18-200mm lenses

[boBQuincy]

The obvious difference of course is the range, at 200mm the image will be about 4x larger than at 55mm.

The next difference is in aperture, or light admitting ability. The 18-55 goes form 3.5 to 5.6, the 18-200 3.5 to 6.3. At 200mm the 18-200 will not admit as much light as the 18-55 at 55mm, your shutter speed or ISO will have to be changed to compensate.
*At f 6.3 the camera's autofocus is not likely to work well (it is only specified to work to f 5.6).

The next difference is image quality. *In general* the greater the range of a zoom lens, the lower the image quality. 18-200 is a very long range, CA, distortion, flare, and other image problems can start to show up in a lens of this type. YMMV.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

yup! I don't recommend 18-200 lens. However, I strongly recommend 18-125 Sigma which someone on this forum dubbed it as "The Kelly Lens".

 

[handicap18]

Unless you have a Nikon and then the Nikon 18-200mm lens is an AWESOME lens. It is about $400 more than the Sigma and Tamron versions and is worth the extra money as it also has Vibration Reduction. However, it is very hard to find. Order it right now and you might get it by October.

If its the sigma or tamron version. Don't bother. Do what Kelly says.

 

[jann1033]

The obvious difference of course is the range, at 200mm the image will be about 4x larger than at 55mm.

The next difference is in aperture, or light admitting ability. The 18-55 goes form 3.5 to 5.6, the 18-200 3.5 to 6.3. At 200mm the 18-200 will not admit as much light as the 18-55 at 55mm, your shutter speed or ISO will have to be changed to compensate.
*At f 6.3 the camera's autofocus is not likely to work well (it is only specified to work to f 5.6).

The next difference is image quality. *In general* the greater the range of a zoom lens, the lower the image quality. 18-200 is a very long range, CA, distortion, flare, and other image problems can start to show up in a lens of this type. YMMV.

does this apply for any lens/ any camera or just the lens with specifications like those mentioned( trying to figure out if that's why my af has a problem)

 

[ndelaware]

Whose 18-55 and whose 18-200? Of all the lenses out there I think only Nikon makes both lenses in that zoom range. Sigma only makes an 18-50 and Canon doesn't make an 18-200.

 

[boBQuincy]

does this apply for any lens/ any camera or just the lens with specifications like those mentioned( trying to figure out if that's why my af has a problem)

Oops, I was not specific
Most of Canon's autofocus systems are specified to work to f 5.6. Most also work beyond that but may not be reliable.

I was comparing the Canon kit lens 18-55 with the Sigma 18-200. Any other lenses may differ.

Sorry for the inaccuracies.

 

[alan]

As described in another thread, I bought the Sigma 18-200 and while the zoom range is awesome, the picture quality isn't

Please check out the entry in the thread about salesmen trying to seel you stuff they have rather than what you want

regards,
/alan

 

[Kelly Grannell]

that's okay, just use the 18-125 range... still not as great as the actual 18-125, but not as bad as the 125-200 range of the 18-200.

 

[DemonLlama]

As I'm now pretty committed to buying the Rebel XT, I'm spending more time going around in circles for which lens to purchase as my walk around. For now, budget wise, I can only get one lens, so I want to get this right.

I keep reading about the Sigma 18-125, but what about the 18-200? Why isn't this one as popular?

What other options should I consider?

Help!

 

[Master Mason]

As I'm now pretty committed to buying the Rebel XT, I'm spending more time going around in circles for which lens to purchase as my walk around. For now, budget wise, I can only get one lens, so I want to get this right.

I keep reading about the Sigma 18-125, but what about the 18-200? Why isn't this one as popular?

What other options should I consider?

Help!

From my reading, there are two differences with the lenses...

1. Cost the 200 is more expensive
2. What I read, and I can't remember where now is that the 200 isn't as good a lens, something about the fucus I belive that isn't as good....

I have the 125 and have been very happy.

 

[handicap18]

According to reviews I've seen and reports from people that have used them, the 18-200 has more frequent issues with focusing, especially past 150. Also there apparently is a lot of barrell distortion at the long end and a few other issues.

I know a lot of people here have the 18-125 and they've shown us some excellent pictures.

