The Canon EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM is a standard lens for APS-C, manufactured from 2015. The focus is done by Lens AF motor (Stepper Motor), it has image stabilization. The average price, when it has been added to the JuzaPhoto database, is 266 €;
15 users have given it an average vote of 8.5 out of 10.
This lens is available with the following mounts:
Canon EOS M: this lens is compatible with mirrorless APS-C Canon EOS M.
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 195000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Pros:Compactness, weight, colors, stabilization, focal equivalent to 24-70, cost.
Cons:None, bearing in mind the market share to which it is addressed. Maybe the ring of manual focus very narrow, but you get used to it.
Opinion:Taken in kit with the m50 I initially set it aside to make room for the Sigma 30mm F1.4 because I preferred its greater sharpness and brightness. In the meantime for the wider focal points I used on loan a 17-50 L f4 but when returning it, which unfortunately always comes, I had fond of the wide-angle side and so I reassembled it on the machine and automatically re-evaluated it (or maybe evaluated really for the first time). First of all, the weight, just over 100g (!) and the compactness, fit perfectly to the size of the m50 (unlike any fantastic lens of the L series). It seems to be going around with a compact when you actually have a 24 mp apsc and a 24-70 equivalent, and the real 24mm on apsc are not bad at all. To make street is perfect, the whole thing is in a pocket and you go virtually unnoticed while hanging it around your neck: I imposed the remote shot from the mobile phone and I shoot on the street pretending to be lobotomized from the phone, which is easy since I really am. On the sharpness has already been said all in the excellent review of Simone that precedes this, I could not say better. As for the colors the yield is excellent, right from Canon, and in this one looks a lot like the beautiful 22 and the 32 (but they are not stabilized and what you earn in the opening you lose it in time...). The Sigma achieves impressive sharpness but the colors are much cooler, there is no comparison in the slightest. It's amazing how goals affect the rendering of colors with the same body machine, I always wonder... As I wrote in the cons, it is clear that it is an economic kit objective but contextualizing it in the market segment to which it draws, newbies or little more, it is in my opinion an excellent object, small, light and with an optical yield more than dignified. I'll take a 16-35 L f4 is soon but I won't give it away anyway given the huge comfort that is unparalleled.
Pros:Compact and light, pleasant to carry (cluttered little more than a pancake when it is pictured). Sharp in the middle, good sharpness at half-distance. Distortion reduced to all LF (amazing for such a small lens). AF very fast and usually accurate. 24 (25) mm equivalents available in a kit lens (rare fact!)
Cons:Severe decay of sharpness at the edges, whether used at full opening or just under. Important violet color aberration.
Opinion:Great lens kit, offers much more than it costs. As the days went by to try it on my M100, I thought about him again. At first I was crushed by the kneading of the edges, and I immediately thought to discard it. Over time, however, I realized its many merits. The edges are scarce at all LF (especially around 15 mm) but only at full opening or little more. Closed by about 1 stop becomes acceptable even at the edges, and almost excessively sharp in the center. To get a uniform image from the center to the periphery, you need to close more (but I must note that the Digital Goal Optimizer feature of the Canon DPP software does its dirty work in compensating for sharpness at the edges, great). On the edges of the objects there are strong violet bands in strong light situations, as is typical of all kit lenses, but the correction in the camera or in RAW is great, removes them entirely. The flaws end here! The construction is good although made of plastic (right the cap is big and low quality). The fact that it has to be stretched (unlocked) in order to use it even at 15 mm I do not see it as a defect, the movement takes only 1 second and you gain a lot in transportability. I was impressed by the reduced distortion at all focal lengths (which is always barrel and drops from 15 to 45 mm): by comparison the excellent Nikon 24-120 f4, for example, is horrible. I don't feel the need to fix it in software. In backlight situations I seem to resist well the flare, even without lampshade (optional). The AF is fast and reliable thanks to Canon's Dual Pixel mechanism, if it makes a mistake it does so little (it's not foolproof, but you can forgive it for this range of