nikon 18-200 VR - no canon equivalent?

I have some friends who are Nikon users and they're all pretty excited about the Nikon 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR (http://www.nikon.ca …ts/afs-dx-vr-zoom-18-200/) and seem to think it has good results at all focal lengths, which is something that's not usually said of the Sigma 18-200. Just wondering if there's any thoughts as to Canon coming out with an IS lens with the same/similar zoom range and if there's any inherent reason it can't get quality results at all points.

I doubt that they will, they just want us to keep buying other lens to make up the difference.

what about the canon 28-300 IS ?
It's not tooo well regarded, but with a zoom range as such, you can't get prime quality results no matter what,

cmM

wait till Aug 24, maybe they will finally answer Nikon and come up with a EF-S 18-100 IS and a 100mm macro IS.

The EF 28-300L IS is the closet thing you're going to get to that right now. Of course, the Nikon has the edge as far as pricing goes.

It depends what your friends' photography goals are, yes?
This is a premium consumer travel/vacation lens, when you only carry one lens. That's it. That's all. Sometimes that enough. No big deal.
If a one lens travel kit is the need, then this is about the same optically as the Sigma 18-200, with the VR benefit.
Similar to the well-docmented barrel distortion compromises of the Canon 17-85 IS, this has surprisingly poor wide angle performance for Nikon's usual high standards.

Everything to be said about it is on Photozone.

It's not for selective focus, not for edge sharpness, etc.
Jack

It's the best 28-300 available, but 28 isn't wide on a 1.6X camera.

I almost expect Canon to respond in kind to Nikon's 18-200 lens.

Ack, f/3.5-5.6.

I've been very pleased with mine, it's the perfect walk around for me. The new VRII system is awsome too. It's not a particually fast lens, but then every lens has a compromise.

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon didn't come out with something along the same lines. Right now the 17-85 IS is about as close as you can get with the Canon to the Nikon 18-200 VR as a walk around.

Well that 17-85 was just their EF-S version of the 28-135 IS. So they pretty much haven't changed things. But its always possible that they could make something. I'm more likely to believe a 3rd party would cover that focal length once again.

Dont buy a 28-300 IS, just buy two bodies and use a 17-40 and 70-200 lens. Costs about the same price if bought used and much better IQ.

i hate when people bring up this topic (3 in last month). 18-200VR IS NOT THE FIRST. the 35-350 and current 28-300mm lenses have been around for several years. nikon only answered canon's film optically stabilized 10x superzoom with their own digital 10x superzoom (both are slightly over 10x, but who really cares). in nikon's case, the zoom is intended to attract p&s customers with an attractive looking 10x range, while canon's 10x zooms are geared towards professionals with very specific needs, especially photojournalism. the 18-200 suffers from many of canon's 17-85's mistakes, but on a much larger scale. distortions are so grave that straight lines in buildings are horribly bent (most reviews will downplay this, but if you look at samples, it's horrible). it has falloff problems, even more CA and edge softness than 17-85, and the vr isn't as good as IS. the cost is also quite high. if you where to go with canon lined lenses, you could get the 17-85 and 70-300 for less than the price of the 18-200 (both with IS) and you would get much better quality (especially in 40-300mm range). did i also mention an extra 100mm reach?

if you are looking to save space with one lens vs two for travel, just get yourself a 10x zoom point and shoot. you'll have a much lower cost, less weight, still keep IS in some models, and it'll cost a whole bunch less too. unless your needs justify it, 10x zoom and slr cameras don't mix well...

btw, i have not talked about third party 1x-x00 lenses because they do not use optical stabilization.

When I want one lens, I'll take my S1IS.