The MTF chart is promising. I wouldn't want to be forced to shoot 200mm @ f/5.6, especially without IS, but that is why the lens is so inexpensive. If you don't mind shooting telephoto @ f/5.6, which you obviously don't, go for it. Just don't forget your tripod.
I've tried that lens. You're better off with the 17-85mm IS ISM. It costs a little more but is much sharper. Any lens with a such a wide zoom range like a 18-200mm is going be a compromise in quality at the extreme ends of the scale. The zoom difference between 85mm and 200mm isn't that much anyway.
"Super zooms" typically compromise quality for convenience in a big way. As I stated earlier, the 18-200mm doesn't seem to be too bad in this area though...it just isn't very fast, a problem shared with the 17-85mm. I think the 18-200mm is actually "sharper" than the 17-85...although "sharper" is more opinion than fact. The difference between 85mm and 200mm is HUGE, more than double.
i have the 17-85 is and it is slow i was very disappointed with it but still beats the kit lenses the next lens im looking at is the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L USM Lens ive heard good things
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13851684#post13851684 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by saltwater creep the next lens im looking at is the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L USM Lens ive heard good things
Don't listen to him, he's just messin with you. Its pretty much standard size in the industry. All of my lenses make my 24-70s on my nikon and canon look like babies. If you want to see a real tank I'd suggest you look at the sigmonster:eek1: .
Nope. Not, just setting his expectations appropriately. Since it's twice the size of what he's used to, both size and weight, it's an important piece of the equation. I'm, by no means, trying to talk him out of it. That 17-85 will seem like a toy.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.