barrel change on ef-s 18-200 lens

i just replaced my tamron 17-270 with a canon 28-200 = i was not happy with the quality of the tamron, turned out to have a fault

Anyway the 18-200 efs 3.5-5.6 IS lens

i notice that between 200& 170 zoom there's very slight movement in the barrel and also the image moves very slightly - between 18 and 135 a lot of barrel movement

is this normal ?

anyway to also test the IS

etaf wrote in post #14467898
i just replaced my tamron 17-270 with a canon 28-200 = i was not happy with the quality of the tamron, turned out to have a fault

Anyway the 18-200 efs 3.5-5.6 IS lens

i notice that between 200& 170 zoom there's very slight movement in the barrel and also the image moves very slightly - between 18 and 135 a lot of barrel movement

is this normal ?

anyway to also test the IS

The quick answer is yes. But it seems to vary some between examples. Mine is loose. I assume you're talking about barrel wobble rather than zoom creep, although my example also creeps very significantly. Not entirely sure what you mean by the image moving very slightly, but I'm guessing you're seeing the result of the image stabilization working through the viewfinder, which can cause a momentary and slight shifting of the image. I'm also assuming the barrel movement you refer to between 18 and 135mm is zoom creep. The 18-200mm zoom creep is significant in some examples, less so in others, The build quality of the 18-200 is OK, but not great. The focus is not full time and is noisy but it is not much slower than a USM motor and is definitely faster than the Tamron.

I had the same issue, I just think that the zoom ring is inaccurate but that's just me
How do you find the change from the Tammy to the canon IQ wise?

eyalha wrote in post #14471441
I had the same issue, I just think that the zoom ring is inaccurate but that's just me
How do you find the change from the Tammy to the canon IQ wise?

Not sure if you meant me or etaf since I also have a Tamron 18-270 PZD. I think the build of the Tamron is a bit better in some respects. The barrel is tighter. There is a lot less zoom creep and the extra 70mm is quite useful. Its much smaller and lighter. But the VC (Tamron's version of IS) is annoyingly noisy. The AF is quiet, but its not full time and is noticeably slower than the Canon 18-200mm. The lens which is f5.6 to f6.3 hunts often at the long end in low light. While the contrast is superior to the Canon, the Tamron is much softer then the Canon at the edges at most focal lengths. The Canon has more barrel distortion and Chromatic Aberration Due to the Tamron's size and weight, it would be a great match to any of the Rebels as well as the 50D and 60D.

I agree with these statements, although only had the lens a couple of hours - also - I happened to put a new tamron on the camera and took my laptop in the shop so i could compare the results - the tamron was much softer and quite noticeable - just as soon as the images where side by side - even the shop manager was called over as they where surprised that the the canon is much better for me

i was referring to when you move the zoom from 170 - 200 the barral moved out only slightly and the image does not appear to move by 30mm
but that may be calibration

thanks for the replies

When using a Canon 18-200mm IS lens, I've been most interested in the pictures it generates such as these, instead of the positions of the barrels.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

i agree - but as i had a tamron 18-270 and changed yesterday to the canon lens (and they had no new ones in , only a 2nd hand one ) i wanted to be sure mechanically
while i take a few pictures over the next few days

so i would be interest in what happens to the barrel from 17-200 on the calibration markings on the lens itself, i have a few days to take it back

etaf wrote in post #14472542
i agree - but as i had a tamron 18-270 and changed yesterday to the canon lens (and they had no new ones in , only a 2nd hand one ) i wanted to be sure mechanically
while i take a few pictures over the next few days

so i would be interest in what happens to the barrel from 17-200 on the calibrating markings on the lens itself, i have a few days to take it back

First, with regard to the small additional extension between 170mm and 200mm, that is normal. It only extends a short distance. The lens is designed to work that way. Stop worrying about the amount the barrel extends at any given focal length. Its not linear.

Second I'm assuming you're not familiar with zoom lenses, so pardon me if you are. Zoom lens are are designed based on focusing towards infinity. As a result, if you compare two different zoom lenses indoors, such as the 55-250mm kit lens vs the 18-200mm, and you focus on something indoors at the same focal length with each lens, say at 100mm, the size of the image in the viewfinder will likely be very different. This is not a calibration issue but is inherent in the design of zoom lenses. When focused on infinity, the images will be the same size. Those who do not understand this often think lens manufacturers are misleading customers when they specify the focal range of a lens.

well, turns out the camera was not focusing correctly and unlike the 50D the 60D does not any adjustment for focusing

so we played with some bodies and lenses and replaced the body today
so more playing tomorrow
quite surprised my 50mm 2.5 macro lens appeared sharper that a 50mm 1.4 lens we tried

just as an update , i went and saw a brand new 18-200 lens today in a different shop and its exactly the same very little change or movement between 170 & 200 - also took some images and they are the same so a much happier bunny today

also just realised my 2x convertor does not work on EF-S lenses
guess i will have to sell that along with a hoya 72mm and a hood - which i also got as part of the the trouble yesterday