Selling out to the 18-200...yes, no, should I?

OK... I should start by saying that I am as L-coholic as they get. I've traded, owned, bought and sold a big chunk of L glass, and what I haven't owned I've shot (rent, borrow, etc.).

But recently I've been using a Leica-badged (hmm hmm) superzoom on another platform (non SLR) with integral built in lens, and it's really quite good. 28-300 equivalent.

And that's what tempts me, because for sheer convenience, the 18-200 IS is the one to beat. Usually I find myself towing a 24-105, 70-200/4 IS, on a 5D2 and it's beginning to weigh me down, though I truly love my full frame. I don't plan to give up this system - it will still be a mainstay, but I find there are plenty of other occasions where I can't haul a full kit.

I have a 40D BTW, which is where the 18-200 will be used.

So...willing to hear from both Lcoholics and non-Lcoholics: 18-200, good, bad, ugly - your impressions, your experiences, and whether you would find it a place in your bag.

I've owned both the original Sigma 18-200 and the later OS version and both met my needs & produced some great photos. My daughter has both the non OS version plus my 20D and she's very happy with them too. Last Jan (09) I bought a 5D2 and sold my 40D & 18-200 OS and I missed them so much I've now bought a Tamron 18-270 & 7D to replace them. (carrying a 1Ds2 & 24-105 + flash all day at a car show gets old rather quick). Here's a link to some 40D / Sigma 18-200 OS action shots.

http://picasaweb.googl​e.com …osport40DSigma1​8200OSLens

Just as a warning. Any lens that can cover a focal length from 18-200 will most likely only yield decent-at-best pictures near the middle of the zoom range. Also, no USM? You will regret it in the long run.

I'm enjoying it on my 30D. I even went so far as to travel through Bucharest and Paris over the holidays with just this lens, body in a Crumpler 2 Million bag (still had room to tuck my G9 in the bag, on the grip side of the camera). I enjoyed shoting this last go around alot as the prior trip I borrowed my dad's Sony with 3 lenses and it was a hassle when changing lenses on public streets, not to mention the bag to carry them all.

True it's not perfect but for an all around lens, you know you'll get your shot when out on the fly. I've rented L's for when I'm working on my portrait skills and I'm looking to purchase a standard zoom in the near future.

I enjoy my 18-200 for pure convenience but due to its slowness need to pair it with flash or fast prime.

Another member posted this before...
http://www.flickr.com/​search/?q=canon+18-200&s=int

Lightstream wrote in post #9651212
OK... I should start by saying that I am as L-coholic as they get. I've traded, owned, bought and sold a big chunk of L glass, and what I haven't owned I've shot (rent, borrow, etc.).

But recently I've been using a Leica-badged (hmm hmm) superzoom on another platform (non SLR) with integral built in lens, and it's really quite good. 28-300 equivalent.

And that's what tempts me, because for sheer convenience, the 18-200 IS is the one to beat. Usually I find myself towing a 24-105, 70-200/4 IS, on a 5D2 and it's beginning to weigh me down, though I truly love my full frame. I don't plan to give up this system - it will still be a mainstay, but I find there are plenty of other occasions where I can't haul a full kit.

I have a 40D BTW, which is where the 18-200 will be used.

So...willing to hear from both Lcoholics and non-Lcoholics: 18-200, good, bad, ugly - your impressions, your experiences, and whether you would find it a place in your bag.

There just so happens to be a 28-300L. 8)

It's decent at f8, but the corners are soft, and the CA gets bad wide open. Convenient, but don't do any serious work with it.

I use my Canon 18-200 as a walk around lens at first on my 40D and now 7D.
Though it can be a bit soft (shoot RAW and add a little sharpness works for me) I have been able to get shots I would of not otherwise been able to get by swapping lenses.
I love the lens with good light and for me a little post work makes for good images. I am not a pixel peeper by the way.
It is not good for low light at all so a few fast primes will pick up the slack.

Austin.Manny wrote in post #9653069
There just so happens to be a 28-300L. 8)

indeed.

Also, many "superzooms" like the Tamron and the Canon won't work on full frame cameras.

28-300 it is, although this thing will REALLY weigh you down. it's basically the shell of a 100-400, with different optics. I would totally get one if I could afford it/needed it....

I had a 28-300 tamron that was not very good really, rarely used, but I got an 18-200is canon when i had my 40d for 1 lens walkabout duty and am still pleased with it for that purpose. have a peek at the 18-200 archive pic thread to see what your buying into.

I too have a Panasonic ZS3. Great video, but -- unfortunately -- the still pics don't come close to what I get from the 40D. Too bad, since I love the "pocketable" form factor.

I would absolutely go for the 28-300L if I could. I own the 100-400 and don't mind that it's not a twist zoom, but the weight, size and cost of the 28-300 somewhat reduce the convenience factor

I enjoined my 18-200IS when i had it

I sold it to fund other stuff, but if I could just have kept it, i would have
Is it perfect? is it a L? Is it going to compete with 1000$ plus lens in sharpness?
No
But the convenience and fun factor was very nice on many many circumstances

http://www.flickr.com …8/sets/72157622​216147556/
Here
I did a comparison with my 18-55IS, you can draw your own conclusions
I think is a very capable lens, if you want convenience, this is your ticket, next to the Tamron 18-270vc
A warning, is not a very light lens.. don't expect to carry a 40D as a small point a shoot in weight, but is a very fun lens to use