Ef-M 18-150mm vs 55-200mm: Ultimate Zoom Showdown

Hey there, fellow photographers! I’ve been shooting with Canon’s mirrorless cameras for years, and today, I want to dive into a comparison of two lenses I’ve used extensively: the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM and the EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM. These lenses are fantastic for Canon’s EOS M series, but they cater to different needs. Whether you’re capturing cityscapes or wildlife, let’s explore how they stack up to help you choose the right one.

I’ve taken these lenses on countless shoots, from bustling city streets to quiet nature trails. The EF-M 18-150mm vs 55-200mm debate often comes down to versatility versus reach. Both have their strengths, and I’ll break down their features to guide your decision. Let’s get started with a quick comparison table.

Ef-M 18-150mm vs 55-200mm Comparison

Comparison Table

Feature	EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM	EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM
Focal Length	18-150mm (28.8-240mm equiv.)	55-200mm (88-320mm equiv.)
Aperture	f/3.5-6.3	f/4.5-6.3
Lens Construction	17 elements in 13 groups	17 elements in 11 groups
Image Stabilization	4 stops	3.5 stops (up to 4.5 empirically)
Closest Focus Distance	0.25m (18-50mm), 0.45m (150mm)	1m
Maximum Magnification	0.31x (at 150mm)	0.21x
Filter Size	55mm	52mm
Weight	300g	260g
Dimensions	60.9 x 86.5mm	60.9 x 86.5mm

Focal Range and Versatility

The 18-150mm lens is a true all-in-one, covering everything from wide-angle to telephoto. On a recent trip to Japan, I brought only this lens with my EOS M5, capturing the vastness of Tokyo’s skyline at 18mm and intricate details of a Zen garden at 150mm without changing lenses. Its 28.8-240mm equivalent range makes it perfect for travel photography, where I need flexibility without the bulk of multiple lenses. It’s ideal for street photography, too, letting me quickly adapt to unfolding scenes.

In contrast, the 55-200mm is a telephoto specialist, offering an 88-320mm equivalent range. Last summer, on an African safari, its 200mm reach let me photograph lions and elephants from a safe distance, bringing the action close without disturbing the animals. It’s indispensable for wildlife or sports photography, where getting physically closer isn’t an option. However, its narrower range means I’d miss wider shots, like landscapes or group photos, unless paired with another lens.

The 18-150mm’s versatility makes it a go-to for general shooting, while the 55-200mm excels when reach is critical. If I’m unsure what I’ll encounter, the 18-150mm stays on my camera. But for specific telephoto needs, the 55-200mm is unmatched.

Image Quality

Both lenses deliver impressive image quality, but their optical characteristics differ slightly. The 18-150mm shows some barrel distortion at 18-24mm, typical for wide-angle lenses, but it’s easily corrected in software like Lightroom. At 150mm, there’s minor pincushion distortion, also correctable. Vignetting appears at f/3.5 but clears by f/5.6. Sharpness is excellent across the frame, especially in the center, with good edge performance even at 150mm. Chromatic aberration is minimal and easily fixed in post-processing.

The 55-200mm has minimal distortion, with slight pincushion at 200mm. Vignetting is present at f/4.5 but disappears by f/8. It’s razor-sharp in the center across its range, though edges soften slightly at 200mm. Chromatic aberration is well-controlled, with minimal fringing even at the longest focal length. In my tests, the 18-150mm has a slight edge in edge sharpness at comparable focal lengths, but the 55-200mm’s center sharpness is outstanding.

For most photographers, both lenses produce images suitable for prints or online sharing. Unless you’re pixel-peeping, the differences are subtle, and both perform admirably for their class.

Build and Design

Both lenses share a sleek, modern design tailored for Canon’s mirrorless cameras. The 18-150mm, at 300g, comes in silver or black, adding a stylish touch—I love the silver on my EOS M5. The 55-200mm, at 260g, is slightly lighter and available in black only. Both have plastic bodies with metal mounts, feeling sturdy yet lightweight, perfect for travel.

