Reading mode: Light Dark

Is the 18-200 Canons worst lens?

Go to last post
jperonto said:
I do own it and find it to be one of Canon's most versatile lenses with very good IQ, especially at the long end. It is not as sharp as my L lenses, but takes images which are top notch for an 18-200mm and I have tried or owned all but the new Sigma 18-200mm OS and 18-250mm OS lenses. The only way you will know for sure is to try it for yourself and not believe those who have never tried it.
Click to expand...
I agree with Jeff. I have one on my 40D and one on my 7D. I get shots I'd never get if I had to swap lenses. I have better lenses (10-22, 17-55 f/2.8, 70-300 DO IS, 100-400L) which I use for specific purposes (17-55 most of these) but the 18-200IS is way underrated. Tried the Sigmas, too, and the Canon wins.

But, I continue to ask, where is that perfect lens that does it all, is inexpensive and light as a feather?? :-)

--
Phil .. Canon EOS 7D, 40D; G11, SD700IS; Panasonic LX3, ZS3/TZ7
http://www.pbase.com/phil_wheeler
http://philwheeler.net
 
Marcus Harrison said:
A recent comment in one thread called the 18-200 Canons worst lens. Whilst I do not have that particular lens is it really that bad?
Click to expand...
I've made that statement as being one of the worst regarding IQ , but it's one of the best as far as convenience. The reviews below will bear that out.

They do everything ok, but nothing outstanding. You'd be sacrificing quality for convenience as most consumer grade super zooms do.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-200_3p5-5p6_is_c16/page4.asp
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/400-canon_18200_3556is?start=2
--
Regards,
Hank

 
it is going to perform like an L lens or a lens with a smaller zoom factor is kidding themselves.

I found it does the job well as a highly versatile lens, however, i do not put it on my camera when i have all other resources avaliable.

If i could only take one lens on a holiday, it would be that one.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41942460@N04/sets/
 
Compared to an f2.8 zoom, yes, the 18-200 probably isn't the best lens Canon have ever released, and does have some compromises.

The fact is though, that the compromises are pretty much necessary to get a lens with such versatility, so while it is pretty obvious you are going to get a bit more barrel distortion on the wide end than you would with a 20mm prime or 10-22mm in the centre of its range, neither of those lenses then give you the option to zoom from the 18mm range all the way in to 200mm with one twist of a zoom ring. So the fact it doesn't compare to an L grade zoom is just the price you pay for the convenience of the lens.

At the same time, it is far from a bad lens, and for the target market (ie those want a simple, convenient zoom, not those that are used to shooting entirely with L primes) it is more than capable and does a great job.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/narcosynthesis
http://www.illaname.deviantart.com
 
Let us change this to Canon's worst lens, my vote is the 90-300.

--
my 2 exposed flashcubes worth.

Ian the pbase supporter.
http://pbase.com/ianm_au

Please check my profile for equipment list.
An amateur with dreams of being a good to excellent photographer.
 
It's easy to glance at the tests and get this impression but look a little closer.....

On Photozone.de the newer lenses are being tested on the 50D which is a much higher res. sensor AND the 18-135 is very sharp in the center which makes the corners look worse.

Look at the units on the bar graphs and you'll see the bottom is 1320 which is not all that terrible when you go back and look at the test of the old 17-85. It was tested on an 8Mp sensor so the units are much lower.

Also, if you are comparing this lens to a 17-50mm, the 18-135mm beats ANY 17-50 lens at 70mm or 90mm because those don't even take a picture above 50mm. They have no resolution at that focal length.

BTW, I do not own a copy of this lens so I'm not defending it.... just being practical.
I think it's easy to get too carried away with this whole thing.

--
Vince
 
I got one in my 50D kit and I like it,it has a use, it's nice when you don't want to change lenses and it's good quality... and any lens with a long range will have compromises But on a high resolution camera it does a good job... and center sharpness is great....
 
It's not the worst. The 70-300 would be the worst probably with the 18-200 a close 2nd place.

I suppose it is better than no picture at all however.

On the other hand, why not just get a super zoom pocket camera and save yourself the money and the weight.

--

'Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed.' ~ Winogrand
 
A pocket superzoom camera is not the same.

