 |
|
|
Gunzorro
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Aug 27, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 14275
|
|
Review Date: Sep 26, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $225.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Pleasantly surprised, good focal range, decent IQ, very compact.
|
|
Cons:
|
Loose fitting build, not great on sides/corners.
|
|
|
After trying the 28-105 and 24-85 and getting very poor results, this was a step up in quality and image range. I had been using the 24-70L, and knew this was not in the same league but was looking for a wider range for event coverage. This lens got me interested enough to buy the 35-350L, which I was blown away by, leading me to buy the 28-300L. Although you get what you pay for, this lens covers a lot of the same ground as the 28-300L at a small fraction of the cost, and is better IQ than the two lenses listed at the beginning here.
|
|
 Sep 26, 2012
|
|
Dave_EP
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1549
|
|
Review Date: Nov 2, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
The zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
The image quality
|
|
My son-in-law lent me one of these on his 40D, so I thought I'd have a play with it. To keep things in perspective I'm used to L class lenses, 24-70L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS II etc, so this was an interesting test for me.
The build quality was better than expected and the lens feels chunky and smooth to zoom.
The f5.6 is of course standard for consumer lenses, and even indoors with flash is good enough. If course, that assumes you learn how to use flash properly and don't just point it at the subject 
This lens was soft compared to the stuff I used to, but then it's also 1/6 of the cost as well.
For a consumer walkabout travel lens this is a reasonable choice, but honestly, I would never buy one if you can afford something better.
|
|
|
Nov 2, 2011
|
|
HoosierJoe
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 24, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Sep 27, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $190.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Low price, very fast focusing, solid build, useful as a telephoto.
|
|
Cons:
|
Reasonably sharp only when stopped down.
|
|
|
This is an OK value lens. I have owned several of the super zooms and this one is the best of them.
Fast focus, has very nice color and contrast rendition. When stopped down it gives very nice results. I use it only as a telephoto and it replaced a Canon 55-250IS. The 28-200 performs better for me than the 55-250IS.
I am not unhappy with it for use as an occasional lens. It really isn't a bad product. Of course it isn't an L lens and I find it to be a remarkably stupid comment for someone to criticize it on that basis.
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2010
|
|
LM Hernandez
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 25, 2007
Location: Mexico
Posts: 40
|
|
Review Date: May 16, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Price. Practical (28-200) It΄s a good entry level lense. One to learn by. I used it for 3 years and was my favorite one.
|
|
Cons:
|
It's not sharp at all. It produces images with purple fringing. It's a bit slow. It's not very fast (3.5 / 5.6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 16, 2007
|
|
Jaridd Leute
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 24, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 24, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
great zoom range, practical walk around lens
|
|
Cons:
|
purple fringing, often searches focusing
|
|
|
Although this is not a bad lens, I would not recommend it unless you are comfortable with its limitations.
I bought this lens on accident, but I thought that I would try it out. I brought it on a trip to Gettysburg, and was disappointed with the image quality as soon as I downloaded the pictures. In bright light at the long end, the lens exhibits major purple fringing.
The lens is also rather slow at the long end. Pictures were not as clear or bright as I have experienced with other lenses, even with the kit 18-55mm lens.
If you need the huge zoom range, this does a decent job, but I am going to be returning this product.
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2007
|
|
Carlos Toledo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 22, 2007
Location: Brazil
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 22, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
The ability to work on holidays with just one lense
|
|
Cons:
|
Never got any sharp image.
|
|
|
Just bought this lense when I first bought my 10D and i change it for a 30D and still have focusing and Sharpness issues.
I usually got much better pictures with my 18-55 low quality lense.
I wonder if is there any one manufactures trying to create a good quality 18-150mm lense.... that could easily solve all needs toa travel ; vacations amateurs photographer.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2007
|
|
NinaS
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1221
|
|
Review Date: Dec 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $360.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Versitility, weight, great walkabout lens
|
|
Cons:
|
not an L series
|
|
|
I've had this lens for a couple of years, used it religiously on my old Rebel, then my 20D & now my 30D
It has a favorite spot in my bag because it far surpasses my 18-55 ... and my next lens is a 50mm ... yeah, I know, I need more wide lenses, but ...
