Since I don't own a 50D (yet) I have some difficulties evaluating these samples regarding sharpness/resolution. I know there wasn't any sharpening applied, and when giving them a USM (500, 0,2) they become sharp. But those amounts of USM are more than I usually need. Don't know what to make of that yet...
Besides that, the center of the frame seems sharp, but sharpness degrades very fast when you move away from the center. In the extreme corners it is very soft (both at 18mm and 200mm). I am under the impression that 18mm is a bit sharper than 200mm overall. There is some heavy distortion at 18mm. Some shots also suffer from a lot of CA's.
Most of its "weaknesses" are correctable in PP. If the images clean up nicely after that, I think the 18-200mm could be a great vacation snapper lens.
I wonder though if the 18-200mm used represents the standard or if this lens is a bad sample? Or maybe it has some focus issues that can be dealt with by Micro Adjusting?
I also notice a lot of CA in the 18mm images, in 200mm the CA is negligible.
Thanks for posting this. I'm looking for an all purpose lens for travelling and I was considering this lens and the Sigma 18-200mm as well as the Tamron 18-250mm.
Vignetting is not hard to fix and same with the CA though it's a bit of a pain if there's a lot of it. I'm more worried about the image sharpness. Which one of these three lenses I mentioned is sharper?
n0b0 wrote:
I also notice a lot of CA in the 18mm images, in 200mm the CA is negligible.
Thanks for posting this. I'm looking for an all purpose lens for travelling and I was considering this lens and the Sigma 18-200mm as well as the Tamron 18-250mm.
Vignetting is not hard to fix and same with the CA though it's a bit of a pain if there's a lot of it. I'm more worried about the image sharpness. Which one of these three lenses I mentioned is sharper?
There is also heavy CA at 200mm... Just look at the windows to the left in the 200mm M Hotel shot.
The 18-200 will serve a purpose in the market place. I use a 28-135 allot for casual shooting because it's kind of ready for anything keeping me from carrying or swapping between several lenses.
We have all heard the "walk around lens" phrase. A decent 18-200 would qualify, you think?
therock wrote:
We have all heard the "walk around lens" phrase. A decent 18-200 would qualify, you think?
Yes it does qualify but the problem is there doesn't seem to be one that is at least above average if not great. I saw some test results for the Sigma 18-200mm as well as Tamron 18-200mm but they all seem to be average at best. I don't know, maybe I'm spoilt by the excellent sharpness of the cheap 50mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2.8 macro.
I thought perhaps a shorter range of focal length would give some of the quality back but Sigma 18-125mm seem to have pretty bad reviews as well here. If only Canon 24-105mm L would have a bit more on the wideangle side... I wouldn't hesitate to get a 17-105mm L lens at all, that'd be the perfect walk around lens.
n0b0 wrote:
Yes it does qualify but the problem is there doesn't seem to be one that is at least above average if not great. I saw some test results for the Sigma 18-200mm as well as Tamron 18-200mm but they all seem to be average at best. I don't know, maybe I'm spoilt by the excellent sharpness of the cheap 50mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2.8 macro.
I thought perhaps a shorter range of focal length would give some of the quality back but Sigma 18-125mm seem to have pretty bad reviews as well here. If only Canon 24-105mm L would have a bit more on the wideangle side... I wouldn't hesitate to get a 17-105mm L lens at all, that'd be the perfect walk around lens....Show more →
1) What is a good walk-around lens? Is it a matter of focal length, subjects and/or convenience?
2) A zoom lens represents one big compromise between IQ and convenience. There are no superzooms that have excellent IQ all over the zoom range.
3) What is excellent IQ anyway? This is highly dependent on the output... Also, a lot can be straigthened out in PP. For 50x70cm prints you will want a very good lens for sure. But for vacation snapshots, the 18-200mm should be able to deliver good looking 20x30cm prints (after some careful PP). And most vacation snapshots will be printed even smaller.
Well for me the most important factor is how sharp it is. As I mentioned in previous page, CA and vignetting isn't hard to fix but there's a limit to how much you can sharpen a soft image.
I suppose it's not in any lens manufacturers' best interest to create an excellent multi purpose lens as it would probably render half of their products obsolete.
I owned the Sigma 18-200 OS for a while on my 40D and I can say the best thing about that lens was it was very sharp at 18mm and 200mm at almost all f-stops. It was much better than these samples seem to indicate the Canon is. The problem with the Sigma was in-between the extremes - at several points in the middle of the zoom range, the edges were really bad, though the center was usually quite good. I also had focusing issues with the lens on my 40D so ultimately sold it and got a Canon 24-105 F4. I should also say the OS on the Sigma was great.
Anyway, I had high hopes for the Canon 18-200 IS based on the new 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS lenses, but must say based on these tests, it doesn't seem to stack up.
I beg to differ. There is a great super zoom. The Leica 14-150 (28-300mm in 35mm terms). Yes it is pricey, but there is a reason. It has no compare in the superzoom world. Im awaiting the delivery of my 50D 18-200 kit.
Daan B wrote:
Besides that, the center of the frame seems sharp, but sharpness degrades very fast when you move away from the center. In the extreme corners it is very soft (both at 18mm and 200mm).
If it is sharp in the middle range (in corners), then it behaves exactly at the opposite way as the Sigma 18-200 behaves. 18 and 200mm are sharp, even in the corners, and even wide open but e.g. at 35mm you need to stop to f8 to get the corners bearable and f11 to get the OK.
The Sigma 18-200 actually beats the 70-200f2.8L IS to pulp when it comes to the 70-200 MFD (which is not the MFD to the 18-200, btw), wide open.
It looks to me like youre maybe getting 5MP out of your 15MP camera with that lens. Understand that 15MP on a 1.6x crop is putting enormous stress on the optics and without a super sharp lens you are simply not going to take advantage of all that sensor has to offer. Expect this situation to get worse in the future when Canon crams more and more pixels onto the same sensor sizes.
In actuality, 5MP is enough for most people's casual uses so I dont think it'll be a huge concern.
Thank you Kenshin for the time and care in posting this. Its helpful people like you that make this site work.
Your timing was great - I just got B&H's notification that the 50Ds were in stock. With your input, I decided against the kit with this lens. Your first impressions confirmed what I would guess about it.
I had the Canon 28-135 for many years and the vignetting and distortion bugged me the whole time. I know now its fixable in pp, but I like to carry more lenses now and do less work later. Great shots, BTW, they illustrate the range and limits well.
Hope you do get good use out of the new lens. If you'll share your insights after using it for some time, I for one would be grateful.
I did a bit more research and found the Tamron 18-250mm (not the older 18-200mm). It seems to have pretty good reviews. Perhaps slightly lower IQ than that 14-150mm 4/3 lens that Tom Molnar mentioned but the price is also 1/3 of that.
Hey Kenshin, I hate you - for posting this! now I have to apply for a bailout from
US government to get the money for more gears!!!
I am not sure whether IQ is quite good, due to the new 5D-MK2's sensor or from just the lens itself. Perhaps, if you can shoot the lens with 30D/40D. I bet others might jump into the band wagon if the IQ is still or almost 95% the same. For traveler and fine arts photographer like myself, which I mostly convert picture into painting, which don't required the best IQ, but if as good as 17-40mm (or 17-55mm) then 18-200mm will be in my bag someday - soon. Thanks
I suppose it's not in any lens manufacturers' best interest to create an excellent multi purpose lens as it would probably render half of their products obsolete - NoBo
Was it what they called "shoot oneself in da foot?"
