Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom Lens: Recommended by dpreview.com
›Read the full Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens review at dpreview.com
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Product Description
From the Manufacturer
Compact, lightweight and a wide magnification range - this standard zoom lens features a wide focal length range from normal to telephoto equivalent to 29-320mm in the 35mm format. It features an Optical Image Stabilizer for up to 4-stops of effective correction even at full zoom. Since Canon's optical image stabilization system is in the lens, not in the camera, you can see the stabilized, steadier images through the viewfinder. And the circular aperture can give beautiful background blur effects. This new wide zoom ratio EF-S lens delivers excellent high-speed performance at an affordable price.
Product Description
The Canon 2752B002 EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens is compact, lightweight and has a wide magnification range. It features a wide focal length range from normal to telephoto equivalent to 29-320mm in the 35mm format. It features an Optical Image Stabilizer for up to 4-stops of effective correction even at full zoom. Since Canon's optical image stabilization system is in the lens you can see the stabilized images through the viewfinder. And the circular aperture can give beautiful background blur effects. What's in the box: Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Autofocus Lens,Front & Rear Lens Caps, 1-Year Warranty.
Available Warranties for This Item
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
462 of 472 people found the following review helpful
By Chris96326
Where do I start... This lens gets the most action/time on my camera. Images are clear and color accurate and the zoom range makes it hard to take off. I am a 1:1 ratio person that hates photos that only look good from far. I try for that pixel to pixel perfection that makes my hobby harder, but so much more enjoyable when done right. I don't use or run photos thru photoshop, because a part of me thinks it is cheating (leads me to retake photos often). I suppose someday I will change, but until then, I want a simple and clean photo.
The 18-200mm has surprised me over and over. I have compared it to my L lenses and it keeps up. If you go to Canon's website check out the lens diagram info, the guts of this lens is very, very, very close to the L 24-105mm. I had to check because it was surprising me too often. In real life, I have taken the same shots between the two and find myself checking DPP (Canon's Digital Photo Professional software) to see which lens took which photo. When I test new lenses during an event, the 18-200 goes back on for the rest of the event because it produces GREAT shots and saves time in lens changes and looking like a wannabe pro. The only comparible L lenses I have in this range are the 24-105mm and the 70-200mm, both f4 and with IS. This lens STILL trumps them when it comes to function. My only complaint is the vignetting which usually only shows up when I photo something in the sky. I let is go until it get a great shot and that shot i open with DPP and let it remove it. My 50D has an option to do this in camera, but I have all that post shot cheating turned off. (no noise reduction, auto highlights, etc...)
===L Lens Info for new folks:===
Don't get me wrong, there are reasons to own an L lens. Tack sharp clarity may not always be the case. The 24-105 and 70-200 are similar to the other L series lenses, they help take the guesswork out of the shot. If anyone make a lens with well coated glass, low aperture, and supreme motors, the lens no longer part of the challenge with taking photo. The joy of photography is to enjoy it, and if you are in it to make money, then L is the way to make your life easier. For the rest, it is the challenge of getting that perfect shot. The advantage between Pro and Enthusiast is that Pros will come to learn which setting will or will not photograph well. Enthusiasts will be able to see each scene in a mechanical way, a way that they will know which Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO will get the shot the best. It isn't the lens that makes the shot, it's the photographer. But, L lenses make it MUCH easier to not worry about little details. L does mean luxury (not better photos) in the true sense that these type of lenses take out some of the guesswork for photography. I will say again, it isn't the lens that makes the photo -- it is the photographer; more specifically, it is the TIMING and LUCK.
I will compare this to the list of lenses I have used and maybe you will have something to reference it by. BTW, I don't review lenses unless I spent a few weeks with them.
Note: EF-S lenses handle power much better with longer battery life on Rebel (1.6 factor) Cameras in my experience than EF or non-Canon. I have seen this difference on my XS, XSi, two X1i's and my 50D.
EF-S 10-22 USM
no comparison (part of my travel trio)
EF 300mm f4L IS
no comparison (part of my travel trio)
EF 50 f1.8 II
There really is no comparison. This is a low light, close subject lens that is better than the 18-200 at 50mm.
EF-S 18-55 IS (kit lens)
The 18-200 has a better focus control. Image quality is the same, however, 18-55 is better at 18mm.