I shoot people ... models, actors, groups, headshots, seniors ... well ... people ... if I'm in tight quarters this lens is on my camera, when my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is too big to get the picture the 28-200 works great ... I don't trust it at 200mm hand held, unless I am leaning on something, that is me, can't take a sharp pic at full zoom on any lens hand held, unless my shutter us 1/200 or faster
I have shot realtor headshots, in studio, on my 20D with this lens, and the pics are sharp on a billboard, and smaller ... no complaints with quality, if I control my situation, I know my limitiations & I know the lens' limitations ... very easy to get awesomely sharp pics with this lens on any of my cameras ... this was my #1 lens until the 70-200 came along, now the two neatly share my camera bag, and the rest are in the second bag, just in case!!!
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2006
|
|
veroman
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4445
|
|
Review Date: Nov 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $289.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom range
Price
Performance
Compact, lightweight design
|
|
Cons:
|
Build
|
|
|
I'm not sure why this lens has gotten such a low, overall rating. While not the equal of other non-L lenses such as the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 or the 24-85, its zoom range and general capability as an all-in-one travel lens should really have this lens up there with others.
I bought mine specifically for vacation travel purposes to use with my 5D. I simply didn't want to travel with a lot of lenses....or even just two...and I needed both reach and wide angle because I shoot at the extremes quite often.
Well, I am pleasantly surprised at what the 28-200 can deliver. The other evening I shot an entire musical performance for some friends of mine. No flash. Available light only. I shot everything at ISO 3200 in both color and monochrome and utililized the lens' entire focal range. Technically, every shot was a keeper. Artistically, well., that's another story; maybe a third at best. The point is., the lens delivered sharpness, clarity, good edge-to-edge performance, good color, good contrast, and a very good sense of "being there," which eludes even some higher-priced lenses.
So, I've given the 28-200 an overall 9 simply because I don't know of another lens...Canon or otherwise...that offers such a wide focal range and edge-to-edge performance levels in a single package. Build is something else again....but it's not "crummy." It's just not up there with some others.
I obviously like this lens. I think it's great for general, all-purpose use. I don't know how you can beat it for the money.
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006
|
|
bazelot
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $240.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Color tone, sharp if stopped down, range, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as sharp as I would wish it to be at 200mm but for the price best lens money can buy. According to me it is better than the 28-135IS.
|
|
|
For $300 you won't fine a finer lens. In short I had one with my D60 but they were both stolen. I then bought a 10D and a 28-135IS as a replacement. I hated the combination. I tried all kinds of other lenses until I finally got a good deal on the 28-200 and now I love the 10d because of this versatile lens. The color tone is really really good.
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2006
|
|
20DAggie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 25, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 80
|
|
Review Date: Jun 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $499.99
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent randge for a 1.6 sensor. Great USM. One of the best all around lenses I have used.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not L quality, but also not L cost!
|
|
|
This is THE lens for consumers just shooting around with their cameras that are not going to get crazy about lenses. This lens will suit about 95% of people who need one lens for all senarios.
|
|
|
Jun 2, 2005
|
|
JohnLL
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 10, 2004
Location: Brazil
Posts: 782
|
|
Review Date: Nov 7, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $340.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide zoom range, reasoable size, weight, speed for general use.
|
|
Cons:
|
Optical quality, but be fair, it's not an "L" lens.
|
|
|
This is a consumer-quality lens, so don't expect it to measure up to top-quality glass. It was the first lens I got for my 10D, as I wanted the widest possible zoom range at the lowest possible price and weight. Also to minimize number of lens changes, as I was concerned about dust on the sensor. I still am, but I'm learning to live with it. Not as big a problem as I feared.
At first, I was rather disappointed, but soon discovered that most of the fault was mine. As I got the hang of using the AF, and figured out what shutter speed I could actually hold by hand, sharpness improved immensely. I have made 8.5 x 11" prints from about a quarter of the total image area, equivalent to 17 x 22" prints from the total image, that look very good. Needs some USM, but that's par for the course with a digital SLR using RAW format.
