Canon EF-S 18-200: No USM!?!

[goodmorning]

I have waiting a long time for this lens to come out, it is finally announced today (no surprise), with no USM (big surprise. And from the looks of it, it's going to cost around $700 (Canada MSRP is $749). It can't cost that much to put USM on there, can it? Are they so worried about cannibalizing other lens sales? If so, why even release this in the first place?

They need to start worrying about losing sales to Nikon, though from all the black lenses at the Olympics, it looks like they already are...

 

[cube]

EOS cameras have no focus motor, so it MUST be in the lens.

 

[robbieduncan]

EOS cameras have no focus motor, so it MUST be in the lens.

It's in the lens, but it's not USM. Canon have quite a few older non-USM lenses. These tend to be characterised by slower auto-focus and higher noise whilst focusing. Unfortunately this new lens is saddled with the same limitations. In addition the focus ring rotates whilst auto focussing and there is no manual focus override without switching the switch to manual focus mode (unlike a USM lens).

 

[goodmorning]

EOS cameras have no focus motor, so it MUST be in the lens.

Right, and I'm surprised that they choose not to use the Ultrasonic Motor present in their mid to high-end lenses.

 

[seenew]

Right, and I'm surprised that they choose not to use the Ultrasonic Motor present in their high-end lenses.

an EF-S 18-200 isn't going to be a high end lens. With a zoom range that long, it's not going to be as fast or sharp as their other lenses.. This is a travel lens, more for the passionate amateur than a seasoned pro. At least, that's how I figure it.

 

[ksz]

The Nikon 18-200 is an AF-S (silent wave) lens with a list price of $669. I expected the Canon to have USM.

 

[goodmorning]

an EF-S 18-200 isn't going to be a high end lens. With a zoom range that long, it's not going to be as fast or sharp as their other lenses.. This is a travel lens, more for the passionate amateur than a seasoned pro. At least, that's how I figure it.

My mistake, I should have used the term "mid to high-end". My 28-135 IS has a USM and it certainly isn't high-end, and I am certainly a passionate amateur rather than a seasoned pro

Though the fact that the 28-135, 17-85, the mid-range primes, most of the mid-range third party lenses for Canon, and indeed the high-end L's have USM makes it all the more frustrating that the 18-200 doesn't.

 

[seenew]

My mistake, I should have used the term "mid to high-end". My 28-135 IS has a USM and it certainly isn't high-end, and I am certainly a passionate amateur rather than a seasoned pro

Though the fact that the 28-135, 17-85, the mid-range primes, most of the mid-range third party lenses for Canon, and indeed the high-end L's have USM makes it all the more frustrating that the 18-200 doesn't.

Hmm, you raise good points. Maybe I play devil's advocate too much.

 

[robbieduncan]

Though the fact that the 28-135, 17-85, the mid-range primes, most of the mid-range third party lenses for Canon, and indeed the high-end L's have USM makes it all the more frustrating that the 18-200 doesn't.

What L lenses have or don't have shouldn't make any difference to this lens: it's not in the same league. This is a low-mid lens. It's about convenience over quality. Yes, it would be nice to have USM but it's unlikely to be make or break when it comes to the target market for this lens.

 

[goodmorning]

What L lenses have or don't have shouldn't make any difference to this lens: it's not in the same league. This is a low-mid lens. It's about convenience over quality. Yes, it would be nice to have USM but it's unlikely to be make or break when it comes to the target market for this lens.

That's why I altered my original comment to include the mid ranges, primes, etc...

The $700 price tag makes it one of the most expensive Canon non-L lenses (yes I know that EF-S lenses can't be L lenses). The Nikon 18-200 has the USM equivalent for the same price, I don't think it is too much to expect Canon to compete. I have a couple friends that bought the Nikon D300 w/18-200 kit, I was expecting the Canon 50D w/18-200 kit to match up, unfortunately it doesn't. I am the target market for this lens (though I would probably only use it for travel) and this is a deal breaker.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I believe the difference is "IS." All of Canon IS lenses are more expensive than the same, but with no IS.

New EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens
Canon has answered the call from advanced amateur photographers looking for a solid all-around lens with the introduction of the new EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS zoom lens.

That's a quote from Canon. Please notice that nowhere it's mentioned that this lens is geared for pro. users. I am not a professional picture taker, but even so don't have use for such a lens. For such a lens type, I prefer at least f/2.8 on the wide side, although IS helps quite a lot. My EF 200mm f/2.8L USM has no IS, so it costs a little under $700.00. For the same lens, but with IS, I would have to pay a lot more. USM has nothing to do with IS.

Maybe the Tamron talked about here would be a better deal?
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon_18-200_3p5-5p6_is/

 

[kitmos]

I've been waiting for Canon to come out with a lens like this. Unfortunately it's a long ways from what I want. Too slow, and no Ultrasonic Motor, so no way.
Too bad

 

[ManWithhat]

It has some form of in-body AF . . why not wait for a couple of reviews before making such harsh judgments? I'm sure they'll let us know if the camera's AF speed sucks or sounds like a jet.

 

[Abstract]

I am the target market for this lens (though I would probably only use it for travel) and this is a deal breaker.

It's a deal breaker before you even know whether its AF is slow or loud? Why not wait to see if this is even true? One of my fastest focusing lenses is equivalent to a non-USM lens, while a USM lens misses focus more often, and isn't always as fast (although it's a bit quieter). There's no point writing off the lens immediately.

 

[Excellerator]

I almost wonder if its even made by Canon. The cheaper 75-300's were actually made under license from Tamron. So maybe this is the case here too?????