EF-S 55-250 IS
The 18-200 has sharper corners all around, but I miss the extra 50mm.
EF 24-70 USM
Completely better than 18-200 in the 24-70 range, but no IS. No IS makes it really hard to take macro shots.
EF 24-105 f4L IS
Near identical shots, can't tell when sorting (have to use DPP to find lens info sometimes). Overall, 18-200 is more useful.
EF 70-200 f4L IS
The 18-200 is near same IQ up to 190mm. After 190mm this L lens has an advantage. I love the 70-200 shell (nothing moves) but absolutely hate the noise that IS makes. I can hear and FEEL it start up and spin down. Annoying compared to the quiet 18-200.
Sigma 150-500 OS
The 18-200 is better between 150-200. This Sigma did really poor at 500mm. Images were soft past 300 and at 500mm photos looked like double vision. I hope it was a bad lens.
Tamron 18-270 VR
The 18-200 shots are cleaner at all ISO and focal length mm. The Tamron is a lens to be used in bright light at 800+ ISO. The range is advertised at 18-270, but in my experience it was more like 18-220mm. My 55-250mm Canon got closer to the subject.
The 18-200mm has surprised me over and over. I have compared it to my L lenses and it keeps up. If you go to Canon's website check out the lens diagram info, the guts of this lens is very, very, very close to the L 24-105mm. I had to check because it was surprising me too often. In real life, I have taken the same shots between the two and find myself checking DPP (Canon's Digital Photo Professional software) to see which lens took which photo. When I test new lenses during an event, the 18-200 goes back on for the rest of the event because it produces GREAT shots and saves time in lens changes and looking like a wannabe pro. The only comparible L lenses I have in this range are the 24-105mm and the 70-200mm, both f4 and with IS. This lens STILL trumps them when it comes to function. My only complaint is the vignetting which usually only shows up when I photo something in the sky. I let is go until it get a great shot and that shot i open with DPP and let it remove it. My 50D has an option to do this in camera, but I have all that post shot cheating turned off. (no noise reduction, auto highlights, etc...)
===L Lens Info for new folks:===
Don't get me wrong, there are reasons to own an L lens. Tack sharp clarity may not always be the case. The 24-105 and 70-200 are similar to the other L series lenses, they help take the guesswork out of the shot. If anyone make a lens with well coated glass, low aperture, and supreme motors, the lens no longer part of the challenge with taking photo. The joy of photography is to enjoy it, and if you are in it to make money, then L is the way to make your life easier. For the rest, it is the challenge of getting that perfect shot. The advantage between Pro and Enthusiast is that Pros will come to learn which setting will or will not photograph well. Enthusiasts will be able to see each scene in a mechanical way, a way that they will know which Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO will get the shot the best. It isn't the lens that makes the shot, it's the photographer. But, L lenses make it MUCH easier to not worry about little details. L does mean luxury (not better photos) in the true sense that these type of lenses take out some of the guesswork for photography. I will say again, it isn't the lens that makes the photo -- it is the photographer; more specifically, it is the TIMING and LUCK.
I will compare this to the list of lenses I have used and maybe you will have something to reference it by. BTW, I don't review lenses unless I spent a few weeks with them.
Note: EF-S lenses handle power much better with longer battery life on Rebel (1.6 factor) Cameras in my experience than EF or non-Canon. I have seen this difference on my XS, XSi, two X1i's and my 50D.
EF-S 10-22 USM
no comparison (part of my travel trio)
EF 300mm f4L IS
no comparison (part of my travel trio)
EF 50 f1.8 II
There really is no comparison. This is a low light, close subject lens that is better than the 18-200 at 50mm.
EF-S 18-55 IS (kit lens)
The 18-200 has a better focus control. Image quality is the same, however, 18-55 is better at 18mm.
EF-S 55-250 IS
The 18-200 has sharper corners all around, but I miss the extra 50mm.
EF 24-70 USM
Completely better than 18-200 in the 24-70 range, but no IS. No IS makes it really hard to take macro shots.
EF 24-105 f4L IS
Near identical shots, can't tell when sorting (have to use DPP to find lens info sometimes). Overall, 18-200 is more useful.
EF 70-200 f4L IS
The 18-200 is near same IQ up to 190mm. After 190mm this L lens has an advantage. I love the 70-200 shell (nothing moves) but absolutely hate the noise that IS makes. I can hear and FEEL it start up and spin down. Annoying compared to the quiet 18-200.
