For those 18-200 IS owners.....

Ok, I've got a Canon 18-200 IS, and also a 17-55 IS. I've been reading lots of threads about how great the 70-200 f4L IS is, and now I'm contemplating selling my 18-200 and saving up for the 70-200. For those of you who own or have owned the 18-200, have you thought about upgrading or have upgraded to one of the 70-200 lenses? If so, were you happy with your decision? I know I'll be losing the 18-70 range, but I have the 17-55 and am not to worried about the 55-70 range. Thoughts?

As for what I shoot, mostly outdoor family and friend stuff. I'm not a pro, though I aspire to be one day.

If you don't mind switching lenses more often the 70-200 f/4 IS a superb piece of glass, unarguably better than the 18-200.

Most every canon owner seems to end up with a 70-200mm in their arsenal at some point...

The question is, WHICH one do you get? I have the 70-200mm f/4 IS as well, and it is excellent--I wouldn't consider the f/2.8 versions simply because they're too bulky and heavy.

The 70-200 f/4 L IS is one very nice sharp lens as many have noted on this forum. I have had great results with my copy on my 7D. Nice and light as a walk around. Coupled with your 17-55 f/2.8 on a 40D you would have a wonderful setup.

My third lens was the 18-200 and to be honest I still love it. Though I have upgraded to 7D and some nicer lenses. I have decided to keep my 40D and 18-200. When I do not want to carry all my gear but want more than a point and shoot I carry my 40D and 18-200 lens.

Here is a picture of my cat Rosco shot with my 40D and 18-200.

I don't shoot with an 18-200 but I have some friends who like the lens and I met some people traveling who also spoke highly of it but I wonder if you would be better off with a 55-250. I understand the convenience factor but considering you can get a 55-250 for less then half the price it seems like that with an 18-55 would give far better results for less money. I will say my 70-200 blows me away but for casual shooting its just to heavy so I have seriously considered one of these 2 options with a rebel as a sorta high end p/s setup.

PhoenixPhotography wrote in post #10561899
My third lens was the 18-200 and to be honest I still love it. Though I have upgraded to 7D and some nicer lenses. I have decided to keep my 40D and 18-200. When I do not want to carry all my gear but want more than a point and shoot I carry my 40D and 18-200 lens.

Here is a picture of my cat Rosco shot with my 40D and 18-200.

Phoenix, I'm leaning more and more toward keeping my 18-200 instead of selling it and just saving up the total for the 70-200 f4L IS. That way, if I ever pick up another body such as an older Rebel I can put the 18-200 on it.

That is exactly what I did.
I will say this I have gotten shots with my 18-200 that I would of not been able to get if I were swapping lenses. I admit the quality does not compare to my 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKII but it was also about 30% the price, is no where near as heavy, and I would not feel as bad if something happened to it. My 40D and 18-200 go everywhere with me even if I have my other gear as well. I like to leave it on the seat and get those shots that just happen to come up.If you shoot RAW and do a little bit of post work (I like DPP) the images are just fine. The above image was shot at 170mm at f/5.6 and I was able to get a shallow DOF.

I always think about getting a super zoom for the reasons that many have stated above. I hear the new Sigma 18-250 has gotten nice reviews.
Too many other things to buy first.

the 70-200 is super sharp, the 18-200 is really convenient. which is more important to you.

Tommydigi wrote in post #10561949
I don't shoot with an 18-200 but I have some friends who like the lens and I met some people traveling who also spoke highly of it but I wonder if you would be better off with a 55-250. I understand the convenience factor but considering you can get a 55-250 for less then half the price it seems like that with an 18-55 would give far better results for less money. I will say my 70-200 blows me away but for casual shooting its just to heavy so I have seriously considered one of these 2 options with a rebel as a sorta high end p/s setup.

I would love the 18-200, but with a tight budget, and already spending so much money on dSLR stuff, I went with the 55-250 IS to augment the 18-55 IS and I'm "biting the bullet" and just doing lens changes...

Looking at all the graphs (at least) on dslrgear.com shows the pair to be better than the superzoom anyways...

Maybe I'll just be the "gearhead" and walk around with 2 cameras...

For travel light, I am considering to buy an all-around zoom lens too. So, if you think you will ever need a lens to travel light, say 1 body 1 lens 1 flash, keep the 18-200.

I have 70-200 4L IS. It has excellent overall quality (color, bokeh, sharpness, distortion, AF speed, built), and it's light enough to carry around. But for travel truley lightweight, it's still not the best option.

Don't forget that 4LIS is NOT ideal for indoor lowlight without flash. But for outdoor or good light setting, this lens is a performer. I am selling it now as I need the f2.8 MarkII for lowlight stuff. But if nobody takes it, i don't mind keeping a copy for travel.