optics). The stabilizer is good, not impressive, for example by holding the car still you can shoot without the slightest move at 31 mm (eq. 50 mm) at 1/4", recovering 3.5 stops as stated in the datasheet (and this is a HUGE advantage in night photos or with little light , compared to the "best" 22 mm pancake not stabilized, which should be opened from f5.6 to f1.8 to shoot with the same ISO!). Finally, it should be noted that the equivalent LF of 24 mm (for comparison, it seems more like a 25 mm) is usually available only in pro or fixed lenses, so it is an honorable mention (the 15 mm should be used NOT at full opening). In conclusion, a kit lens with very interesting characteristics, and that even an experienced amateur like me is brought to maintain, instead of replacing it with a pair of fixed optics (as I did instead on the Olympus PEN for the 14-42mm II R, which at the same price does not hold comparison on nothing). Vote 9, since it is a good optics but practically given along with the machine body (otherwise I would give 8). I would be curious to try the older EF-M 18-55 to see if it is sharper at the edges, but from different reviews on the net I read that they are virtually identical, and at this point, although very dark from 35 to 45, I think to hold the 15-45. However, many American reviews have shown a wide variability in the performance of both obese kits (1/2 of "bad" copies and 1/2 of "good"); I was afraid at first that mine was "bad", but canon assistance does not seem to detect anomalies from the photos I sent them, and on the European market are not reported faulty copies (kit bought new in physical store).
Pros:As a lens in kits I would say very good, light and stabilized and especially closed a pelino is clear all right.
Cons:The X button unlocking it I find it uncomfortable but I'll get used to it, clearly dark but it is normal like many others.
Opinion:I want to break a spear on this lens that I took in the kit with the M50 (only body cost me more... why??), and that I left Incelopanato until last week as I had the 18-150, 22 and 50. Well on the 18-150 I never had much feeling but for the little sharpness that from. Well I was astounded when I did the same photos, at 18mm (F/4) and at 35 (f/5.6) and at 45mm (F. 8) and what about the 15-45 is a lot sharper than the 18-150, it is clear that it should be closed a bit but also the 18-150, but at the same focal and aperture there is no comparison , and think that I tried to sell it on 15-45 and in a month I have not sold... well I have made many tests, and I sold the 18-150 in 2 days, OK I no longer have a mini tele, but at Max when I need the 55-200 is always at very little , but x the photos I do lately I do not need. I do not talk about construction etc, but only of sharpness, the 22mm f/2 is sharper clearly but not stabilized, with the 15-45 shooting at 1/8 second and is perfect... with the 22.... Well...... let it be... as a kit lens I think it's really good. Now I'm aiming the Canon 17-55 F/2.8 and the Tamron 35mm F/1.8VC, then I'll reevaluate the whole thing.
Opinion:I was hesitant about this lens in outfit with Eos M50... but then it turned out a good goal, with focal corresponding to a 24-72, I returned clear photos, good quality.. Objective to be managed by the camera (MF and is)... so laborious if you want to shoot in MF.. or remove the stabilizer... For the rest his duty does...
Pros:compactness, weight, sharpness at medium distances, price if purchased in Kit, AF, and is a 24-70mm, some say it's dark, find me a 24-70 also with F/4.0 weighing 130 gr.
Cons:Not sharp at the minimum distance and long distances, the key is missing to deactivate the stabilizer, however I prefer it to 18-55 not only for the wide angle, but also for overall quality.
Opinion:Recommended if purchased in kits, I was pleasantly surprised at the overall quality expressed by an optics 15-45 F 3.5-6.3 from A.C. €60 in kit, I never hung the 18-55, bought only because some cameras were cheaper with the lens in kits that With the body alone. of negative I find that the focus at the minimum distance is able to have a good magnification ratio, but with decay of quality, as well as in long distances. To conclude I find it overall excellent, for quality, price, and focal excursion starting from 15mm, if then one considers it unsatisfactory, there are the EF with other costs and weights. Recommended for an amateur and carefree use.
The sample photos are selected automatically between all photos posted by JuzaPhoto members, using the camera and the lens selected in the techs. If you find evident errors (e.g. photos taken with cameras and lenses that are not available yet), you can contribute to improve the page by sending a private message to the user that has entered incorrect values in the photo caption.