Nikon 18-200mm AF-S Lens: Is there similar lens for Canon?

[Wingnut330]

Hey all,

As some of you know, I bought the Canon XTi recently. I really like the Nikon 18-200mm lens. Does anyone know of a good option for a similar lens for the Canon?

 

[nutmac]

Like any lens that spans large focal length range, Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX isn't that good of a lens. But if your shooting style requires carrying just one lens, Canon's equivalent is Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS. It is an EF-S lens with image stabilizer.

Otherwise, build a collection of lenses to match your shooting style. For instance, I have EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.

 

[Westside guy]

Sigma and Tamron both make similar lenses in a Canon mount. Looking at their reviews they're not quite as good as the Nikon 18-200, but they're decent. It's not like any of these is going to rival Nikon's or Canon's pro glass.

P.S. I have the Nikon 18-200 and am very happy with it.

 

[James L]

Like any lens that spans large focal length range, Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX isn't that good of a lens.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people would disagree with this comment.

But hey, everyone is entitled to their own opinion!

 

[onomatopoeia]

Like any lens that spans large focal length range, Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX isn't that good of a lens.

That subjective statement seems to pop up all over due to the popularity of Nikon's "do everything" lens. It is a great lens for it's sheer versatility. It's far from perfect given its range but for casual and amateur Nikon owners it's a great lens.

 

[nutmac]

Nowhere on my comment implied Nikon 18-200 as a bad lens. I just isn't that good a lens. Some of the popular reviews that support my claim:
Photozone
Ken Rockwell

While both reviews (particularly Ken's) emphasize the versatility of this lens, it just does not perform as well as lenses with more limited focal range.

 

[Digital Skunk]

That subjective statement seems to pop up all over due to the popularity of Nikon's "do everything" lens. It is a great lens for it's sheer versatility. It's far from perfect given its range but for casual and amateur Nikon owners it's a great lens.

I would have to agree. Thom Hogan reviews it better than anyone i have read. http://www.bythom.com is the linkie.

THe 18-200 from what I have seen is much sharper than the 24-120VR that Nikon goofed on years ago. I read that it's not as sharp as the 18-135 which is surprising, but the 18-135 doesn't have VR.

 

[Westside guy]

THe 18-200 from what I have seen is much sharper than the 24-120VR that Nikon goofed on years ago. I read that it's not as sharp as the 18-135 which is surprising, but the 18-135 doesn't have VR.

My 18-200 seems pretty darn sharp from 18 to 130-140mm. Above that, it's somewhat softer but still quite useable. Comparing it to pro glass would be silly; but I've shot with most of the other consumer glass in this range of focal lengths, and the 18-200 holds its own IMNSHO.

Barrel distortion at 18mm is significant; but much of it disappears even at 20mm or 22mm. Strong barrel distortion at 18mm is the rule with the other 18-xxx lenses as well though; it's not limited to the 18-200.

A lot of people seem to only look at sharpness, and ignore stuff like CA and vignetting. When Thom Hogan reviewed the 18-135mm, he basically said "it's very sharp, but has other issues which make it inferior to the 18-200". The 55-200 is very good for the price; but doesn't have "the good AF-S" (no full-time MF override), and the focus ring is almost unusable. I have the same complaints with the 18-55.

The 18-70 is very nice; it's what I had prior to buying the 18-200. If the 70-300VR had been available at the time, I probably would've kept the 18-70 and added the 70-300VR instead of buying the 18-200. But VR is just too useful at the longer end, and the previous 70-300 didn't have it. Plus we're not talking about sub-$200 lenses anymore. A number of people inexplicably seem to think they should be able to buy quality consumer glass for under $200, and anything above that is overpriced. It's that age-old desire to find a bargain, I guess.

 

[Wingnut330]

I was hoping to buy it as my daily do everything kind of lens. So, I'm just wondering what the Canon version of the 'do everything' kind of lens is...

 

[OreoCookie]

Nowhere on my comment implied Nikon 18-200 as a bad lens. I just isn't that good a lens. Some of the popular reviews that support my claim:

You're basing this decision solely on image quality -- and that's not the strong point of these lenses. Super zooms yield acceptable image quality and give me the focal range of all of my lenses combined, but does that make my 1.5 kg bazooka zoom superfluous? For me, the answer is no, but to someone who would like to have one (and only one) walk-around lens, the answer might be yes.

