses, though a fifth lens has just been announced alongside the new EOS M10 budget mirrorless (smaller, lighter, and a bit cheaper than the M3. It has the older 18MP sensor rather than the M3’s 24 MP). That lens is the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM. I doubt too many are going to jump up and down over this focal length (although it does correspond to the classic 24-70mm focal length – very useful!) and aperture speed (slow!), but it looks to have a few nice tricks up its tiny sleeves. It is a collapsible zoom, storing at a tiny 1.75″/45.5mm. The 15mm wide end is very nice, equating to 24mm on a 35mm/full frame body – a very useful focal length for landscape work. The EF-M 18-55mm is 2.4″/61mm long and weighs 210g compared to the paltry 130g for the 15-45mm, so the new lens certainly wins for being small and light. I’ve not tested it optically, but thus far all of the EF-M lenses have actually been very good optically. Other lenses include:
EF-M 22mm f/2 STM (so far the only real “must have” for the system. Super small, very light, and optically excellent.)
EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM (Universally acclaimed as a fantastic wide angle lens that punches way above its weight).
EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM (Kit lens that is a little better than the EF-S counterpart, but not exceptional).
EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM (once again this is optically superior to the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM, but at the cost of a slower aperture and smaller zoom range).
You’ll note one glaring problem in this line-up of now five (when the 15-45mm arrives) native lenses – there is a LOT of overlap. The 55-200 STM is only lens to not really share its focal length with another lens in the kit. Furthermore, they are almost all (with the exception of the lone prime) very slow lenses, with the final two hitting a maximum aperture of f/6.3 on the long end. As a result, the 22mm pancake lens remains the lone native option for use in low light shooting. This is one more area where Canon really, really needs to show support for the system. There is no real portrait lens available for the system, nor is there a macro option. These, to me, need to be Canon’s priority in lens development. An equivalent to the excellent EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro could do a reasonable job of addressing both those concerns. I intend to review the new Rokinon 50mm f/1.2 shortly, and I’m personally excited about it, but once again it is a manual focus only lens and simply won’t have broad appeal for most users.
Canon needs to step up its game when it comes to lens development for the EOS M lineup to prove its commitment to mirrorless.
In Conclusion
The Canon EOS M3 remains a bit of a paradox. In many ways it is a far superior camera to where Canon began with the M series, and in many aspects it addresses the concerns that I and other photographers had with the M Classic. But then there are areas where it takes some puzzling steps back. In some ways it feels like a more unfinished camera then the original M despite brilliant strides forwards in some areas. There have always been two distinct advantages for the M series when compared to many other mirrorless cameras: 1) Fabulous image quality and 2) the ability to use more than 70 EF lenses via adapter. Canon has advanced the former advantage (though others have made big strides as well!) but seems to have watered down the latter, at least with the current adapter. Much like the first M, however, the M3 ends up being more than the sum of its parts. It has a really excellent build, ergonomics, and logical design. I really, really like the camera despite its flaws, and just today I went trail running with the M3 and four(!) lenses without hardly noticing the weight at all. Being able to carry such a small camera without feeling like you are compromising your ability to get stunning images remains a very heady experience. (M)3 may not quite be a charm, but keep at it, Canon, you’re getting there!
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52014 in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What do you get when you combine beautiful fall leaves from one maples with a backdrop of another autumn maple? You get an autumn inferno – red, orange, yellow all ablaze in the morning light. I shot the scene with several lens/camera combinations, but surprisingly my favorite came from the combination of an inexpensive telephoto (Canon EF-S 55-250mm STM) and a small mirrorless body (Canon EOS M3). I’ve made only a couple of very minor adjustments to this – it is very close to being SOOC.
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52014 in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
I am putting together the finishing touches on my review of the Canon EOS M3 mirrorless body. Canon’s third “kick at the can” in the mirrorless segment has both incredible strengths and puzzling weaknesses, but the images it can produces are exceptional. This gallery has a mix of images that have received processing and those that came straight out of the camera. The majority of them have had minimal, if any, processing. I’ll be adding review text here shortly. Enjoy!
Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.
Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52014 in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
TTArtisan 75mm F1.5 “Swirl” Gallery 
Earfun Air Pro 4 ANC Earbuds Review 
Viltrox LAB vs Samyang AF – 135mm Battle! 