Sigma 150-500 OS
The 18-200 is better between 150-200. This Sigma did really poor at 500mm. Images were soft past 300 and at 500mm photos looked like double vision. I hope it was a bad lens.
Tamron 18-270 VR
The 18-200 shots are cleaner at all ISO and focal length mm. The Tamron is a lens to be used in bright light at 800+ ISO. The range is advertised at 18-270, but in my experience it was more like 18-220mm. My 55-250mm Canon got closer to the subject.
318 of 327 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
A great walkabout and travel lens at a very useful focal length range!
November 12, 2008
இ Fuzzy Wuzzy's Summary:
ѾѾѾѾѾ Highly recommended with warm fuzzies!
Having used the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLR's for about two years now, this is the perfect focal length range for use as a day-to-day walkabout lens on my Canon 40D. Other Canon gear that I have include their excellent Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras , their razor-sharp Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras , Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens for Canon EOS Cameras , the extremely sharp Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM 1-to-1 Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras , Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro Lens for Canon SLR Cameras , and Canon MR-14EX Macro Ring Lite for Canon Digital SLR Cameras.
In low light or wider-angle scenery shots, this lens is not as sharp as my 17-55mm f/2.8. When used to photograph macro-like shots of butterflies and flowers, it is not as sharp as my 100mm f/2.8. When used at its 200mm focal length to focus onto distant birds and turtles sitting on a stone in a pond, it is not as sharp as my 70-200mm f/4L. But as a one-lens solution for covering that kind of focal lengths, it is pretty good. On sunny days, I use this lens on a 40D with a B&W multi-coated MRC Kaesemann Circular Polarizer. I consider this to be a very useful hiking/travel/walkabout lens, or if (like me) you hate changing lenses back and forth :-) , or if capturing the moments in both wide-angle and zoom situations is more important than getting that perfect shot by carrying multiple lenses and/or camera bodies. This is my first experience with a Canon lens that does not use USM, and the micro-motor is barely slightly slower and noisier than USM... but not knowing what to expect, I was expecting even slower focusing and, in nearly all situations, I found its focus speed totally adequate - still very quick and without any back-and-forth hunting in lower lighting. But my main gripe about this lens is that Canon did not use USM (who knows what kind of marketing decisions went into this, much as I wondered why the 40D had a 3.0-inch LCD but kept the same 230,000 pixels as the 2.5-inch LCD on the 30D - one of my main gripes with the 40D). For the price, Canon should have included USM with full-time manual focusing. But I did notice that the price has dropped by more than 60 dollars since I bought the lens less than three weeks ago.
The use of a zoom lock switch to prevent lens creep is a very welcome addition that I always wished that their 17-85mm and 17-55mm lenses also had. Because of the 11 lens elements in this lens, it slides out to a zoomed length far more than my 17-85mm lens does when the camera is pointing downward and slung around my neck and/or shoulder. Other super-zooms have this same lens creep problem and this is likely a design compromise that the Canon engineers had to consider in still wanting to minimize the amount of friction and effort it takes to turn the zoom ring versus the propensity of the lens elements' weight to pull the zoom downward due to gravity. I have learned to always flick the zoom lock switch on when I am just carrying the camera, quickly flick the zoom lock switch off as I begin to aim and focus (after a short while, it becomes easily habitual to use the middle or ring finger of my right hand to lock/unlock the zoom lock switch while aiming), and to just hold the camera more horizontal if I am actively looking to photograph more. The lens does not rotate during focusing, so circular polarizer filters stay in place.
