Sure, I'd rather shoot with my 17-55/2.8 ... but the 18-200 IS a nice travel lens and handy for situations when it's hard to carry all your gear ... such as Heli Skiing in Utah! ;-)
OP says he owns a bunch of "L" gear and is looking for a single lens solution ... and I was pretty happy having it on a 50D ... should be even better on a 7D. Two images from two different sequences posted below - since Robero is a shredder, thought he'd like the second set.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
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 think it was said the sensor is not capable of HD video rather than an actual choice on Canon's part not to implement it in software. Just as the drop in MP was due to the new sensor rather than a choice to pick low MP specifically.
I had the 18-200 for a few months, though sold it recently for $450.00 on that huge auction site. I used it as my walkaround lens on vacation and while backpacking. I found that 90% of my photos were taken between 18 and 50, mostly being architectural and scenic photos, with some portraits thrown in. The only time I used the 200mm end of the lens was when shooting wildlife and then I found that most of the time, 200mm wasn't long enough to get really close up.
To address your questions:
The image quality was good enough for me and it provided some very nice photos that I have blown up to poster size.
The lens focuses very quickly, even without USM and I never found focus lag to be a problem.
genzbenz wrote:
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.
WOW! You gave up better IQ for CPL convenience? I'm speechless.
Yakim Peled wrote:
WOW! You gave up better IQ for CPL convenience? I'm speechless.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Yes and No. I tried the 18-200 for a little while and it was a bit soft, so I returned it and ended up with the 24-70mm 2.8L and then waited a bit and got the 70-200mm 4L. I think I have the IQ thing nailed now....and I can use CPL until my heart's content. My wallet's a little thin, but my pictures have improved!
genzbenz wrote:
Yes and No. I tried the 18-200 for a little while and it was a bit soft, so I returned it and ended up with the 24-70mm 2.8L and then waited a bit and got the 70-200mm 4L. I think I have the IQ thing nailed now....and I can use CPL until my heart's content. My wallet's a little thin, but my pictures have improved!
I ride my mountain bike, frequently longish rides into rugged backcountry with intense climbing and descending, with my T1i and 18-200 in a hip bag (Tamrac 5625) that I've converted to chest duty. I had some buckles added to my Camelback to accomodate it. Buckles from the top of the Camelbak shoulder straps to the D-rings on the side of the bag and another strap around my back and attached to the lower/rear D-rings on the bag to keep it from swinging forward.
The camera doesn't get in the way as I ride other than visually checking gears and it counters the weight of my Camelback with 100oz bladder nicely. I've even taken it on group mountain and urban rides and with the camera in the bag, with it's strap around my neck, I can reach in with one hand, grab the camera, and shoot - even taking candid shots while riding.
I can't imagine carrying more lenses on a bike for weight, inconvenience (shedding the pack, digging out the new lens, swapping caps, installing it, stowing the previous lens, and putting the pack back on), as well as exposing the innards of my gear to dust and dirt more than necessary. The zoom range covers almost every situation nicely, too. Now, if you're riding into the back country to get that perfect shot of that perfect flower or landscape, then throw your specialized lens(es) into your Camelbak and use them when you get to that spot.
The versatility far outweighs any IQ limitations of a superzoom for this kind of work. I say I'd rather get a good shot than miss a perfect one.
Namlak wrote:
The versatility far outweighs any IQ limitations of a superzoom for this kind of work. I say I'd rather get a good shot than miss a perfect one.
+1. I got mine for my 1000D bought for all those cases when I wont bring any heavier gear to the field. On these largish pixels it is pretty good. IQ wise IŽd say that the lens is better than the IQ (colour) of my copy of 1000D. The combined IQ, higher ISO etc is still good enough to save a moment that actually should have been cought with better gear. My only concern would be how the lens manages the small pixels of the 7D. In print the difference might be minute, though.
