Reading mode: Light Dark

Is the 18-200 Canons worst lens?

Go to last post
I think you missed my point.

I don't care about what is anybody's worst lens.
I only care about which lenses are useful and can take a decent picture.
I'm not searching for the perfect lens either like so many are.

I think tests can blow things out of proportion if you don't put them in the proper context. So I was trying to explain that the test on the 18-135 was not done the same as others in the past and it makes the lens look worse when it's not. It's tested to a higher standard.
--
Vince
 
I Disagree with you 100% on that. My 28-135IS is a great lens - not as Great of course as my 24-105L, but it still performs very good on any of my 3 DSLR bodies & I got it new in 2003 when I got my EOS-3. I have had 16 X 20's made from that lens & my 300D when both were new & that was from Jpeg files & not RAW, & the images are tack sharp. I would say from all of the Bad & negative reviews of Canon lenses on Fred Miranda, the worst would be the Canon 28-200mm which lacks IS & would be nice to see that lens updated, but I don't see it happening. As for the 18-200, I may rent it sometime next spring to try it out.
 
I was flipping through Scott Kelby's "Digital Photography Book" Vol 3 and there is a page about "all-in-one zooms" which really caught my eye.

Anyhow he loves the 18-200 and says he's made 20x30 inch prints with it and also used it for pro work. He says the 18-200's (all brands) are their most popular lenses. He says if he was taking a vacation it would be the first thing to go on the list. Of course he uses primes too but these lenses have a very legitimate place in almost anyone's kit. They are not "duds". He does say you need to use such a lens with some care though.

If you never heard of Scott Kelby he is a long time pro who has done every kind of photo work and written a number of books. I think he also heads up a Photoshop users group. His books are good and I respect his opinion.

He is a guy who wouldn't even take a snapshot without a tripod so it wouldn't make sense for him to approve of a bad lens.
--
Vince
 
camera_nut said:
I think you missed my point.
Click to expand...
I guess so, because I thought it was something about which lens was better and the fallibility of reviews and test results.

BTW, are you talking about the 28-135 or the 18-135? They're two different lenses. The previous posters and I have been talking about the older 28-135, whereas you keep referring to the new 18-135, which may be part of the confusion.
 
Just from personal experience, the worst Canon lens I have ever purchased (took it back the same day) was the 28-200. I subsequently purchased the Sigma 18-200 OS (only non-Canon lens I own, and I have a few.) and its fine as a casual lens (certainly not L quality). This was before Canon came out with the 18-200.
 
Shamus1 said:
Just from personal experience, the worst Canon lens I have ever purchased (took it back the same day) was the 28-200. I subsequently purchased the Sigma 18-200 OS (only non-Canon lens I own, and I have a few.) and its fine as a casual lens (certainly not L quality). This was before Canon came out with the 18-200.
Click to expand...
Canon designed this "me too" lens long after Tamron, Sigma, etc. all came out with their 1st generation super zooms. However, instead of using aspherical & UD elements like 3rd parties, they insisted to reserve such technologies for the L lens. Given such large zoom range for its day, the end result is very poor.
--
Peter Kwok
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok
WYSIWYG - If you don't like what you get, try to see differently.
 
Actually, Canon's optical design of the 18-200mm consists of 16 elements in 12 groups, including UD-glass and aspherical lenses, just like Sigma and Tamron. If you test all of the lenses you will find that the Canon at least holds its own against the others. I have tried all of the Tamron lenses along with my Canon 18-200mm and found the Canon superior. Sure, it is not as good as my L lenses, but for a single zoom does well, better than its competitors. Please try the lens on your camera against the other brands and you might find the results agree with my own tests.
--
Jeff Peronto
 
Images like these make me feel that the Canon 18-200mm is a very useful lens. I shot them with little effort and the ease of a single lens.







If you want a lens that can sit on your camera for much of your imaging needs, the Canon 18-200mm IS is, at least in my own experience, a wonderful choice.
Jeff
--
Jeff Peronto
 
I just ordered the 18-200 lens today. I will use the lens on the 7D. This past week I rented the EF-S 18-200, EF 70-200 2.8L, EF-S 17-55, and EF-S 15-85.

The 18-200 did better than I expected, and I plan to use this as a general super zoom.

I did some simple backyard tests with the above lenses plus my 10 year old 28-135 lens. I took some shots at 15-17mm, 50mm, 70mm, 135mm, 200mm at f5.6 and at the widest f stop supported by the lenses.