Unlike Canon's USM lenses, the micro-motor focus design of this lens does not allow you to override the autofocus mechanism until you first flip the AF/MF switch on the lens. Furthermore, while the 17-85mm lens lets you use both the focus ring and zoom ring when the lens hood is inverted on the lens, on the 18-200mm lens, since the slim manual focus ring is now placed at the very front of the lens (and in front of the much-wider zoom ring), when its Canon EW78D Lens Hood for EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 Canon SLR Lens (not included with the lens) is inverted, the lens hood's "petals" block most of the focus ring and I have to use my middle finger and thumb to reach in between the hood petals to rotate the focus ring when the hood is screwed on in its inverted position. I would have much preferred that Canon either (a) retain the same focus-ring-closer-to-camera-body design that they used on the 17-85mm, or (b) increase the width of the focus ring so that it is more accessible when the lens hood is inverted onto the lens. But with the zoom ring being 2.2" wide, the bulk of the lens barrel is occupied by the zoom ring, as if Canon expects that most people will not be using manual focus much on this lens. Since I mainly use manual focus on my two 65mm and 100mm macro lenses, this is not that big of a deal for me. In looking across Canon's entire zoom lens product line, Canon seems to be inconsistent in their placement of the zoom and focus rings, with some lenses having the zoom ring closer to the camera body, and some lenses having the focus ring closer to the camera body.
At both 18mm and 200mm wide open, the image corners can be a little on the soft side, but when stopped down between f/5.6 and f/11, the image is sharp from edge to edge. The image stabilizer on this lens works very well, allowing me to get non-blurry handheld shots in dimmer light while I try to stay within this lens' optimum aperture range of f/5.6 to f/11. Of course, Canon's "17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens" is better in lower light than this 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. But if you use a tripod with this lens, it becomes even more suitable for indoor and night shots. I did not notice any chromatic aberration or purple fringing in my photos. Background bokeh is pleasant and visually appealing. At its maximum 18mm wide-angle and 200mm zoomed-out extremes, there is noticeable barrel and pincushion distortion in the photos, but these are easily correctable using post-processing software, and all super-zoom lenses like this have barrel/pincushion distortion anyway, so I think that this is a physical limitation of the current state of super-zoom lens designs. Even Canon's 28-300mm L glass, which is also f/3.5-5.6, has its share of design compromises and sharpness issues in a super-zoom lens design, and I do not think that the big and bulky Canon 28-300mm L lens is much sharper than this 18-200mm lens (even though it costs more than four times the cost of this lens). So I think that any lens encompassing this sort of zoom range will be tripping over various physical limitations of what can be achieved when compared to a lens with a smaller zoom range. A 18-200mm lens (or, why not, a 17-300mm lens) at a fixed f/2.8 with USM and L-grade glass and weather sealing in a lens that weighs less than 3 pounds would be wonderful, and I would gladly pay a lot more for it as a single-lens travel/walkabout lens solution, but that product still only exists in my dreams right now.
This 18-200mm lens will now make my 17-85mm lens the least-used lens that I have, so I may eventually end up selling the 17-85mm lens.
I have posted 3 sample shots taken at Denver Botanic Gardens and 19 shots from having spent 4 weeks in South Africa to the image gallery for this lens. My posted photos are straight from the camera, after RAW conversion using Canon's Digital Photo Professional; no Photoshop tweaking or other post-processing was done on them. This was a great lens to take on an extended vacation where multiple camera bodies and lenses would have weighed me down more and the dusty conditions of an African safari make it difficult to cleanly change lenses (not to mention that wildlife often does not wait for you to switch your camera gear around!) There were some times during my vacation when I wished that I had my 17-55 f/2.8 with my travel-sized tripod, but for most shots, you would have to squint at the pixel level to notice differences in the sharpness of daytime shots (i.e. 11x14" and 13x19" prints look great!) If you hate spending time editing each photo one-by-one during post-processing and if you do not already own a collection of Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Paint Shop Pro, and Lightroom software, I would recommend that you consider "Dxo Optics Pro" software since DxO Optics Pro can automatically, without much adjusting of software parameters for each photo or photo set, process all of your JPEG or RAW files and correct a whole slew of lens-related imperfections in photos.
December 14 2009 update add-on to my original review: Even though I keep thinking about eventually moving to full-frame, I just got the Canon 7D (still keeping my 40D, and wondering what to do with my 30D), and as a daily "only one lens and only one camera body" walkabout/travel combination, this 18-200mm lens ROCKS when used with my spanky new 7D :-)))) My other favorite combination, when I do not mind lugging the extra bulk and weight, is to carry both the 70-200mm f/4L on my 40D and my 17-55mm f/2.8 on my 7D, with the 7D in the hand and the 40D in the Think Tank Digital Holster 30. Read more ›
ѾѾѾѾѾ Highly recommended with warm fuzzies!