The zoom and focus rings are smooth and well-damped, offering precise control. The 18-150mm uses a 55mm filter thread, while the 55-200mm takes 52mm filters, so you’ll need different filters for each. Neither lens is weather-sealed, so I’m cautious in rain or dust. For everyday use, their compact size and balanced feel make them a joy to carry.

Autofocus Performance

The STM (Stepping Motor) autofocus in both lenses is a standout feature. It’s fast, accurate, and nearly silent, making them ideal for video where motor noise could ruin audio. I’ve used both for vlogging, and the smooth focus transitions ensure clean footage. In still photography, they lock onto subjects quickly, even in challenging light, capturing fleeting moments like a child’s smile or a bird in flight.

The 18-150mm feels slightly faster, especially in bright conditions, which is handy for action shots. The 55-200mm is no slouch but can lag slightly with fast-moving subjects. For most scenarios, both deliver reliable performance, whether shooting photos or video.

Image Stabilization

Image stabilization is a lifesaver for handheld shooting. The 18-150mm offers 4 stops of stabilization, allowing me to shoot at 1/30s at 150mm and still get sharp images. This is great for low-light scenes or when I’m traveling without a tripod. When paired with the EOS M5, its Combination IS enhances video stability, reducing shake during walking shots.

The 55-200mm provides 3.5 stops, but in practice, I’ve achieved closer to 4.5 stops, getting sharp shots at 1/125s at 200mm. It also supports Combination IS, making it excellent for video. Both lenses make handheld shooting in dim conditions feasible, though a tripod is still best for very long exposures.

Low Light Performance

Neither lens is a low-light champion due to their variable apertures. The 18-150mm starts at f/3.5 at 18mm, giving it a slight edge for wider shots in dim settings, but both drop to f/6.3 at their telephoto ends. Their image stabilization compensates, letting me use slower shutter speeds—around 1/15s at 18mm for the 18-150mm and 1/30s at 55mm for the 55-200mm.

For indoor events or night photography, I often boost ISO or use external lighting. If low-light performance is critical, I’d recommend a faster prime lens like the EF-M 22mm f/2. Both lenses are still usable in moderate low light, thanks to their stabilization.

Best Use Cases

The 18-150mm is my go-to for versatile shooting scenarios:

• Travel photography: Its wide-to-telephoto range captures landscapes, architecture, and candid moments without lens swaps.
• Street photography: The compact size and flexible focal length let me react quickly to urban scenes.
• Everyday carry: It handles family events, casual walks, or spontaneous shots with ease.
• Vlogging: The wide range and silent autofocus make it perfect for self-shot videos.

The 55-200mm shines in telephoto situations:

• Wildlife photography: Its 200mm reach captures animals from a distance, ideal for safaris or backyard birding.
• Sports photography: It tracks action from the sidelines, like soccer games or track events.
• Portrait photography: Longer focal lengths create flattering compression and bokeh.
• Event photography: It’s great for candid shots without intruding, like at concerts or weddings.

If I’m traveling light, the 18-150mm is my choice. For specific telephoto needs, the 55-200mm is unbeatable.

Additional Considerations

Close-Up Performance

The 18-150mm has a closer minimum focus distance (0.25m at 18-50mm, 0.45m at 150mm) and higher magnification (0.31x) than the 55-200mm (1m, 0.21x). This makes it better for close-up shots, like food or flowers. I’ve used it to capture detailed textures of sushi in Japan, getting impressively close without a macro lens. The 55-200mm struggles with close subjects, so it’s less suited for macro-style photography.

Video Capabilities

Both lenses are excellent for video, thanks to their silent STM autofocus and stabilization. The 18-150mm’s wider range makes it more versatile for dynamic shots, like panning across a landscape or zooming in on a subject. The 55-200mm is better for zoomed-in video, such as interviews or wildlife footage. I’ve used both for short films, and they deliver smooth, professional results.