If you want to process and look at the RAW files you can download the self-extracting RAR archive files at

1) www.turnershome.com/lenstests/lenses.part01.exe
2) http://www.turnershome.com/lenstests/lenses.part02.rar
3) http://www.turnershome.com/lenstests/lenses.part03.rar
4) http://www.turnershome.com/lenstests/lenses.part04.rar
5) http://www.turnershome.com/lenstests/lenses.part05.rar
6) http://www.turnershome.com/lenstests/lenses.part06.rar
7) http://www.turnershome.com/lenstests/lenses.part07.rar
8) http://www.turnershome.com/lenstests/lenses.part08.rar
9) http://www.turnershome.com/lenstests/lenses.part09.rar
A) http://www.turnershome.com/lenstests/lenses.part10.rar
B) http://www.turnershome.com/lenstests/lenses.part11.rar
C) http://www.turnershome.com/lenstests/lenses.part12.rar
D) http://www.turnershome.com/lenstests/lenses.part13.rar

If you are uncomfortable running the .exe you can extract the images from the .exe with WinRAR.
NOTE: The folder is very large at 1.1GB

The 18-200 was good enough for my needs. The 18-200 shots did have some CA and edge softness at certain focal lengths. The CA was corrected nicely by Lightroom 3 and DPP.

take care...
 
Rob Turner said:
I just ordered the 18-200 lens today. I will use the lens on the 7D. This past week I rented the EF-S 18-200, EF 70-200 2.8L, EF-S 17-55, and EF-S 15-85.
Click to expand...
What did you think of the 15-85IS as compared to the 18-200IS? Was there any significant difference in quality (as one would expect from USM and shorter zoom range -- and higher price!)?

--
Phil .. Canon EOS 7D, 40D, 20D; G11, SD700IS; Panasonic ZS3/TZ7
http://www.pbase.com/phil_wheeler
http://philwheeler.net
 
jperonto said:
Actually, Canon's optical design of the 18-200mm consists of 16 elements in 12 groups, including UD-glass and aspherical lenses...
--
Jeff Peronto
Click to expand...
What I said 6 days ago was Canon's first TWENTY-EIGHT to 200mm super-zoom for film cameras from the year 2000, NOT your EIGHTEEN to 200mm.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_28~200_35~56.html
Your 18-200 is fine.
--
Peter Kwok
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok
WYSIWYG - If you don't like what you get, try to see differently.
 
The 15-85 lens was very nice. Surprising to me was that it was noticeably better than the 17-55mm. Although I have to believe that the specific 17-55mm that I rented was the issue instead of the 17-55mm product line.

The 18-200mm at f5.6 was comparable to the 15-85 at 50mm. Although at some focal lengths the 18-200 did have a little more edge softness.

For my needs the 18-200 range more than made up for the difference between the two lenses.

I'm waiting the 18-200 lens I bought to arrive so I can compare it to the 18-200 lens I rented. I hope mine is as good.

The images are useful to download and lookout if you care bare the pain of the 1.1 GB download :-(
 
Since the OP I have purchased and received the 18-200, and whilst being a little disappointed at first am now really growing to like it. The versatility is fantastic and great for a walkaround. My iniitial disappointment was due to significant CA wide open - to the point where I found it very distracting when viewing the shots. However stepping down really helped and f8/9 produce good images. 18-24 is not great, but again stopping down quickly improves the shots significantly. Also very pleased with 200mm shots. The IS is great allowing you to compensate for stopping down.
 
Rob Turner said:
The 15-85 lens was very nice. Surprising to me was that it was noticeably better than the 17-55mm. Although I have to believe that the specific 17-55mm that I rented was the issue instead of the 17-55mm product line.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is that I tried two of the 15-85 and neither copy came close to my 17-55 f/2.8, particularly in terms of CA at wide and long extremes. In fact, overall I far preferred my Canon 18-200IS and have given up on the 15-85. Perhaps the third 15-85 would have been the charm -- but I wearied of testing.
Rob Turner184723 said:
The 18-200mm at f5.6 was comparable to the 15-85 at 50mm. Although at some focal lengths the 18-200 did have a little more edge softness.
Click to expand...
My 18-200IS has far less CA at 85 mm than either 15-85 lens I tried; likely sample variation.
Rob Turner184723 said:
For my needs the 18-200 range more than made up for the difference between the two lenses.
Click to expand...
Definitely a plus not to have to change lenses!

--
Phil .. Canon EOS 7D, 40D; G11, SD700IS; Panasonic ZS3/TZ7
http://www.pbase.com/phil_wheeler
http://philwheeler.net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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