Having used the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLR's for about two years now, this is the perfect focal length range for use as a day-to-day walkabout lens on my Canon 40D. Other Canon gear that I have include their excellent Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras , their razor-sharp Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras , Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens for Canon EOS Cameras , the extremely sharp Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM 1-to-1 Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras , Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro Lens for Canon SLR Cameras , and Canon MR-14EX Macro Ring Lite for Canon Digital SLR Cameras.
In low light or wider-angle scenery shots, this lens is not as sharp as my 17-55mm f/2.8. When used to photograph macro-like shots of butterflies and flowers, it is not as sharp as my 100mm f/2.8. When used at its 200mm focal length to focus onto distant birds and turtles sitting on a stone in a pond, it is not as sharp as my 70-200mm f/4L. But as a one-lens solution for covering that kind of focal lengths, it is pretty good. On sunny days, I use this lens on a 40D with a B&W multi-coated MRC Kaesemann Circular Polarizer. I consider this to be a very useful hiking/travel/walkabout lens, or if (like me) you hate changing lenses back and forth :-) , or if capturing the moments in both wide-angle and zoom situations is more important than getting that perfect shot by carrying multiple lenses and/or camera bodies. This is my first experience with a Canon lens that does not use USM, and the micro-motor is barely slightly slower and noisier than USM... but not knowing what to expect, I was expecting even slower focusing and, in nearly all situations, I found its focus speed totally adequate - still very quick and without any back-and-forth hunting in lower lighting. But my main gripe about this lens is that Canon did not use USM (who knows what kind of marketing decisions went into this, much as I wondered why the 40D had a 3.0-inch LCD but kept the same 230,000 pixels as the 2.5-inch LCD on the 30D - one of my main gripes with the 40D). For the price, Canon should have included USM with full-time manual focusing. But I did notice that the price has dropped by more than 60 dollars since I bought the lens less than three weeks ago.
The use of a zoom lock switch to prevent lens creep is a very welcome addition that I always wished that their 17-85mm and 17-55mm lenses also had. Because of the 11 lens elements in this lens, it slides out to a zoomed length far more than my 17-85mm lens does when the camera is pointing downward and slung around my neck and/or shoulder. Other super-zooms have this same lens creep problem and this is likely a design compromise that the Canon engineers had to consider in still wanting to minimize the amount of friction and effort it takes to turn the zoom ring versus the propensity of the lens elements' weight to pull the zoom downward due to gravity. I have learned to always flick the zoom lock switch on when I am just carrying the camera, quickly flick the zoom lock switch off as I begin to aim and focus (after a short while, it becomes easily habitual to use the middle or ring finger of my right hand to lock/unlock the zoom lock switch while aiming), and to just hold the camera more horizontal if I am actively looking to photograph more. The lens does not rotate during focusing, so circular polarizer filters stay in place.
Unlike Canon's USM lenses, the micro-motor focus design of this lens does not allow you to override the autofocus mechanism until you first flip the AF/MF switch on the lens. Furthermore, while the 17-85mm lens lets you use both the focus ring and zoom ring when the lens hood is inverted on the lens, on the 18-200mm lens, since the slim manual focus ring is now placed at the very front of the lens (and in front of the much-wider zoom ring), when its Canon EW78D Lens Hood for EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 Canon SLR Lens (not included with the lens) is inverted, the lens hood's "petals" block most of the focus ring and I have to use my middle finger and thumb to reach in between the hood petals to rotate the focus ring when the hood is screwed on in its inverted position. I would have much preferred that Canon either (a) retain the same focus-ring-closer-to-camera-body design that they used on the 17-85mm, or (b) increase the width of the focus ring so that it is more accessible when the lens hood is inverted onto the lens. But with the zoom ring being 2.2" wide, the bulk of the lens barrel is occupied by the zoom ring, as if Canon expects that most people will not be using manual focus much on this lens. Since I mainly use manual focus on my two 65mm and 100mm macro lenses, this is not that big of a deal for me. In looking across Canon's entire zoom lens product line, Canon seems to be inconsistent in their placement of the zoom and focus rings, with some lenses having the zoom ring closer to the camera body, and some lenses having the focus ring closer to the camera body.
