Canon 17-85 vs 18-200mm

Very useful. Thank you.

I couldn't wait that 18-200 would have more distortion than 17-85...
 
None of them is best ;) If I was to select then I would go with 17-55 + 70-300 etc.

17-85 is a decent lens (I owned it for some time) but with weak wide angle (near 17mm).

18-200 is a lens dedicated to those who can give up IQ in favor to having only one lens in their bag.

--
Cheers,
Zbyszek
 
I believe they are both compromises though the 18-200 is suppose to be pretty good optically with a sharper wide end than the 17-85 though with more distortions.

In the end, I believe the biggest concern will the whether increased range or USM is more important.

For someone who currently owns the 17-85, I cannot see advantage in upgrading to the 18-200. The extra reach just isn't worth the time, money and hassle of selling the 17-85 and getting the 18-200.
 
The best one is the one that costs the most.

What other possible way could thre be to make the assessment?

And it's "which is better" when there's only two comparisons, not "best."

BAK
 
The corner sharpness at the wide end was found to be better on the 17-85IS than on the 18-200IS. I don't have personal experience with the 18-200IS but I have used the 17-85IS for about 2 years and after CA and distortion correction the sharpness was very good, even at the wide end (and wide open).
I believe they are both compromises though the 18-200 is suppose to
be pretty good optically with a sharper wide end than the 17-85
though with more distortions.

In the end, I believe the biggest concern will the whether increased
range or USM is more important.

For someone who currently owns the 17-85, I cannot see advantage in
upgrading to the 18-200. The extra reach just isn't worth the time,
money and hassle of selling the 17-85 and getting the 18-200.
--
Slowly learning to use the 450D and and the Canon G6.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top