p.1 #1 · Sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 17-85 IS vs Canon 18-200 IS
I just upgraded from a 20D to a 40D and am new reassessing my lens. I have a 24-105 L that has stayed on my 20D 99% of the time. I've had a 17-85 IS that I use only when I need a wider lens. It has barrel distortion on the wide end but it cleans up nicely with PTLens. I had thought about selling it and buying the Tamron 18-200 for a do-it-all vacation lens. But now I see Sigma has a 18-200 OS. And then Canon's coming out with their 18-200 IS. What to do? I've been please with the performance of the 17-85 IS though but, why not sell it for the 18-200 OS or wait for the 18-200 IS. What to do?
Also, I had a 100-400 IS L for several years and sold it earlier this year since I don't use it that often. I've planned to replace it with the newer 70-300 IS as a less expensive zoom.
So, for those of you that have played with some of the lens that have come out in the last couple of years since I was heavily into this, what would you do? Of course, it would be nice to have a Canon 18-300 IS F4 L that does everything I need with few compromises Yes, I know that's only a fantasy
BTW, I don't see my 24-105 L going anywhere. I love that lens!
p.1 #2 · Sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 17-85 IS vs Canon 18-200 IS
if you want wider than your 24 then why not look at any of the Ultra wides for crops efs10-22 etc. or just get the 18-55 is + possibly the 55-250 is Both are reguarded as being quite good. Yes I can see some merit in getting a do it all lens but more than likely you all ways feel that you could have done better with the L
As for the 70-300 I have 1 and its a great lens but not as good as the 100-400 (I had that also and sold it as I thought I didn't need it and regreted it) Also if you were going to get the 70-300 why bother with the 18-200? the lens is not that heavy
p.1 #3 · Sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 17-85 IS vs Canon 18-200 IS
The 70-300 IS would be an addition to my lens collection. The 18-200 would replace the 17-85. I just thought that I could make the 17-85 more versitle by replacing it with the 18-200. Any idea when the Canon 18-200 IS might be available? It's likely to hurt the value of the 17-85 and Sigma when it comes out, making buying one now a bad decision.
p.1 #4 · Sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 17-85 IS vs Canon 18-200 IS
You have an excellent mid-range lens in the 24-105L. Why would you want to replace that range with a compromise ultra-zoom lens? If convenience is the #1 factor, then go for it, though no 18-200 is going to be perfect. Otherwise I will second the suggestion that you just get a good wide angle, especially if you plan to get a 70-300 IS. Either something like the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, or an ultra-wide like the Canon 10-22.
10-22,
24-105L
70-300
That essentially covers 10-300 very nicely with the 3 very good lenses, whereas a 18-200 will cover 18-200 adequately.
p.1 #5 · Sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 17-85 IS vs Canon 18-200 IS
I also had the 10-22 for some time. I found that I didn't need to go that wide and couldn't justify the investment. 17 or 18 is as wide as I need to go. The 70-300 IS would hopefully be a decent addition to my collection that would give me back at least some of the reach I had with the 100-400. The appeal of the 18-200 IS is to have a convenient do-it-all lens to take on vacation. In no way is it meant to replace the 24-105. But I can still see me getting dissatisfied and going back to the L lens.
So I guess the real question is...Would the 18-200 IS have comparable performance to the 17-85 within the same focal range.
p.1 #7 · Sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 17-85 IS vs Canon 18-200 IS
Well since I actually own a 18-200 OS plus had the non OS version I have an informed opinion, and it is that if you were reasonably pleased by the 17-85 then based on my version of that lens the Sigma is a better lens at the wide end plus offers the one lens does MOST everything travel lens you seem to want. I use mine a lot, on a 40D, and also have a 17-40L and 24-105L, plus a few other good lenses, and still use the Sigma a lot. If you want I have some downloadable samples (full file) from the combination (action shots too) here. http://picasaweb.google.com/cicopo/Mosport40DSigma18200OSLens?authkey=RsmCpsdXW0U#
p.1 #8 · Sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 17-85 IS vs Canon 18-200 IS
I currently have the Sigma 18-200 OS, and I can say i'm pleased with it's performance.
Though it is hardly perfect, I agree that it is indeed very convenient when you don't really need super sharp images. In my experience though, it will hunt a lot in low light situations and will sometimes backfocus.
Go try it out yourself, but I'd wait for the canon version, I'm waiting on that myself.
The other problem with buying an ultrazoom to cover your wide angle needs is that even when you are in a situation where convenience is not a concern, you don't have a good lens in that 17ish range. The ultrazooms all have pretty massive distortions at the wide end.
p.1 #11 · Sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 17-85 IS vs Canon 18-200 IS
The wide end of the Sigma isn't any worse (mine were both better) than the 17-85 which is why I say that if the 17-85 was acceptable the Sigma will be too.
p.1 #12 · Sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 17-85 IS vs Canon 18-200 IS
Hi Everyone.
I recently purchased the Sigma 18-200MM OS. I think its an very nice do it all lens, for the price. I would recommend it. I previousely owned the Sigma 18-125 and 18-200 (non OS). The 18-125, seemed the sharpest of the lot on a tripod. The OS, OS off, on a tripod, beat the 18-200 non OS. For the money, as a all around lens, the 18-200 OS is a winner. My opinion, of course.
Cheers
Harry
p.1 #13 · Sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 17-85 IS vs Canon 18-200 IS
Last year I owned the Tamron 18-200... it was lightweight, fairly sharp in daily use but it's construction was not really solid. Also the F6.3 was just a bit too slow for my needs. So I sold it. But I really missed the focal length. This week I bought the Canon 18-200 IS F5.6. I am VERY happy with it! It is solid construction, sharp! Very pleased with it... It reminds me of the Canon 28-200 but on steriods!
p.1 #14 · Sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 17-85 IS vs Canon 18-200 IS
The sigma 18-200 OS is a good all-around/vacation lens for me. I've tried 2 copies (mine and a friend's), and both were very sharp. Also, if you buy used from here, you can find it for $375-400 and have a clue as to that specific copy's sharpness. It replaced my very sharp 28-135 IS, so I imagine it will be better than the 17-85IS, if nothing else, for it's longer range.
For reference, I also owned Sigma 24-60 f2.8 and the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and both of those had inconsistent focus on my Rebel XT. Not so with the 18-200 OS.
p.1 #15 · Sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 17-85 IS vs Canon 18-200 IS
+1 for the Sigma 18-200 OS. It's small and convenient as a vacation lens or when I want to leave my 5D behind and go super light with XTi and only one lens. Paid $400 used for it here on FM.
I have also seen 13x19 prints taken with Canon 18-200 IS on 50D and was pretty impressed by it.
p.1 #16 · Sigma 18-200 OS vs Canon 17-85 IS vs Canon 18-200 IS
adamrose13 wrote:
if all you need is the wider lens why not go with the 17-40 to replace the 17-85 in terms of IQ?
Fer chrissake! Why can't people just help the poor guy out by expressing an informed opinion if they are qualified to form one? Instead I see people ask questions in a challenging tone. Why do some folks feel it necessary to either try to make the OP look like an idiot or come up with totally irrelevant suggestions. The OP made a very specific request about a specific lens. He stated he wanted a do-all lens and sounds like he's perfectly aware that it will be a compromise. He mentioned his 17-85 and asked if the IQ was similar.
Yes, I know that's only a fantasy 