This lens is a replacement for 17-85 with longer tele to match 3rd party.

Not a lens for pros!

This lens is a great option for people want to use their SLR like a bridge camera!

Great for walking around!

But price need to come down to at least $550, which no doubt it will after 6 months!

As someone said in another discussion.... yet another underwhelming round of releases for Canon.

The MTF charts do not look too bad, either:

And here's the other end:

I can't believe it doesn't have USM or FTM focusing! I'm pissed! WFT?!

gowhow wrote:
What I don't understand is why develop lenses that are dedicated to crop cameras and then label them with FF Focal lengths?...Because focal length and FOV have nothing to do with each other. Focal length is design and physics and FOV just the use on 4/3 sensor the field off view is 36-400 and still the glass didn't change.

If you were expecting an uber-zoom with all the trimmings, Canon already has that, the 28-300L. For $700, don't expect much.

I can't believe it doesn't have USM or FTM focusing! I'm pissed! WFT?

I think the target market who wants an all in one 18-200 superzoom probably don't care much about FTM.

acjeske wrote:50D + 18-200 kit = $1599! From the mouth of Canon's own Chuck Westfall, according to PDN:

http://www.pdngearguide.com/gearguide/content_display/news/e3ib06feef71f62cc176182978d9e395dbe


I think that article is wrong - the (plus $200 in price) "kit" I've seen is with the 28-135 lens ... which is a strange pairing.

Well, the lens does come with the metal mount.

I wouldn't even pay $600 for this new lens; no USM, no FTM focusing.
The only thing it has going for it is the focal length.
However as a $200 over the body cost, in a kit, that would be worth it.

i'm searching for an walk around lens for my trip to China, but i think with a $700 price tag, i'll probably end up with the sigma 18-200 OS.

I have used a sigma 18-200 for a walkaround on my APS-C sensor cameras for years. It is a great lens for that and would make a great kit lens.

I do wish this had USM, but it will do well without it too.

J.

astrolucida wrote:
The MTF charts do not look too bad, either:


Indeed - I think that this is going to produce images of a similar quality to the relatively new 70-300 IS lens in terms of sharpness. If so, it's a bargain in terms of IQ, though it will be lacking in terms of features. I wonder of the front element rotates when you zoom.

I think that for a vacation/all-purpose lens on a cropper, it could be a great choice. For more critical work, the 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 would be a better zoom choice.

gowhow wrote:
What I don't understand is why develop lenses that are dedicated to crop cameras and then label them with FF Focal lengths?

This is not useable on anything other than a Canon 1.6x crop camera right?

So why not market it as a 29-320mm lens?

I'm sure there is an obvious reason that will make me wish I not asked this.....

because it got nothing to do with the lenses, its the sensor of the camera that make it different and Canon put 18-200 instead of 29-320 could be for anticipate if they announce 1.4 / 1.5 / 1.7 or any crop camera in the future.

Easy pass. Another kit lens.

Exactly, "The 7mm wide focus ring " good luck if it did have FTM.

tsangc wrote:
I can't believe it doesn't have USM or FTM focusing! I'm pissed! WFT?

I think the target market who wants an all in one 18-200 superzoom probably don't care much about FTM.

Lack of FTM is a deal breaker for me at this time, but for a lot of people this lens targets,
it won't matter. I would rather the lens be $800 with USM than $700 without, but this glass is
too slow for me anyway. I would not doubt that the IQ is very good. The newer 18-55IS and 55-200IS
kit lenses have gotten good reviews for IQ. The 17-55/2.8IS is fantastic for sharpness. I think Canon's
zoom designs have been very good lately.

At this point, though, I will be traveling with two bodies, (a 5D and 1.6 crop), so a superzoom
has limited appeal. This lens should sell well, though. Man, I wish it had USM, though.
Bad decision, Canon.

The best thing about this lens is the zoom lock.

So now there's three choices:

Tamron 18-270 VC: 3.8" x 3.1" x 550g @ $
Sigma 18-200 OS: 3.9" x 3.1" x 610g @ $500
Canon 18-200 IS: 4.0" x 3.1" x 600g @ $700?

The Tamron has a ton more reach of course, but I wonder which will have the best IQ? And the best AF performance? Given the Micro USM in the Canon, it might not be the best of the lot....

And of course the Canon will almost certainly not come with a hood, while the Sigma does and the Tamron will. So tack on $40 or so to the Canon's price.

Of course the 4th choice is "none of the above"

its going to be a kit lens....maybe paired with the 18-55 IS and a xxxd OR xxd body

sboerup wrote:
$700? Seriously?


I wouldn't pay $100 for this lens, totaly useless release including 50D year after 40D....

gowhow wrote:
What I don't understand is why develop lenses that are dedicated to crop cameras and then label them with FF Focal lengths?

This is not useable on anything other than a Canon 1.6x crop camera right?

So why not market it as a 29-320mm lens?

I'm sure there is an obvious reason that will make me wish I not asked this.....

It's still an 18-200 Lens...the perspective changes is all...

huh they aren't "FF Focal lengths" they are the real focal lengths.

>>What I don't understand is why develop lenses that are dedicated to crop cameras and then label them with FF Focal lengths?