- Status
I'd say the 18-200. I think a lot of people get annoyed with the 28mm on the wide end on a crop camera.
Upvote
0
J
John Smith
Guest
Canon Rumors said:
I second that. Even 18mm ( * 1.6 = 28.8mm on FF) is not that wide, e.g. the 5D's kit starts at 24mm.
Haven't figured out why Canon sells the 28-135mm as the 7D's kit. A lens starting at 15mm, like the 15-85mm, would be - IMHO - a more reasonable kit lens for that body.
Upvote
0
L
luilopez
Guest
i was hoping to buy a 18mm-200mm at usa but im from the phil, i dont know if its reasonable to there, than here.. well its more cheaper in the usa i think than here, but it bothers me about the warranty.. if you use the lens more often how will it take to break it with out getting drop or something because i just heard a rumor that the lens had a life span is it real? , and well if you point it to the sun with out intentionally how much will it cost to repair it if its repairable, and the UV protector how does it work and is it more nice if you had a hood for 18mm-200mm lens?
Upvote
0
luilopez said:
The 18-200 is definitely the better of the two, and it costs a lot more as well. Like others, I would point out that a super zoom is a compromise, you trade off other characteristics in order to get the long zoom.
However, the convenience may be worth it for many users.
Here is the one I had a couple of years ago at 50mm on my 40D. It was better than I expected.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
One more thing to consider - you're paying for 18-200mm, but you're not getting 18-200mm. On a lark, I tried out an EF-S 18-200mm in a camera shop, and compared it to my EF-S 17-55mm and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. On the wide end, the framing at 18mm on the superzoom and approximately 18mm on my 17-55mm was equivalent. However, comparing the 18-200mm with the 70-200mm at 200mm, the L lens was noticeably longer. When I got home, I compared the shots and measured the framing with the two lenses, and the effective focal length of the 18-200mm at the long end was only 154mm compared to the 70-200mm (which I assume is delivering a real 200mm focal length).
So, compare the 18-200mm, which is really an 18-154mm, to the EF-S 18-135mm (which really delivers it's promised focal length). The former is a lot more expensive, but optically only slightly better than the 18-135, which offers nearly as much actual zoom.
However, in all honesty I'd recommend neither of them. I'd second Flake's recommendation of the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - optically, it's much better than either of the other two. Personally, I actually prefer the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS because of its constant and fast aperture, but the 15-85mm is less expensive, wider and longer, and ideal as an outdoor walkaround lens.
So, compare the 18-200mm, which is really an 18-154mm, to the EF-S 18-135mm (which really delivers it's promised focal length). The former is a lot more expensive, but optically only slightly better than the 18-135, which offers nearly as much actual zoom.
However, in all honesty I'd recommend neither of them. I'd second Flake's recommendation of the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - optically, it's much better than either of the other two. Personally, I actually prefer the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS because of its constant and fast aperture, but the 15-85mm is less expensive, wider and longer, and ideal as an outdoor walkaround lens.
Upvote
0
- Status
