EF-S 18-200f3.5-5.6 IS USM?

[marcomariano]

unlike nikon and sigma, why canon doesnt or cant produce this kind of zoom lens?

 

to think they allready done it twice with 35-350L and 28-300L. but these two

lens is more suitable for FF.

[andrew robertson]

Maybe because they're not that great?

 

Do it all, all in one mega wonder zooms are about the lowest quality lenses you can get,

unless they are huge and cost thousands.

[danielransom]

I have a Tamron 18-200mm Di II. It is very usable for casual all round shooting, indoors

and outdoors. I have enjoyed it's results for several years. It is, however, not nearly as

good a lens as my Canon EF-S IS 17-55mm 2.8 USM. For paying gigs I use the 17-55, and

am looking to outfit my bag with complementary L lenses up to 400mm. Canon does make

a 28-200mm 3.5-5.6. I don't know anything about it, but it may answer some of your

considerations.

I'm with you though. I'm wishing for a 10-400mm L series f1.0 USM IS lens, with

symmetrical and asymmetrical elements, titanium construction, weighing 9 ounces, inner

focus system, fully weather and dust proofed, costing $999.00 (or less). Help me if I left

out something,

[marcomariano]

haha... i like your concept.

really now, i love photog but i'm not into pro like. i know thats the beauty of dslr, you can choose the lens for a specific type of scene. portrait, sports, wildlife, marco, etc... but my own reason for choosing dslr is image quality and speed. and IMHO, super zooms is still better than highend pns in terms of IQ.

[jimstrutz]

<I>"but my own reason for choosing dslr is image quality and speed."</I>

<P>

But of course, that's not what you get with a superzoom. Image quality suffers some (although, they are getting better), and they are far from fast with apertures of f/6.3 on the long end. Focusing slows down, and so does the shutter. The real reason people buy superzooms is the convenience of a one lens solution that still provides a reasonably good experience. Still, one has to acknowledge that adding a $400 superzoom to a DSLR does limit it's effectiveness, and IQ in normal light is no longer significantly better than a good P&S digicam. Adding a superzoom lens to an existing DSLR kit can expand its usefulness, but getting one as an only lens might be considered questionable economics.

<P>

Yes, people do it all the time, and camera companies love it, but that doesn't make it a great idea. What you gain with a DSLR with a superzoom lens is less digital noise at high ISO, and a viewfinder that actually works - sorta - maybe. How much is that worth to you?

<P>

Canon's 28-200 is often rated at the bottom of the pack of similar lenses when it comes to image quality, and also costs too much. I'm not so sure they know how to make a 18-200 as good as Tamron at anything close to the same price point.

[yakim_peled1]

No offence but why do you ask us? I mean, did you really think any of us would actually know?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[johnson_d.]

We know. If Canon felt this were a worthwhile market to go after they would've gone after it. At the present time, they don't. It's as simple as that.

[yakim_peled1]

That is indeed a reasonable assumption but as you are not a Canon's executive, please forgive me if I take your assumption with a grain of salt.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.