Why no 18-200 IS ?

A relative of mine is going to switch from EOS (1.3x digi) to Nikon so that he

can get a 18-200 stabilized, and it's a move that I find very understandable.

What I don't quite understand is why Canon is not producing such a lens.

 

Technical difficulties ? Nikon as a company has much less resources, yet they've

done it. Their 18-200 VR is the workhorse of several full-time photographers

that I know. Marketing ? Almost two years after the introduction of their

18-200, the demand is so high that Nikon can barely make enough of them. People

would likely be paying more for this lens than a 18-55 + 55-200.

I seriously doubt that it's technical difficulties....but some type of marketing decision. But I for one could not imagine switching brands just to get a slow all-in-one hyper zoom...VR/IS or not.

The Nikon 18-200VR is all about versatility and decent image quality. My copy is sharp. With the crop factor of my D200 I have an image stabilized 300mm lens that focuses to about 18 inches. I can go from shooting close-ups of flowers to shooting wild horses in the desert and not have to change lenses and the image quality is good. I also use a 5D and just ordered a 40D, but will keep the Nikon combo. Canon is missing the boat here.

There is a 18-200, its the Sigma. With an OS version coming out soon.

Photozone's review of the Sigma is rather disappointing, so that doesn't seem to be an option.

 

To be heretical, I'd say get a Pentax/Sony + Tamrom 18-250 instead. Should be the least expensive stabilized DSLR/hyperzoom set.

Because they have the 28-300mm L IS

 

Jason

Because the 18-200 isn't all that great a lens. It's quite good for a 11x superzoom, and makes a great backpacking/hiking/vacation lens, but I'd not give up a pro body (As indicated by the OP's friend using 1.3x) for a decent consumer lens.

 

Now I could use a D40X/18-200VR kit as a 'other bag' kit, for when I don't want to carry a lot of stuff.

"But I for one could not imagine switching brands just to get a slow all-in-one hyper zoom...VR/IS or not."

 

Amen. All the hyper zooms are about decent quality and convenience. If you're willing to settle for "decent" quality, there options within the Canon lineup, Jason points out the 28-300 IS. Also, some of the better P&Ss are also about decent quality and convenience. Switching systems for one lens, a highly compromised lens at that, seems...silly, because I can't think of a better word.

The advantage of SLR is you can change and use different lenses. If you want one lens solution, it may be better to stick with a super zoom DC.

So Canon people thought "let's not make a 18-200, our users, unlike Nikonians, are too discriminating and won't buy such a lens".

 

The 28-300 is useful only on FF, and yet it is such a brick that I'd hate to have it as an everyday lens. In fact, most of the time I leave my 70-200/2.8L (which is about the same size and weight as the 28-300) home, for a 70-300, even though some might say it is not "that great a lens".

 

BTW, this should have been 1.6x, not 1.3x (sorry, never used any of those myself :-)).

18-200 is a very broad range and my guess is that with such a broad zoom range the image quality suffers. So Canon may get a lot of entry level people buying this type of lens but will not find old customers switching to or stepping up to this lens. They seem to be wanting people to buy their "good" stuff and sure enough over the years the "better" comes along and the cycle continues.

 

Currently a lot of people are switching to SLR's from point and shoot cameras and must be finding a broad range zoom very irresistible. But soon enough the photography bug will bite them and they will want better lenses. If that does not happen they will leave the bulkiness of SLR and go back to point and shoot. Point and shoot are getting quite nice these days and with G9 you even get RAW.

 

This is also the reason why I think Canon is not coming up with Nikon D40 equivalent. Anyway, just my $0.02.

The Nikon 18-200VR has been fetching $800-$1000, so newbies aren't likely to line up to buy it. It has been in short supply because it delivers versatility and quality images.

What some folks don't realize is that it's not an all or nothing situation. Just because you use an 18-200 doesn't mean you can't use any other lenses.

<p>

I've been a Nikon shooter for over 30 years. I just recently bought my own 5D with the 24-105 lens. Aside from some better noise handling at ISOs above 800, I'm not sure it was worth the price when compared to my D200 with the 18-200 attached.

<p>

And now with the announcement of the D300...well, even the noise issue might be moot.

The problem lies with the focal range, IMO.

 

Nikon, Sigma and Tamron have all made 18-200 lenses, and from what I've seen each have their share of sharpness problems after, say...105-130 range.

 

I agree with others that the 18-200 is a decent lens for travel and other things because of its range (why, I took an 18-200 to China with me in 2006...before I joined the darkside of L series glass owning)...but if image quality and sharpness at all focal ranges is more important to you, you'd probably have two (or more) specific lenses to capture that focal range.

 

Also, a 5.6 widest aperture at the longer ranges really is limiting what you are able to even capture properly with the lens. And these lenses are SLOW!

 

So, bottom line (IMO)...it comes down to quality of image versus convenience of 18-200.

 

Cheers.

Quang-Taun,

 

Why do you say 28-300 is only good on FF. Some folk feel it is better on crop sensor due too somewhat low corner sharpness below 40mm on full frame sensor

 

Jason

I've been using the 35-350 (stone-age ancestor of the 28-300) on a 350D and 1Dmk2 with superb results. The images from the 350D printed up to A3 look stunning and rival the output from the same lens on the 1DsMk2. Nothing wrong with superzooms as far as I'm concerned.

>>> What I don't quite understand is why Canon is not producing such a lens. <<<

 

Because the TRD has gone into both 135 digital format, and the APS-C format.

 

And when the tough gets going, photographers will opt for 135 format; and existing zooms, rather than APS-C and an 11x slow hyper-zoom.

 

That would be my answer if I were Head of Marketing and / or TRD.

 

WW

By all accounts the Nikon 18-200 VR is a good lens. Not the best Nikon lens sold, but surprisingly good, and certainly better than the lower priced competition. There are even a few wedding photographers using it. I wish Canon did make a similar lens. I might even buy one. But...

 

Canon's attempt with their mid range 28-200 was a dismal disappointment when compared to both Sigma and Tamron equivalents. What makes anyone think they would do better with a mid priced 18-200 IS? I'm sure they could, but would they? I doubt it. Canon has their priorities and evidently this class of glass isn't one of them.

>>> this class of glass isn't one of them <<<

 

Iambic pentameter?

My main gear is Canon 5D & Canon lenses. The only reason I still keep my D200 is the convenience of the 18-200mm VR as a walk-around kit.