Why hasn't Canon made this lens?

EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM


Super-UD Glass
Aspherical Lenses
3-4 Stops IS
Full Time Manual Focus
Minimum Focus Range of 20” or Less
$1000


I'm no mathematician and don't know if it is even possible to create such a lens, but it could be close to this; say 18-105 or 18-120 or whatever. After using Nikon's 18-200 VR I have been trying to find something similar for Canon's with no luck. The 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM comes darn close, but -10mm, 5 ½ pounds, a minimum focus distance of 2.3 feet and costing $2200 is just too much of a compromise – it simply wasn't made for cropped sensors. Sigma's 18-200 OS would have been perfect, but the 6.3 aperture and so-so IQ again just doesn't match what I want. The Canon EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM doesn't have a far enough zoom, IQ is lacking on the low/high end, allot of distortion at the low end and noticeable pincushion effect and I don't like the build quality – all apparent in its low cost. I know everything has compromises, but Canon doesn't seem to really take cropped bodies very seriously thus their lack of EF-S L lenses. I guess I have to buy a 5D to get Canon's better lenses.


I didn't want to like the Nikon lens, but with 3+ stops VR (with proper holding techniques I've gone lower) and all the right compromises it was a loosing battle.


Sorry, rant over.

i always though that the more "all encompassing" focal length a lens has, the IQ will sufffer as a side effect, just look @ all the complaints about the 24-105L. I've never seen any unprocessed shots from that nikon lens though, so I couldn't say for sure.

Sigma now has the 18-200 OS for Canon (brand new to the market), and Canon has the 17-55 and 17-85 - all three have image stabilization. Canon also has the 28-135 (obviously) with IS. Sigma also has an 18-125 non IS. All of these lenses except the 28-135 are for "crop only" bodies. The 24-105 is for full frame and is a much better piece of glass than all the others listed.

I think in the end Canon has made the decision not to make a "consumer" hyperzoom. The closest that they have is the 28-200 which I almost never hear anyone talk about. I think Canon has decided that the third parties can tackle that portion of the market and that they will stick with making other glass - just my opinion, it's worth absolutely zero

I've never really felt the need for a hyperzoom zoom. The IQ suffers too much for the convenience of an all in one zoom. I've never liked something designed to tackle multiple purposes. Have you tried the Canon 28-135 IS USM? If that's not long enough for you, can you use foot zoom? If it's not wide enough you can always use the 18-55 kit lens or a 17-50mm range lens.

buy some prime lenses and foot zoom is included free!

There's no single lens that will do it all. Most people on this forum have, at minimum, a two lens combo to cover the distance between 17mm and 200mm. The whole rationale for buying a DSLR is to be able to change lenses for the particular job one is trying to accomplish.

scot079 wrote in post #3545013
i always though that the more "all encompassing" focal length a lens has, the IQ will sufffer as a side effect, just look @ all the complaints about the 24-105L. I've never seen any unprocessed shots from that nikon lens though, so I couldn't say for sure.

Oh, there are tons of compromises in the Nikon lens – but they seemed to make just the right ones such as sacrificing bokeh for more sharpness. I went out in the back yard just now to take a picture with the 18-200 VR; had to practically crawl up to him to take the photos. The first picture at 1/125 would have been hard without IS the second very difficult w/o IS at 1/60. (Nikon's are really soft at their default settings so I leave sharpening cranked up to medium-high).


Nikon D200
200mm, 1/125, ISO 400, Vivid, & Bibble default settings

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

scot079 wrote in post #3545013
just look @ all the complaints about the 24-105L.

Nothing wrong with mine...

Layston wrote in post #3545136
I think Canon has decided that the third parties can tackle that portion of the market and that they will stick with making other glass - just my opinion, it's worth absolutely zero

It would seem so

pagnamenta wrote in post #3545165
I've never really felt the need for a hyperzoom zoom. The IQ suffers too much for the convenience of an all in one zoom. I've never liked something designed to tackle multiple purposes. Have you tried the Canon 28-135 IS USM? If that's not long enough for you, can you use foot zoom? If it's not wide enough you can always use the 18-55 kit lens or a 17-50mm range lens.

I've been looking at that one a lot – but I just can't get passed the 28mm end and I believe it has the older IS 1-2 stops compensation (correct me if I'm wrong).

scot079 wrote in post #3545170
buy some prime lenses and foot zoom is included free!

Works well until you run over some poor kid (yes, I've done it more than once). But mostly, I find myself changing shooting areas constantly and changing lenses often really puts me off. I have to clean my sensor once a month (really dusty here!).

liza wrote in post #3545199
There's no single lens that will do it all. Most people on this forum have, at minimum, a two lens combo to cover the distance between 17mm and 200mm. The whole rationale for buying a DSLR is to be able to change lenses for the particular job one is trying to accomplish.

Totally agree. However, I am willing to sacrifice some IQ for a 'vacation' lens any day My Tamron has better IQ vs the Nikon in the same range but with the VR the Nikon is just better for me


Most of the time I find myself in the 24-105 range (35mm equiv) and there is just nothing 'good' in that sweet spot that I believe most of the regular photog's find themselves.

mcminty wrote in post #3545204


Nothing wrong with mine...

yeah look again, yours is the worst of all!

scot079 wrote in post #3545170
buy some prime lenses and foot zoom is included free!

Foot zoom is a myth because it changes the relationship between the subject the background. In most photographs you choose the camera location for composition and then match the focal length of the lens to frame the picture. Zoom just helps in the selection of focal length unless you have time and a good selection of prime lenses.

ScottE wrote in post #3548488
Foot zoom is a myth because it changes the relationship between the subject the background. In most photographs you choose the camera location for composition and then match the focal length of the lens to frame the picture. Zoom just helps in the selection of focal length unless you have time and a good selection of prime lenses.

I would also like to see someone trying to "foot zoom" in on the grand canyon, well perhaps not.

WMS

scot079 wrote in post #3545013
i always though that the more "all encompassing" focal length a lens has, the IQ will sufffer as a side effect, just look @ all the complaints about the 24-105L. I've never seen any unprocessed shots from that nikon lens though, so I couldn't say for sure.

Could you direct me to all the complaints on the 24/105?

MaxxuM wrote in post #3545202
Oh, there are tons of compromises in the Nikon lens – but they seemed to make just the right ones such as sacrificing bokeh for more sharpness. I went out in the back yard just now to take a picture with the 18-200 VR; had to practically crawl up to him to take the photos. The first picture at 1/125 would have been hard without IS the second very difficult w/o IS at 1/60. (Nikon's are really soft at their default settings so I leave sharpening cranked up to medium-high).


Nikon D200
200mm, 1/125, ISO 400, Vivid, & Bibble default settings

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

100% Crop

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

Nikon D200
200mm, 1/60, ISO 400, Vivid, Medium-High Sharp & Bibble default settings

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

100% Crop

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

Those crops look like crap to me. I don't think you can blame the Nikon body for the lack of sharpness here.

cdifoto wrote in post #3548661
Those crops look like crap to me. I don't think you can blame the Nikon body for the lack of sharpness here.

Ditto. Not all that impressive. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Compromises, indeed.

I'm fine with the fact that Canon hasn't made a consumer hyperzoom SLR lens. If I wanted that, I'd get a P&S.