Ilovetheleafs wrote in post #15666984
if you want to see what the 18 - 200 can do just let me know and I'll show you some of the images I have gotten out of my copy. I've no real experience with the 18 - 250 though, I will say I did test it out and something just felt "right" with the 18 - 200 I tried and bought. Is it a bit of a compromise? Sure, but all gear is, just have to find the ways to either avoid said weaknesses of the gear or find work-arounds.
Thanks, your samples, while I am sure are nice, won't be relevant. I am definitely not getting the 18-200. Different versions of the same lens, or similar lenses can be drastically different from each other.
I have read some reviews that say that while there are compromises in a super zoom, those compromises are shrinking every day. That the 18-250 is actually short on compromises. I could probably afford the 70-200 L, but honestly, I don't see my self using it. (same problem I have with the 55-250) It is in the middle of the focal range. when I am at a family function, I go for the wide lens, I know that will cover most shots. When I am in the wild, I go with the 150-500, since that will be what makes me photo ready most often.
I would have to stop, change lenses, and purposely switch to the 55-250, (or the 70-200) and I just don't see this happening.
Now, a 18-250, would be the type of lens that could stay on in the car. (The 150-500 is just too big to throw around out the window at random.) Shooting targets of opportunity, and or family.
Of course no one is arguing the potential usefulness of that range of zoom.. only the IQ. So people who think that the super zoom idea will produce poor quality images, simply on the premise that it is a super zoom... what do you think of the IQ on the 55-250 canon? So that we can compare apples to apples.