18-200mm lenses

[jann1033]

18-50 f3.5-5.6 dc
55-200 f4-5.6 dc

would either of these be useful . as much as i hate changing lens all the time it would give me a little more distance than the 18-125 but the pain in the neck of not really haveing anything close to all purpose

 

[pisco]

I have the 55-200 and have been happy with it for what it is. It is amazingly sharp for the price and has nice color rendition. I find it a bit more contrasty on my Digital Rebel than my other lenses but not unpleasantly so. It just required me to shoot -1/3 exposure compensation in bright sunlight to avoid highlights being blown out.

I have actually replaced it with the Canon 70-300 IS for a couple of reasons, faster focusing and longer reach. I shoot a lot at horse shows and need to be able to follow the action quickly. Plus a lot of times at these shows you can only get so close to the action so the longer reach is a big help for me there.

But for the price I would definitely recommend this lens. The build is solid, the image quality is way above what I expected for the price and it is small and light.

I haven't had any experience with the 18-50 but I would expect it to be of similar qualities.

 

[Boss Hogg]

How about the 18-200? Would imagine that quality wise it would be similar to the 2 you mention, and would avoid uou having to change lenses.

 

[pisco]

I wouldn't expect the 18-200 to offer the same quality. It is extermely hard to build a lens with that broad of a zoom range without barrel and pincushion distortion and a greater tendency towards chromatic abberation.

I hear that the 18-125 is pretty solid but I would still expect each of these narrower zoom range lenses to slightly outperform the broader range zooms.

 

[jann1033]

i just happened to stumble across that on a site i was looking at( larger range can mean less quality, epec in my price range)..that plus the fact i have a lens that falls in the middle and a 100-300 zoom already made me start to wonder

 

[pisco]

I think I saw in another thread that you already have a 28-80 lens. If this is the case you will probably be fine without getting another lens on the long end. I only have the 18-55 and 70-300 and don't miss the 15mm gap between them. I can usually take a few steps forwards or back to make up the difference.

However, you will probably want to look for a wider angle lens. The 28 won't be very wide at all on a 1.6 FOV camera. 18mm seems like the minimum for doing any kind of wide anlge shooting. Personally I have the Tamron 18-50 f2.8 as the next one on my list. For around $400 to get a good walking around range with a constant aperature of f2.8. And the reviews have been very positive so far. Seems like quite a deal. Sigma also has an 17-70 that starts at f2.8. Could be a good every day lens as well for ~$350.

 

[jann1033]

later on that same site it said the 28-80 won't work on the rebel xt with out an "upgrade" so i emailed sigma to see what that meant...so i might be looking for the whole range anyway now

 

[Kelly Grannell]

How about the 18-200? Would imagine that quality wise it would be similar to the 2 you mention, and would avoid uou having to change lenses.

I had both. 18-125 and 18-200. The 18-200 is horrid to my standard. Okay for walkaround daily usage, maybe but can't be used for any pro applications at all. The 18-125 I've used for MANY professional projects.

PS: Jann, if you keep changing lens, remember 2 things

1. you may lose the action
2. you WILL introduce more dust onto your sensor.

 

[pisco]

later on that same site it said the 28-80 won't work on the rebel xt with out an "upgrade" so i emailed sigma to see what that meant...so i might be looking for the whole range anyway now

Normally all they need to do is "rechip" the lens. This entails replacing the microchip that controls the lens to make it compatible with your camera. Normally it's no big deal.

 

[Boss Hogg]

I had both. 18-125 and 18-200. The 18-200 is horrid to my standard. Okay for walkaround daily usage, maybe but can't be used for any pro applications at all. The 18-125 I've used for MANY professional projects.

That's interesting to know. I am currently looking at both of the lenses to put with my 300D. Currently got Canon lenses, the 18-55 kit lens, 28-80 and the 75-300IS. When on holiday I get fed up with changing the two smaller lenses over and over, and the fact that I need to carry them in the bag with me. I would just like to have one lens that I can use all the time, and just be able to take the camera on its own.

The 18-200 is not that much more than the 18-125 lens, so I was considering getting the latter, albeit that with the 1.6 factor, I wouldn't think I would use the top end of the range all that often.

Any thoughts welcome.

Matt

 

[Kelly Grannell]

my personal experience of 18-200 vs 18-125, I find that the 18-200 have these negative values:

1. slower and less accurate AF
2. more distortion
3. unacceptable colour abberation especially in the 18-24 range
4. soft at anything in 135-200 range.
5. softer focus in general (throughout 18-200 range)

 

[tony64]

Kelly would you say 18-70 and 70-300 would be a better combo?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

far better combo. The Sima 17-70 IQ is stunnning, the macro capability is astounding. However, just like any macro lens, the AF is somewhat slower but far more accurate. 70-300 is also great, too bad due to my wrist condition, there is no way I can handheld anything beyond 200mm indoors (too shaky).

you will find that you'll change lens FAR less by using 17-70 and 70-300 than 18-50 and 55-200.

 

[jann1033]

I had both. 18-125 and 18-200. The 18-200 is horrid to my standard. Okay for walkaround daily usage, maybe but can't be used for any pro applications at all. The 18-125 I've used for MANY professional projects.

PS: Jann, if you keep changing lens, remember 2 things

1. you may lose the action
2. you WILL introduce more dust onto your sensor.

that's why i hated (#1 )with film lenses i have( take a shot, change the lens) and i was afraid of #2..they said the upgrade would be $10 which is cheap ( although i was really hoping for a few bucks off another lens since that would suit my purpose more) but it still leaves me with 1 not so useful lens, a second lens I hate( it's not that bad just so limiting but maybe i need to fool around with it more although i don't know for sure that one will work either) and still need to purchase a lens for mm i already have covered guess i just gotta bite the bullet

 

[jann1033]

wouldn't a 17-70 be comparable to a film 28-80? ( i mean using the 17 on a digital and the 28 on a film, angle and such )

 

[Kelly Grannell]

17-70 on RebelXT is equivalent to 28-110 on 35mm film.

 

[Boss Hogg]

Always found that with my film SLR that the 28-80 and 75-300 were more than adequate. We also had a 17mm lens to get the wide angle. That having been said I rarely used the 75-300, except for long distance (obviously) pics and motorsport stuff, where the superior lens and IS system paid dividends.

I guess I have just about answered my own point about which lens to get, as I cannot see any reason why the 18-125 will be anything other than totally sufficient for my requirements. After all I will still have my 75-300.

 

[123SA]

Can you explain to me in layman's terms the difference between these lenses? perhaps post a photo or direct me to one that illustrates why I should get the 18-200 lens. thanks for your help.

 

[Furgus]

Well the biggest thing is zoom size. The 18-55 is a 3x zoom, and the 18-200 is a 11x zoom. Other than that, if they are the same type of lens, that is the difference. Is that what you were looking for?

This might help too: Tamron lens finder

 

[123SA]

Thanks!