1. Very noisy at higher iso
2. Slow focus and frame rate
3. Poor viewfinder
4. Worse dynamic range
5. Manual controls usually lacking.
6. SLR can change lenses for when when you don't need a superzoom.

If you're talking about a G11 (not a super zoom) then, yes, you could probably get better resolution in many cases. I have a G11 but there are times I would choose the SLR with superzoom lens for the other advantages. I can always have a different lens in the car if something special comes along.

These lenses do serve a useful purpose. Even if you just use it for practicing composition on a day trip around home.... or going to the county fair.

--
Vince
 
the 18-200 is a very good lens for the price; quite sharp, good contrast, bokeh not bad (in fact I prefer the bokeh over the 70-200IS 2.8). IMO I would rate it higher than the 70-300IS and it has better contrast than the 100 non-IS macro.

Sample shot:



Regards
Stephen
 
From some of the talk you'd think this lens just produced vague outlines of the subjects with no detail at all.

--
Vince
 
While I don't own the Canon 18-200is, I do have it's close cousin the Sigma 18-200 OS. Various tests (including DPR) have suggested that the Canon is marginally better than the Sigma and as there is a price ratio of almost 2:1 in favour of the very cheap Sigma - that would not surprise me.

Frankly when you know a lens of this type well, it is possible to live with its weaknesses and still produce excellent images. It is not supposed to compete with an EFS 17-55is 2.8 - but then I would be very unhappy to carry that heavyweight 'shortass' with me as my only lens on a foreign holiday.

NB. Before anyone complains my disrespect for the 17-55is, I love my copy for indoor work where its aperture is so useful...

I suspect I will always have a superzoom in my kit and because I use mine so much (it's recently back from a very generous (out of warranty) but still free, repair at Sigma UK) I suspect I shall have an opportunity to test the available Canon-fit superzooms again at some time in the future.

So all in all I would be very surprised if the EFs 18-200 is Canon's worst lens...!
--
Wallabytoo
Hampton-in-Arden
England, UK
 
I own one, I use it with my 500D (almost never take it off...). It's a very versatile lens that produces very acceptable images at all focal lengths. I carry it with me on vacations, when bicycling etc... I've owned the 28-135 IS, 75-300 IS, and currently own 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-300 IS, 100-400L IS, so I know what I'm comparing the IQ with (I use the L lenses with 5DII). Granted, for example the 24-105 L IS is better, but I have no problems taking the 500D/18-200 IS combo with me when I need to travel light.
--
Jouko
http://http://www.slowshutter.net
 
camera_nut said:
BTW, I do not own a copy of this lens so I'm not defending it.... just being practical.
Click to expand...
Having owned both and compared them directly, I can say that unless I got an exceptionally bad copy, the 28-135 is MUCH worse than the 18-200. I originally got the 18-200 and found it slightly soft, so I got the 28-135 figuring it would be better quality, with USM, and since I used that range most of the time anyway. But the IQ is noticeably worse, and even the focus speed is no better. Fortunately, I had held on to the 18-200, so I sent the 28-135 back.
 
jr said:
I own one, I use it with my 500D (almost never take it off...). It's a very versatile lens that produces very acceptable images at all focal lengths. I carry it with me on vacations, when bicycling etc... I've owned the 28-135 IS, 75-300 IS, and currently own 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-300 IS, 100-400L IS, so I know what I'm comparing the IQ with (I use the L lenses with 5DII). Granted, for example the 24-105 L IS is better, but I have no problems taking the 500D/18-200 IS combo with me when I need to travel light.
--
Jouko
http://http://www.slowshutter.net
Click to expand...
JR - Do you have any images comparing the IQ of the two lenses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Too much overlap
Replies
8
Views
11K
Dave
Dave
F
Need new landscape lens for my a6700
2
Replies
22
Views
10K
jhunna
J
M
Using a Nikkor 55-300 for insects
Replies
0
Views
684
Mike H
M
Dick Dastardly
The curse of the Canon M3
Replies
8
Views
8K
Garry2306
G
B
Should we take DXOmark and TDP serious for lenses?
Replies
10
Views
8K
Rock and Rollei
R

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top