Seeing the comments about the maximum focal length of this lens, I decided to measure it for myself, so I took it out on a tennis court, set it up on a tripod, and measured the horizontal field of view at 30 metres. Based on the viewfinder, I got 204mm, but the viewfinder only gives 95% coverage, vertical and horizontal, so the corrected result is 194mm. My estimated margin of error in each measurement is about 1/3%, so we could have a 2/3% total error, plus or minus, giving a final range conservatively between 192 and 196mm. This is just under the claimed 200mm, but you'll never notice it in real photography.
|
|
|
Nov 7, 2004
|
|
teglis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1094
|
|
Review Date: Aug 31, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Versatile zoom range; fast, quiet USM focus
|
|
Cons:
|
Optical quality; does not reach 200mm; zoom creep
|
|
|
This has to be one of Canon's most panned lenses, with its mediocre optical quality and the fact that it doesn't zoom all the way to 200mm (I would rate it as a 28-175mm).
However, as the first additional lens for my 300D, it nicely complemented the kit lens, providing an equivalent range of approximately 45-270mm on the 1.6 crop factor camera. It was my most used lens for about eight months and I got some very nice shots with it. Printed at 11x14" and framed, you cannot see the optical faults of the lens.
About a month ago, I got the Sigma 18-125mm which is clearly sharper. Now this lens and the kit lens both sit on a shelf. Moreover, I understand that the Sigma and Tamron 28-200mm lenses are better.
Bottom line: there are better choices, but mine served me well.
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2004
|
|
Zane Yau
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 30, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 3142
|
|
Review Date: Jun 3, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
reasonably sharp, fast AF (v 75-300USM)
|
|
Cons:
|
inaccurate focal length, lens flare, expensive for the level of quality and sharpness
|
|
|
Well, it's reasonably sharp and fast AF. I used it a lot when I had it. Took it once to a Chinese New Year parade. The AF is fast enough to catch actions of dancers.
I found that the focal lengths are wrong from 135 to 200. It's really a true 28 to say 150 zoom. I tested it on tripod with my 75 - 300. The field of view are much wider than those of the 75-300. I took it back to Canon Australia. I left it there for a week, Canon did a test with their 70-200L lens and told me the field of view, when focus to infinity, are the same as those of 70-200 and they have photos to prove it. But the technician hinted that this is not a good lens and for a 7X zoom there ought to be some problems with the zoom range. I wasn't very happy about it but I didn't know what to do but to trade it in for a 28-135IS. The IS is much better in value although it has a shorter zoom. The pictures of the IS are much sharper than those of the 28-200. My advice is don't buy it.
|
|
|
Jun 3, 2004
|
|
John57
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 54
|
|
Review Date: Jun 23, 2003
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom Range & overall flexibility
|
|
Cons:
|
Not sharp compared to other zoom lenses.
|
|
|
I have had this lens about 18 months and only really used it recently - I got it as an addition to my 28-135IS & 75-300IS. The idea was to use it for holidays so I would only have to take the one lens.
When I did start using it I found it produced images which were noticably not as sharp or clear at any focal lengths or apertures than my 28-135IS or indeed my wifes new tiny Tamron 28-200. I thought I may have just had a few bad days so set up numerous boring tests involving this lens and the folllowing to check its quality... the lenses I checked it against were Canon's 24-70L, 28-135IS together with Tamron's newest 28-200 and 28-300 lenses.
The tests showed me I should get rid of this lens as soon as possible - it was noticeably the worst of those I tested. Unsurprisingly the Canon 24-70L looked the best in my tests with the canon 28-135 and the Tamron 28-200 not far behind. The Tamron 28-300 was surpringly good though it only goes to a true 260mm due to its design. The Canon 28-200 was firmly last! Nothing was as sharp as the other lenses and it seemed to regularly back focus which didn't exactly help matters.
If you really want a 28-200 then seriously consider the little Tamron... it's quality is almost identical to my 28-135 and that in itself is not far off what I get from a 24-70L lens!
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2003
|
|
oldsouth
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 174
|
|
Review Date: Apr 2, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Very versatile lens. Lightweight.Price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not in the class of L lens construction.
|
|
|
Good multi-purpose lens. Crisp photos.
Edit - I just purchased a 10D to replace the D30, and this lens is not as crisp as it should be on this camera. I think this is a good multipurpose lens for up to say a D30, but higher megapixel cameras need a higher quality lens.
|
|
|
Apr 2, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
15
|
161300
|
Sep 26, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
73% of reviewers
|
$329.40
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.40
|
8.00
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
