Canon 18-200mm Lens Best Prices!
 |
Canon 18-200mm Lens Best Prices!.
Product: Canon 18-200mm Lens Amazon Price: Too low to display Availability: In Stock |
Compare Prices on Canon 18-200mm Lens
Having ancient the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLR's for about two years now, this is the perfect focal length range for consume as a day-to-day walkabout lens on my Canon 40D. Other Canon gear that I have include their suitable EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, their razor-sharp EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DO IS, the L-grade-sharpness EF 100mm f/2.8 macro, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 macro, and MR-14EX macro ring lite.
In uncouth light or wider-angle scenery shots, this lens is not as titillating as my 17-55mm f/2.8. When primitive to photograph macro-like shots of butterflies and flowers, it is not as interesting as my 100mm f/2.8. When feeble at its 200mm lens to focus onto distant birds and turtles sitting on a stone in a pond, it is not as attractive as my 70-200mm f/4L. But as a one-lens solution for covering that kind of focal lengths, it is handsome qualified. On sunny days, I spend this lens on a 40D with a B&W multi-coated MRC Kaesemann Circular Polarizer. I reflect this to be a very useful hiking/travel/walkabout lens. This is my first experience with a Canon lens that does not exhaust USM, and the micro-motor is slightly slower and noisier than USM... but not lustrous what to request, I was expecting even slower focusing and, in most situations, I found its focus accelerate totally adequate - collected very hastily and without any back-and-forth hunting in lower lighting. But my main gripe about this lens is that Canon did not exercise USM (who knows what kind of marketing decisions went into this, considerable as I wondered why the 40D had a 3.0-inch LCD but kept the same 230,000 pixels as the 2.5-inch LCD on the 30D - one of my main gripes with the 40D) . For the label, Canon should have included USM with full-time manual focusing. But I did contemplate that the trace has dropped by more than 60 dollars since I bought the lens less than three weeks ago.
The exhaust of a zoom lock switch to prevent lens stride is a very welcome addition that I always wished that their 17-85mm lens also had. Because of the 11 lens elements in this lens, it slides out to a zoomed length far more than my 17-85mm lens does when the camera is pointing downward and slung around my neck and/or shoulder. Other superzooms have this same lens accelerate quandary and this is likely a accomplish compromise that the Canon engineers had to assume in detached wanting to minimize the amount of friction and pains it takes to turn the zoom ring versus the propensity of the lens elements' weight to pull the zoom downward due to gravity. I have learned to always flick the zoom lock switch on when I am unprejudiced carrying the camera, swiftly flick the zoom lock switch off as I originate to aim and focus (after a short while, it becomes easily habitual to exhaust the middle or ring finger of my accurate hand to lock/unlock the zoom lock switch while aiming), and to honest maintain the camera more horizontal if I am actively looking to photograph more. The lens does not rotate during focusing, so circular polarizer filters quit in station.
Unlike Canon's USM lenses, the micro-motor focus make of this lens does not allow you to override the autofocus mechanism until you first flip the AF/MF switch on the lens. Furthermore, while the 17-85mm lens lets you utilize both the focus ring and zoom ring when the lens hood is inverted on the lens, on the 18-200mm lens, since the focus ring is now placed at the very front of the lens (and in front of the much-wider zoom ring), when its Canon EW78D Lens Hood for EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 Canon SLR Lens (not included with the lens) is inverted, the lens hood's "petals" block most of the zoom ring and I have to employ my middle finger and thumb to arrive in between the hood petals to rotate the focus ring when the hood is screwed on in its inverted location. I would have powerful preferred that Canon maintain the same focus-ring-closer-to-camera-body beget that they passe on the 17-85mm. But since I mainly expend manual focus on my two 65mm and 100mm macro lenses, this is not that tremendous of a deal for me.
At both 18mm and 200mm wide inaugurate, the image corners can be a limited on the soft side, but when stopped down between f/5.6 and f/11, the image is attractive from edge to edge. But even Canon's 28-300mm L glass, which is also f/3.5-5.6, has its fragment of accomplish compromises and sharpness issues in a superzoom lens execute. So I mediate that any lens encompassing this sort of zoom range will be tripping over the physical limitations of what can be achieved when compared with a lens with a smaller zoom range. A 18-200mm lens at a fixed f/2.8 with USM and L-grade glass and weather sealing in a lens that weighs less than 3 pounds would be unbelievable, and I would gladly pay a lot more for it as single-lens travel/walkabout lens solution, but that product tranquil only exists in my dreams moral now.
This 18-200mm lens will now execute my 17-85mm lens the least-used lens that I have, so I may eventually ruin up selling the 17-85mm lens.
I have posted 3 sample shots taken at Denver Botanic Gardens and 19 shots from having spent over 3 weeks in South Africa to the image gallery for this lens.
I've had the Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS lens for several months and found it to give sharper images with my 40D than the Tamron 18-250mm (non-IS/OS) which it replaced. Then along comes Canon with their believe superzoom "disappear lens" so I bought one to ogle how it compares to the Sigma. My tests expose mixed results regarding image quality. With both lenses wide launch the Sigma wins at the wide demolish from 18-24mm, especially away from the center, while the Canon wins at the 135-200mm long destroy, also especially away from the center. Further, the Sigma is f6.3 wide originate at 200mm while the Canon is f5.6. This is only a shrimp disagreement, but it does give the Canon even more advantage at 200mm where shutter race needs to be the highest.
Both lenses auto-focus accurately (no front or befriend focus) although the Sigma is slower to lock focus in coarse light and is a exiguous noisier in getting there. Their IS/OS are equally effective at about 3 stops of compensation. Make quality, size and weight are about the same and both expend the same 72mm filter size. Sigma includes a lens hood while Canon wants to sell you one.
In summary, the Canon is slightly better for me due to the faster and quieter low-light focus and improved telephoto image quality. The trade-off is poorer image quality than the Sigma for wide angle shots, even after stopping down. Finally, the Canon lens costs about $200 more than the Sigma at this time.
I started out with the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 and the thing would honest not focus correctly. I went through two copies and detached didn't procure a proper one. Then I switched to the Canon 18-200 IS lens and am positive tickled I did. The comparison is apples to oranges because the lenses are different fundamentally so buy it for what it is. I do miss the hastily f2.8 of the Tamron but for a carry around lens the 18-200 rules the roost IMO. The focus is tack enchanting 95% of the time. I judge at least 3% of that is due to the camera choosing an unintended focus point when I have it in 9 point focus mode. If you are looking for a lens that will focus perfectly almost every time then this is a gracious choice (among other reasons) .
I'm very tickled with this lens, the IS works as advertised. Would not hesitate to recommend to anyone looking for a sterling all around carry lens.
One label, if you are putting this on a Canon XSi or similar miniature body DSLR this lens weighs more than the body. It is a heavy lens but I wouldn't judge that as a deterrent. Acquire the Canon battery grip to add more bulk and weight to the body and it evens out nicely.