 

[pcharles]

I've been waiting for Canon to come out with a lens like this. Unfortunately it's a long ways from what I want. Too slow, and no Ultrasonic Motor, so no way.
Too bad

Has anyone here actually used, or even seen, this lens? I did not think it was due out until October. How do we know they have not developed a new quiet motor that works (almost) as well as USM? On top of that I'd say it’s the quality of glass that really counts because it does not matter how fast it focuses if the image is not incredibly sharp.

For me, this will be an interesting lens to look at because I do not have an IS walkabout lens. However, most of the time when I am out and about, I am carrying the wonderful Panasonic Lumix FZ Superzoom. It is light and compact, and takes great pictures. So, I'd probably buy the 18-200 more to fill a gap than out of dire need.

On my Rebel, I generally switch between the Canon EF-S 18-55 2.8IS and the EF 70-200 2.8IS because I use this camera mainly for low light work at conferences and meetings. I do have a couple of Primes (50mm 1.4 and 100mm 2.8 Macro), a Tokina 24-200, and Tokina 100-400, but I use them so little I keep thinking I should just sell them.

 

[Cave Man]

It's in the lens, but it's not USM. Canon have quite a few older non-USM lenses. These tend to be characterised by slower auto-focus and higher noise whilst focusing. Unfortunately this new lens is saddled with the same limitations. In addition the focus ring rotates whilst auto focussing and there is no manual focus override without switching the switch to manual focus mode (unlike a USM lens).

Not all USM are the same. Canon's ring-USM is truly ultrasonic in that it doesn't rely on gears. All ring-USM lenses have full-time manual override. However, their micro-USM lenses (e.g., 50mm f/1.4) use ultrasonic waves but still rely on gears and are thus noisy like micro motors. Most of these micro-USM lenses do not have full-time manual override and they are largely a marketing gimmick. There's no point in putting a micro-USM mechanism in the 18-200 since its performance wouldn't be that much better than micro motor (yet it would have contributed to a more expensive lens). A ring-USM system would have been nicer, but it probably would have increased the cost of the lens by $100. Canon's going after Sigma on this; we'll see how the EF-S does.

 

[anubis]

I like to use photozone.de to get an apples-to-apples comparison of lens imaging quality.

I have the Canon 28-135IS, 75-300, 50 1.8, and 28-80. Yeah, it's not really that high end of a lens collection, but I almost exclusively use the 28-135 IS for the image stabalization, relatively wide focal range, and surprisingly excellent image quality (according to photozone.de)

I want to get a lens with an even wider focal range... The Sigma 18-200 has TERRIBLE image quality and a truely hidious bokeh according to photozone.de (check the sample images hosted there for yourself). 18-200 would be a great focal range if someone could pull it off with good image quality and a less-than-astronomical price tag. Slow F/# doesn't really matter to me as long as it has IS to make up for it.

If canon can extract good image quality through the entire focal range without much chromatic aberration or distortion, then I'll be the first in line to buy one... after I read the reviews, that is. Hopefully, they have a hit.

 

[ChrisA]

The Nikon 18-200 is an AF-S (silent wave) lens with a list price of $669. I expected the Canon to have USM.

Even without USM Canon could not match Nikon's price. Had canon gone with USM the price would be maybe $50 more. People who'd buy an 18-200 are mostly people moving up from a point and shoot to their first SLR and not intending to buy another lens. So they may be choosing Canon vs. Nikon based on the price of this lens.

Nikon after decades of being expensive recently seems to have figured a way to control costs. Beginners now are seeing that D40 and it's price tag and the Canon v. Nikon debate ends for them right soon. I think Canon has noticed.

The non-USM lens looks like canon is trying to compete on price.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

A relative newbie's perspective:

I really don't care about the noise at all. The speed of focus is somewhat important to me, but I'm not a good enough photographer to really care. At any rate, I don't think this lens is targeted towards people with a good knowledge of Canon's entire lens catalog.

However, instead of this 18-200, I'd prefer to keep my EF-S 18-55mm kit lens and get either the EF 70-200mm L USM lens or the EF-S 10-22mm USM. Both, eventually. Those two, plus my 50mm prime, are all I think I'll need besides a macro or maybe the 28-135mm.

They're all pretty bloody expensive as far as I'm concerned, unless you make your living off them.

 

[Abstract]

If canon can extract good image quality through the entire focal range without much chromatic aberration or distortion, then I'll be the first in line to buy one....

You're asking for a miracle, and miracles aren't in Canon's product portfolio.

If this Canon 18-200 mm is such a lens, I'd buy one just for the sake of owning this piece of magic glass, and I'm not even a Canon user.

 

[Col127]

yeah, that's really unfortunate. we've been waiting for a 18-200mm from canon and they don't even put USM. that being said, i have a 55-250mm without USM and it still focuses really quick

I have waiting a long time for this lens to come out, it is finally announced today (no surprise), with no USM (big surprise. And from the looks of it, it's going to cost around $700 (Canada MSRP is $749). It can't cost that much to put USM on there, can it? Are they so worried about cannibalizing other lens sales? If so, why even release this in the first place?

They need to start worrying about losing sales to Nikon, though from all the black lenses at the Olympics, it looks like they already are...

 

[nuketank]

got the 18-200

hi, just joined for a discussion on 18-200 mm lens. to be honest this is 'an okay' lens only. for the price tag (i bought for about $650 - no box) it is a fairly good kit lens replacement only. image are crisp and sharp no complains here. it focuses very quickly also. weight and size wise, best for a 2 series EOS camera as it would become unproportional to camera's body of 3 series.

 

[wheezy]

...Those two, plus my 50mm prime, are all I think I'll need besides a macro or maybe the 28-135mm.

Ahhh, sadly, I wish that was a true statement. Once you round off your lenses for the 'perfect' combo, there is always another tugging at your wallet.