If you finish kenrockwell's review of this lens, this should be abundantly clear.

Disclaimer: I'm not a superzoom person.

 

[miloblithe]

I was hoping to buy it as my daily do everything kind of lens. So, I'm just wondering what the Canon version of the 'do everything' kind of lens is...

Canon doesn't seem to believe in the superzoom ("10x" or more) concept. They don't offer an equivalent do it all lens. Canon has a 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS lens that isn't that highly regarded. If you don't care about wide angle, the 24-105 f/4 IS lens is a superior quality lens (and will set you back about $1000).

As others have said, if you want this kind of lens, the Sigma or Tamron approaches are your best bets. Or, two Canon lenses to cover the range.

 

[Grimace]

Canon also has a few more f/4 options than Nikon. This definitely drives up the price but the results can be stunning.

 

[nutmac]

I have said early on that if your shooting style requires carrying just one lens (e.g., vacation where carrying and changing lenses is difficult), lenses such as 18-200mm makes sense. These lenses exist to fulfill such needs. Otherwise, why would anyone buy anything but super zooms? And yes, I admit that Nikon's 18-200mm is one of the best performing lenses in super zooms category.

If taking fantastic looking photos is a priority, such as razor sharp image quality, minimal distortions and image defects, fast maximum aperture for low light shooting, creamiest of bokeh, etc., then you can do much better with more specialized lens.

Obviously, building a collection of fixed focal length will yield the best results, and many photographers use only these lenses. But most of us prefer, especially those that earn cabbage from something other than photography, versatility over image quality.

On Canon, Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS comes closest to matching Nikon. That said, maximum aperture at telephoto is less (f/6.3 vs. f/5.6), bokeh is generally reported as poor, build and image quality are worse, and image stabilizer is not quite as effective as Nikon's. If you don't need wide angle photography, Canon's EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is an oldie but still a goodie. Conversely, if you don't need telephoto, Canon's EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is a popular choice.

In the end, you will do better carrying two lenses, such as:

1. Canon's EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (new kit lens for XSi) and EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS or Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
2. Sigma's AF 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Aspherical IF and AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX APO OS
3. Canon's EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
4. Canon's EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
5. Canon's EF 17-40mm f/4L USM or EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM or EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

 

[thunng8]

Canon doesn't seem to believe in the superzoom ("10x" or more) concept. They don't offer an equivalent do it all lens. Canon has a 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS lens that isn't that highly regarded. If you don't care about wide angle, the 24-105 f/4 IS lens is a superior quality lens (and will set you back about $1000).

As others have said, if you want this kind of lens, the Sigma or Tamron approaches are your best bets. Or, two Canon lenses to cover the range.

Canon does have a 10.7x zoom lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

It is big and expensive though.

 

[Grimace]

Yeah, I was going to throw that one out there, but it is so friggin heavy (.6 heavier than a 70-200 f/2.8 IS) and expensive that it doesn't really make sense as a walk-around lens.

 

[Westside guy]

Yeah, I was going to throw that one out there, but it is so friggin heavy (.6 heavier than a 70-200 f/2.8 IS) and expensive that it doesn't really make sense as a walk-around lens.

Wow, that's pretty much exactly a full-frame version of the 18-200! I'd love to see some performance tests on it, using a full-frame camera - Photozone tested it on an APS camera which is not so interesting.

 

[miloblithe]

Canon does have a 10.7x zoom lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

It is big and expensive though.

True. I should have mentioned this and he 35-350 that preceded it, but, like you said, these really aren't lenses comparable to the 18-200s because of their size and weight (3.7lbs). These are lenses that I've only really see people use with monopods or tripods.

 

[Abstract]

Image quality from the 18-200 mm is very good. Regarding softness, it's only real weakness is at the long end (ie: 200 mm), but then again, even long telephoto zooms with less range (eg: Canon's 70-200, which is almost 3x zoom) gets softer at 200 mm. The 18-200 mm isn't as good, but the optical quality of the lens isn't a reason to worry about this lens. To me, the biggest reasons not to get it is:

1) You can't afford it.
2) Maximum aperture isn't very large.


Otherwise, you can produce incredible photos with this lens.

And besides, if the photo is great, no real person ever really cares what lens you used.