kakomu wrote:
If you're looking something as sharp as your 50mm F/1.8, you're going to be upset with most zooms out there.
I disagree. The 50mm 1.8 is a great lens, but it's only great because of what it delivers at its price point. I have a Tamron 18-270 that is extremely close when zoomed to 50mm. I could not say the same for the canon.
mbaumser wrote:
Have you looked at the B&S forum. They pop up all the time at excellent prices. or list a WTB ad there.
Marc
I bought one of thes for a bike trip down the Oregon coast. I wanted some flexibility in focal length and a also wanted light equipment. I took this along with a 40D and I was pleasantly surprised with the results. As previously mentioned this lens is not up to L quality but if weight is a factor and you need varied focal length it can answer your needs. The quality was especially good at about f8 and between 24 and about 180mm .
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
I know I'll probably be flammed for this. but for the same cost of the 18-200 you could get a G11 or similar that would do HD video as well
Puts flame suit on
Of course you'll get flamed . You seemed to be suggesting the G11 will do HD video! Don't worry we get what you are saying
gotak wrote:
Of course you'll get flamed . You seemed to be suggesting the G11 will do HD video! Don't worry we get what you are saying
no I know the G11 wont do HD. Which is a very strange thing Canon did with this release.
However many other good/great compacts do. If thats a priority that is
I have a P&S that does HD video, and it doesn't even come close to the quality of the 7D. I think I've found a lens though, so I'll update this thread when I get it.
I have two DSLR's that do HD video. The problem is, I'm not sure that I do HD video. I've taken probably a total of 60 minutes of video in the 7 months I've had the 5D2.
I own or have owned the Canon 18-200mm, Canon 18-135mm, Sigma 18-125mm, Sigma 18-200mm, Tamron 18-200mm, Tamron 18-250mm, and the Tamron 18-270mm. The best optically is the Canon. It is the one that I use the most and is sharp and well made. Though I have not tried the Sigma 18-200mm OS, I could not find a non OS Sigma that worked well for me. The Tamrons are all quite good, but not as good as either Canon. I found that the 18-135mm IS is nearly as good as the Canon 18-200mm but I already owned the 18-200mm and needed the longer reach. We also have an 18-55mm IS and a 55-250mm IS. The build and optics of the 55-250mm are similar to my sample of the 18-200mm IS. I am quite happy with the Canon 18-200mm as a lens to have on my 7D if I don't need my 135mm F/2, Tamron 17-50mm, Canon 50mm F/1.4, Canon 100mm Macro, etc. Of all my lenses, the Canon 18-200mm is the most used with results that work very well.
Good to hear some decent reviews here. I have one being shipped as we speak. Have you tried it with the video much? I'll be using that as much as to take pictures.
When shooting video on any DSLR, you will find it hard to zoom without shaking the camera. The 18-200mm IS zoom works as well or better because of the good size of the zooming ring. If you decide to use manual focus when doing video it is not as convenient since the focusing ring is too small. This is true of most SLR lenses since they were not designed for video. The use of a monopod or tripod makes life a lot easier.
The Canon 18-200mm does work well for video base on its IQ and general ergonomics. Any setup needs some practice before you go out and shoot an event that is important. The results are certainly worth the effort.
For video keep in mind it doesn't have USM focusing, so you're going to hear the focusing motor if you use continuous autofocus. Unless of course you have an off camera mic way off camera.
WichitaGuy83 wrote:
I had one for a week and returned it when it wasn't even close to being as sharp as my 50mm f/1.8. If you're not going to be doing any cropping at all, I suppose it'd be a fine lens.
You're comparing the sharpness of a superzoom to a prime?
apples vs. oranges.
I have an 18-250 and while it's certainly not tack sharp, it's great for walkabout shooting and getting web-quality photos. It's compact and you can capture a whole range of interesting things with one camera and lens.
These are not ideal lenses for low light or harsh conditions. They're great for outdoor daytime shooting where you just can't predict what you'll encounter.
I had the 18-200mm for a little over a month before taking it back. It had some good vignetting at 200mm and I found the images somewhat soft. I was OK with that until I got the 50mm 1.8. I returned it and got some L lenses. I love the Ls (28-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 4 IS), but I do miss the convenience of the 18-200. I'm wondering if I just had a soft copy. I did find it a bit expensive for the IQ ($700 at local stores, I got it for $600).
As mentioned above, I the AF was pretty quick and not that noisy at all. I took a few close-up shots with this lens...bugs on flowers and such, and I was pretty impressed with how well those came out.
Before the 18-200, I had the 18-55/55-250 combo. That was a decent (and definitely affordable) combo, but I'm a frequent user of polarizers, and the rotating front element was just too annoying - so I Craigslisted the combo and got the 18-200.
Back to the 18-200. If you're just getting it for travel photography, it's probably a great lens for that. If you're more of a perfectionist looking for extra sharp pictures, you'd probably have to stop it down a bit and stay in the middle of the focal range for the best IQ. I took some vacation pix with my Canon Powershot SX10 IS that I was very satisfied with. The 18-200 (in my opinion) had similar IQ to the SX10, although at full zoom (560mm equiv) the SX10 did a bang up job with no vignetting.
I agree about the vignetting at the 200mm end wide open (at F5.6) - I've noticed this when shooting birds/aircraft in an open sky. Stopped down to F8 it's much improved and not really noticeable in my copy.
As for sharpness at the 200mm end, my copy is excellent in the center and across much of the frame but softens a bit at the corners. In close comparisons it's very similar to the 70-300 USM IS that I owned shooting both at 200mm, In fact, the 18-200 was actually sharper at 200mm than the 70-300 was at 300mm.
Well after a few days playing around with the lens I can say I'm completely satisfied considering the price I paid. Focal length is great, the IS is maybe better than my 24-105L, and the focus is actually pretty quick, even in the video mode. I haven't shot a full size photo with it, and maybe never will, so I can't comment on how sharp it is when pixel peeping. For shooting an 8mp jpeg though, it's great. I'm taking it on a week long mountain bike trip next week, so that will be the real test. I'll post some pictures and video when I get back.
kakomu wrote:
WichitaGuy83 wrote:
I had one for a week and returned it when it wasn't even close to being as sharp as my 50mm f/1.8.
If you're looking something as sharp as your 50mm F/1.8, you're going to be upset with most zooms out there.
I disagree. The 50mm 1.8 is a great lens, but it's only great because of what it delivers at its price point. I have a Tamron 18-270 that is extremely close when zoomed to 50mm. I could not say the same for the canon.
Apparently I need to get that Tamron, cause I've never seen a zoom do this by f4:
. You seemed to be suggesting the G11 will do HD video! Don't worry we get what you are saying 