 

[mhutchinson]

Because the 200mm end is at f/6.3 auto focus will really struggle if it can focus at all. In anything but very bright light the auto focus on most cameras will start to have problems with this lens at just above 140mm. Average cloudy day (blue skies with some nice white puffy clouds) for the one I tried stopped focusing at just over 135mm on a Canon 20D with lens hood attached, but you can always auto focus wider and then zoom. In the camera shop, it seemed not much worse. The picture quality produced was pretty good in the middle range from the few test shots I took.

If you are thinking about getting one, see if you can try it on the camera you are using. That is what I did and decided not to.

Mike

 

[Boss Hogg]

I've just got an 18-125 and am very happy with it. I decided not to get the 200, as I thought it was just a little to much range in one lens. IMO the more zoom you have the more you have to compromise.

That having been said I was discussing it with a guy in our local camera shop, and he was telling me that since the 200 came out they've not sold any 125's.

One other thing is 200mm is a long way and I'm not sure that you need a lens this long for a general walk around (I have got a 75-300 though).

As someone recommended, go and have a look at them and see what you think, you can guarantee that the more you read the more confused you'll become!

 

[HTF]

I agree with Boss Hogg, the 18-125 is the better lens. There is too much distortion and failed (or slow) auto focus at anything beyond 150. Just like Boss Hogg, for further distance I use a 70-300 IS to avoid vibration.

 

[boBQuincy]

Here are some user reviews of Sigma's 18-125. After reading them I decided to look for a different lens.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=257&sort=7&cat=37&page=2

 

[jann1033]

just to throw in my .2...

i had a sigma lens i had rechipped( not the 2 mentioned in op) and it simply didn't work, if it focused it wasn't sharp, usually it took for ever to focus, 1/2 the time never did...i had heard about sigma issues with canon and don't know if that was it or not...read reviews that mentioned how you basically had to hope for a good sigma lens...that combined with hand tremors made me get the canon 28-135 IS and am very happy with it...imo it's worth the extra money...even the kit lens i got off ebay for $60 is better than the sigma i had before....might just be the luck of the draw don't know...so if you go with the sigma i'd get it locally and check it with your camera before you buy.

i was happy with the sigma for film but that might have been due to my ignorance...from now on, unless it's super cheap, it's canon or nothing for me

 

[extreme8]

Everything I've read about the Sigma 18-200 mentions focus problems with the Canon bodies.
I've got that lens for my Minolta and have NEVER had a focus issue with it.
I find the extra reach the lens has gives me much greater flexibility. I think its better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Having said that, I anayzed the exif data from the shots I took during my Disney trip and found that most were in the 135 range...interesting.
It is a slow lens and when using full zoom IS would be helpful, but fortunately my 5D has it built into the body.
I know Canon to Minolta is apples to oranges, but I needed to defend my favorite little lens.

Whenever you try and create one lens that does it all, it doesn't do anything exceptionally well.
Tests show pincushion and barrel distortion at either end of the zoom range, It's not as sharp as a prime or a more limited range zoom, and some samples of the lens show a bit of chromatic abberation.
Other than being a little soft, I haven't seen any image quality issues however and I'm completey happy with my decision.

Have we muddied the water enough yet?

 

[jann1033]

not putting down the lens, just telling my sigma experience... i am photo challenged enough without a non focusing lens

that is interesting about the 135 mm at wdw, we are going to mountains next week and that is where i missed my ability to zoom originally( with film 28-80) so figure it'll be a test if i want to spring for the $$$$canon 70-300 IS ( some century not now)

 

[DemonLlama]

Have we muddied the water enough yet?

But that's ok. I think I was getting a little greedy in terms of "getting it all" in one lens.

 

[extreme8]

I guess I was off when I said I mostly used my lens at 135 during our trip. I must have been using too small of a sample.
I just graphed my focal lengths using a sample of almost 1800 pictures from our vacation and this is the result;

I would have bet anything that I had used the longer focal lenghths a lot more than I did. But I guess the exif data would have no reason to lie.

I have no idea if your shooting style or requirements are anything like mine, but it seems that a sharper, faster lens at the expense of a shorter zoom might have been a better solution for me.
Live and learn I guess.