Compatibility and Future-Proofing

These lenses are designed for Canon’s EF-M mount, exclusive to the EOS M series. They won’t work natively on Canon’s full-frame RF-mount cameras without an adapter, and performance may suffer. If you’re invested in the EOS M system, both are great choices, but consider your long-term gear plans, as Canon’s focus has shifted to RF lenses.

Portability

Both lenses are compact, fitting easily into a small camera bag. The 55-200mm’s lighter weight (260g vs. 300g) is noticeable on long hikes, but the 18-150mm’s versatility often outweighs the extra 40g. I’ve carried both on day trips, and they pair well with the compact EOS M bodies, keeping my kit lightweight.

Lens Hoods and Accessories

The 18-150mm uses the EW-60F lens hood, and the 55-200mm uses the ET-54B, neither included in the box. I recommend getting hoods to reduce flare in bright light. Both accept standard filters (55mm and 52mm), which are affordable and widely available. I always keep a UV filter on to protect the front element.

Decision-Making: Which Lens to Choose?

Choosing between the EF-M 18-150mm vs 55-200mm depends on your photography style. If you’re a traveler or street photographer who values versatility, the 18-150mm is hard to beat. Its 18-150mm range covers most scenarios, from landscapes to portraits, making it ideal for those who prefer a single-lens solution. I’ve used it on trips where I didn’t want to carry extra gear, and it never let me down.

If you shoot wildlife, sports, or events, the 55-200mm’s 200mm reach is a game-changer. It’s perfect for capturing distant subjects, like birds or athletes, with clarity. I’ve used it to photograph deer in my backyard, and the extra reach made all the difference. If you already have a wide-angle lens, like the EF-M 22mm, the 55-200mm complements it perfectly.

Consider your existing gear. If you lack a telephoto lens, the 55-200mm fills that gap. If you’re starting fresh or want one lens for everything, the 18-150mm is more practical. Both are lightweight and pair well with Canon’s mirrorless cameras, so portability isn’t a major factor. Think about what you shoot most—broad scenes or distant subjects—and choose accordingly.

Conclusion

The Canon EF-M 18-150mm and 55-200mm are stellar lenses for Canon’s EOS M cameras. The 18-150mm is a versatile all-in-one, perfect for travel, street, and everyday photography. The 55-200mm excels in telephoto scenarios, ideal for wildlife, sports, and portraits. Reflect on your shooting style—whether you need a broad range or long reach—and pick the lens that fits. Both deliver excellent performance, so you can’t go wrong. Happy shooting!

FAQ

Can these lenses be used on full-frame Canon cameras?
No, they’re designed for the EF-M mount on Canon’s EOS M series. Using them on full-frame RF-mount cameras requires an adapter, but performance may not be optimal.

How do they perform in low light?
Neither lens is fast, with maximum apertures of f/3.5 and f/4.5 at their widest. Their image stabilization allows slower shutter speeds, but for very dim conditions, a faster prime lens is better.

Are these lenses weather-sealed?
No, neither has weather sealing. Avoid using them in rain or dusty environments to prevent damage.

Which is better for video?
Both are great for video due to silent STM autofocus and stabilization. The 18-150mm’s wider range offers more flexibility, while the 55-200mm excels for zoomed-in shots.

What’s the build quality like?
Both have plastic bodies with metal mounts, typical for consumer lenses. They’re sturdy for daily use but not as robust as professional lenses. Handle with care in rough conditions.

How do they compare for close-up photography?
The 18-150mm’s closer focus distance (0.25m vs. 1m) and higher magnification (0.31x vs. 0.21x) make it better for close-ups, like food or flowers. The 55-200mm is less suited for macro work.

Are they future-proof for Canon’s mirrorless systems?
They’re designed for the EOS M system, not Canon’s newer RF mount. If you plan to upgrade to RF cameras, consider RF lenses instead, as adapters may limit performance.