Canon EF 28-200mm F/3.5-5.6 USM Lens

Has anyone used this lens, Canon EF 28-200mm F/3.5-5.6 USM Lens? I thought it was a kind of interesting lens like maybe the great walk-arround lens. And what was your impressions

I did the mistake of buying one, and I still regret that purchase. One of the worst lens I ever tried. Slow, cheap, it lacked sharpness and contrast. As a walk around lens on a cropped sensor, The Tamron 18-200 is much better.

So, I figured based on the f/numbers that it was not a great lens. I was expecting to here that possibly, it might be good stopped down. What a pitty.
It's to bad Cannon can't or won't make a lens that was maybe a straight-sharp f/4 30 -150mm ( 48-240mm on a 1.6 crop) be USM + IS. That would be a nice walk-arround. Why not revamp the Kit to the same 17 or 18-35 again f/4 with USM +IS. Crying out loud, they do have 3, 70-200 Ls in various flavors.

R Schade wrote in post #4341527
It's to bad Cannon can't or won't make a lens that was maybe a straight-sharp f/4 30 -150mm ( 48-240mm on a 1.6 crop) be USM + IS. That would be a nice walk-arround. Why not revamp the Kit to the same 17 or 18-35 again f/4 with USM +IS. Crying out loud, they do have 3, 70-200 Ls in various flavors.

There still is the 28-300 3.5-5.6 L, which is USM and IS. I have the old version, the 35-350 3.5-5.6 L, which is a great lens, even if it does not have IS. It's the perfect walkarond lens, on a full frame camera. (It's just a little heavy).

tiziano wrote in post #4343548
There still is the 28-300 3.5-5.6 L, which is USM and IS. I have the old version, the 35-350 3.5-5.6 L, which is a great lens, even if it odesn not have IS. It's the perfect walkarond lens, on a full frame camera. (It's just a little heavy).

There's also the 24-105 f/4L IS, which is only a bit short on the long end from your wish lens.