Canon 18-200 lens - best to go for?

<p>After about two months of looking into what I should buy for my first non-kit lens, my eyes are starting to go a bit funny...</p>

<p>I decided I wanted to get the Canon 18-200 first (I use an EOS 450D), but I'm getting confused about whether to stick to that choice - partly because it doesn't seem to be available anywhere, and partly because it's so much more expensive than close Sigma or Tamron lenses.</p>

<p>I don't suppose anyone has any advice to offer? There doesn't seem to be a review of the 18-200 on here so it's hard for me to tell what might be the benefits of going for the Canon lens (beyond obvious differences in speed or image stabiliser, etc).</p>

<p>I'd be really grateful for any thoughts or experience - thanks very much!</p>

<p>Kate</p>

<p>Kate,</p>

<p>The 18-200mm is a "one lens" solution. That is, it covers the full range and then some that most people use for most of their shots. To cover this range on a single lens involves some necessary compromises, since, as Hepburn said, "You can't have it all." This is not a criticism of the lens, but a recognition of natural laws of optics, etc. <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/400-canon_18200_3556is?start=2">Photozone.de</a> had fairly harsh words for it:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Canon lens has a couple of weak spots. At 18mm the border resolution is soft and heavy vignetting, extreme barrel distortion and CA problems don't help either. The situation improves significantly at 24mm and 50mm before deteriorating again towards the long end of the range. ... with the EOS 50D the lens is somewhat outdated straight from the start. Better look elsewhere unless you still intend to use an older generation DSLR for a while.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photozone.de has reviews of other lenses at the site also, just go back to home from the link above.</p>

<p>I suspect that you would in fact be very happy with the lens, even so. It certainly has to be one of the handiest for all-round shooting, being an even longer lens of the same type as the more expensive (and more liked by reviewers) EF-S 15-85mm IS lens.</p>

<p>On the other hand, one reason for using a dSLR is that you have interchangeability of lenses. For a modest price, you could simply add the EF-S 55-250mm IS lens, a lens that is far better than its price would suggest.<br>

For a heck of a lot more money, but much faster and much higher optical quality (but covering essentially the same range you have with the kit lens) you might want to look at the EF-S 17-55mm IS f/2.8 (ca. US$1000).</p>

<p>Thanks very much JDM! </p>

<p>Anyone any experience of Sigma or Tamron equivalents, and whether I'd regret spending less and not getting the Canon?</p>

<p>There are a few rules in photography you learn immediately.</p>

<p>-You get what you pay for.<br>

-Longer zoom ranges, while convenient, have less image quality.</p>

<p>If you are wanting convenience, get the 18-200mm. If you are wanting the best image quality, get either primes or short range zooms. Also, if you get all these focal lengths for such a great price, there is something lacking somewhere or all the pros would have them.</p>

<p>i always hear its better to compliment your kit lens with a 55 - 250 than replacing it with an ultrazoom (assuming you have the 18 - 55 is kit lens). you get better IQ and longer reach what you lose is constant lens changes (which to my opinion is minimal) <br>

in case you still want a ultrazoom<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-200_3p5-5p6_is_c16/">dpreview</a> has a good review on the canon, pointing out its advantages and disadvantages<br>

Christian</p>

<p>Kate,</p>

 

<p>There are vanishingly few good reasons to prefer an SLR with a superzoom over a P&S with a

superzoom. If your photography is well suited to a superzoom, put some serious consideration into a

P&S. For a few generations, now, they’ve offered superlative image quality at the sizes

most people print at. And, they’re smaller, cheaper, and often more user-friendly.</p>

 

<p>If you need the additional image quality (or other properties) of an SLR, chances are excellent

you’d be better served with a standard zoom in the 18-ish to 55-ish range plus a telephoto in the

70-ish to 200-ish range. (Don’t worry about the “gap” between the two focal length

ranges. You’ll probably never even notice it, and it’s trivial to work around it if you ever

do.)</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>Kate,<br>

Here is my Flickr set using the 450D with the EF-S 55-250 IS. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/stanmeador/sets/72157622937861704/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/stanmeador/sets/72157622937861704/</a><br>

You can take a look at what I've been able to get out of the combination. The lens suits me just fine and I can't, at this time, justify spending the $$$ on the 70-200 2.8 that I would replace it with.<br>

I have had no problems switching lenses and horror of horrors even switch at the beach sometimes. The 450D has the built in lens cleaning that knocks the dust off. So far, I haven't had to knock sand off. So, switching lenses will become second nature with practice.<br>

Anyway, I hope this helps a little with your decision.<br>

DS Meador</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone any experience of Sigma or Tamron equivalents, and whether I'd regret spending less and not getting the Canon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com">www.dpreview.com</a> has a lens review section that list the Canon, Sigma, and Tamron lenses. However you won't find Sigma or Tamron lenses to be significantly better. Getting good optical quality from such a long zoom range (11 for the Canon) is just not possible. For those who are concerned more with convience than optical quality a supper zoom is perfect for their needs.</p>

<p>However if you look at the kit of a photographer that is mainly concerned with image quality you will probably find zooms line the Canon 24-70, 70-200, and 17-40. You probably won't find a supper zoom. The zoom range for all of these lenses is less that 3 (70/24=2.9) and all get excellent reviews. I have 4 Canon L zooms, For 2 with a zoom range of 3 or less I would have to look very hard to find any optical issues in the images they produce. Often I cannont find any. My other 2 have a zoom range of 4. In both I have seem optical issues. But they are small and most people wouldn't notice them. </p>

<p>The 18-200, while convenient as far as the zoom range is concerned, is not exactly small. So you might want to look at adding the 55-250 IS to your kit for that reason alone. The main issue, however, is this: What will you do with your images? Unless you do print large, don't worry about the 18-200 not being sharp enough.</p>

<p>I have a Tamron 18-270 VR. It compares well with the Canon 18-200. The Canon focuses faster, the Tamron has more reach, image quality is about the same. It's very handy when I want to only pack one lens, but I think I agree with Ben Goren; there are few reasons to get a DSLR with a superzoom instead of a point & shoot with a superzoom. Image quality is decent enough if you are not being picky, but the same is true of the point & shoot. There are some advantages, but usually, if I'm wanting to only pack one lens with the DSLR, I would rather just pack a point & shoot.</p>

<p>For me, the only way a superzoom lens makes sense is if you already have good lenses and are wanting a one lens solution for times when you want to pack light, and are willing to accept the quality loss.</p>