Canon 18-200 review posted......

Had the 18-55 IS along with the big brother 55-250 and so far the 18-200 IS is an all around excellent lens. Printed images look great and they look stunning on my Imac. Very versatile and I do like it better than the Sigma 18-200 OS that I sold.

Treaks

i'm quite satisfied with the results of my 18-200.

Could it be possible the reviewers are being to critical of this lens? Even if "points" are being taken away for poor IQ , one has to add points for the fantastic range this lens has. I would really like to have this lens for snowmobiling, skiing, backpacking- anything where I want a small, lightweight setup. If I have to sacrifice top quality for that portability, I can live with it.

Anyway, I imagine this is setting the stage for a higher end EF-S lens in this range, as that is how Canon test markets itself. But only if the lens does well, which it should no matter what the reviews on the sole reason of it's cost.

friend had an 18-200 on his nikon. to be honest it was a POS. never buy all in one lenses. invest in several lenses that serve different purpose.

20ls01 wrote in post #6542259
friend had an 18-200 on his nikon. to be honest it was a POS. never buy all in one lenses. invest in several lenses that serve different purpose.

I think you are missing the point of this lens.

If your satisfied with the quality of the 17-85 you'll probably be ok with the 18-200. I for one think the 17-85 is not a good lens. It's ok but I'm not satisfied with just ok. I have the 17-85 and cant wait to get rid of it. I was hoping that the 18-200 was better but it's not, it may be worse. Thing that gets me is the price of the 18-200. 700 bucks is pretty steep for the quality of the lens and no usm. If your a casual photographer this will fit the bill. If your an enthusiast you will pass on this lens. One other thing. This lens probably will work better with a 30D. The 50D needs much better glass.

Jethro790 wrote in post #6542225
Could it be possible the reviewers are being to critical of this lens?

Under Photozone's new standards for EOS 50D tests, anything over 2350 LW/PH is considered excellent --- exceeding the resolution of the EOS 50D's 15-megapixel sensor. Anything over 2000 LW/PH is very good.

So with that in mind, consider the results from Photozone's own charts:

• When shooting wide open, the center sharpness at all focal lengths is either excellent or very good.
  
• With the aperture stopped down by 1 stop, center sharpness at all focal lengths exceeds the resolution of the EOS 50D sensor.
  
• With the lens stopped down to f8.0, border sharpness is very good across much of the zoom range (24mm to 200mm). The only weak spot is at the widest end of the zoom range (18mm), where border sharpness is between "fair" and "good".

If one was content with the image quality of their 18-55 kit lens, and/or the 55-250 lens, would they be happy with the 18-200? That's the question the reviews should answer. Nobody expects an "L" lens out of this, it's clearly for 'snapshots'.

Strawberry Fields wrote in post #6543584
Under Photozone's new standards for EOS 50D tests, anything over 2350 LW/PH is considered excellent --- exceeding the resolution of the EOS 50D's 15-megapixel sensor. Anything over 2000 LW/PH is very good.

So with that in mind, consider the results from Photozone's own charts:

• When shooting wide open, the center sharpness at all focal lengths is either excellent or very good.
  
• With the aperture stopped down by 1 stop, center sharpness at all focal lengths exceeds the resolution of the EOS 50D sensor.
  
• With the lens stopped down to f8.0, border sharpness is very good across much of the zoom range (24mm to 200mm). The only weak spot is at the widest end of the zoom range (18mm), where border sharpness is between "fair" and "good".

And yet Photozone's review of the lens is mostly negative, on the basis of image quality. I think these reviews are being unusually harsh.

Harsh? I don't think so. They just didn't want the lens to be any good, so they wrote it up that way.........

Another review....http://www.photoreview​.com.au …8200mm-f3556-is-lens.aspx

20ls01 wrote in post #6542259
friend had an 18-200 on his nikon. to be honest it was a POS. never buy all in one lenses. invest in several lenses that serve different purpose.

I'm sorry but what did you expect? If you want L quality images go for L glass. L glass happens to, for the most part, have limited range, is bulky, weighs a lot, and costs a heckuva lot. Maybe you like carrying around thousands of dollars worth heavy glass everywhere you go but I'm guessing there are a lot of people who'd prefer to have a light all in one lens to carry around while say on vacation or hiking. What I mean to say is that there is no point in comparing this lens to L glass let alone primes. It wasn't ever meant to compete with these; it is a wholly different beast. This lens was not designed to be used at the professional level it was designed to be as convenient a lens as possible; where L's trade of weight, range, and price for image quality this lens does the reverse.

I'll just say that if I had tons of money I'd have a nice collection of L glass as well as a lens like this one for when I don't care to carry around all that glass.