At both 18mm and 200mm wide open, the image corners can be a little on the soft side, but when stopped down between f/5.6 and f/11, the image is sharp from edge to edge. The image stabilizer on this lens works very well, allowing me to get non-blurry handheld shots in dimmer light while I try to stay within this lens' optimum aperture range of f/5.6 to f/11. Of course, Canon's "17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens" is better in lower light than this 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. But if you use a tripod with this lens, it becomes even more suitable for indoor and night shots. I did not notice any chromatic aberration or purple fringing in my photos. Background bokeh is pleasant and visually appealing. At its maximum 18mm wide-angle and 200mm zoomed-out extremes, there is noticeable barrel and pincushion distortion in the photos, but these are easily correctable using post-processing software, and all super-zoom lenses like this have barrel/pincushion distortion anyway, so I think that this is a physical limitation of the current state of super-zoom lens designs. Even Canon's 28-300mm L glass, which is also f/3.5-5.6, has its share of design compromises and sharpness issues in a super-zoom lens design, and I do not think that the big and bulky Canon 28-300mm L lens is much sharper than this 18-200mm lens (even though it costs more than four times the cost of this lens). So I think that any lens encompassing this sort of zoom range will be tripping over various physical limitations of what can be achieved when compared to a lens with a smaller zoom range. A 18-200mm lens (or, why not, a 17-300mm lens) at a fixed f/2.8 with USM and L-grade glass and weather sealing in a lens that weighs less than 3 pounds would be wonderful, and I would gladly pay a lot more for it as a single-lens travel/walkabout lens solution, but that product still only exists in my dreams right now.
This 18-200mm lens will now make my 17-85mm lens the least-used lens that I have, so I may eventually end up selling the 17-85mm lens.
I have posted 3 sample shots taken at Denver Botanic Gardens and 19 shots from having spent 4 weeks in South Africa to the image gallery for this lens. My posted photos are straight from the camera, after RAW conversion using Canon's Digital Photo Professional; no Photoshop tweaking or other post-processing was done on them. This was a great lens to take on an extended vacation where multiple camera bodies and lenses would have weighed me down more and the dusty conditions of an African safari make it difficult to cleanly change lenses (not to mention that wildlife often does not wait for you to switch your camera gear around!) There were some times during my vacation when I wished that I had my 17-55 f/2.8 with my travel-sized tripod, but for most shots, you would have to squint at the pixel level to notice differences in the sharpness of daytime shots (i.e. 11x14" and 13x19" prints look great!) If you hate spending time editing each photo one-by-one during post-processing and if you do not already own a collection of Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Paint Shop Pro, and Lightroom software, I would recommend that you consider "Dxo Optics Pro" software since DxO Optics Pro can automatically, without much adjusting of software parameters for each photo or photo set, process all of your JPEG or RAW files and correct a whole slew of lens-related imperfections in photos.
December 14 2009 update add-on to my original review: Even though I keep thinking about eventually moving to full-frame, I just got the Canon 7D (still keeping my 40D, and wondering what to do with my 30D), and as a daily "only one lens and only one camera body" walkabout/travel combination, this 18-200mm lens ROCKS when used with my spanky new 7D :-)))) My other favorite combination, when I do not mind lugging the extra bulk and weight, is to carry both the 70-200mm f/4L on my 40D and my 17-55mm f/2.8 on my 7D, with the 7D in the hand and the 40D in the Think Tank Digital Holster 30. Read more ›
273 of 284 people found the following review helpful
Amazon Verified Purchase
I've had the Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS lens for several months and found it to give sharper images with my 40D than the Tamron 18-250mm (non-IS/OS) which it replaced. Then along comes Canon with their own superzoom "travel lens" so I bought one to see how it compares to the Sigma. My tests show mixed results regarding image quality. With both lenses wide open the Sigma wins at the wide end from 18-24mm, especially away from the center, while the Canon wins at the 135-200mm long end, also especially away from the center. Further, the Sigma is f6.3 wide open at 200mm while the Canon is f5.6. This is only a small difference, but it does give the Canon even more advantage at 200mm where shutter speed needs to be the highest.
Both lenses auto-focus accurately (no front or back focus) although the Sigma is slower to lock focus in low light and is a little noisier in getting there. Their IS/OS are equally effective at about 3 stops of compensation. Build quality, size and weight are about the same and both use the same 72mm filter size. Sigma includes a lens hood while Canon wants to sell you one.
In summary, the Canon is slightly better for me due to the faster and quieter low-light focus and improved telephoto image quality. The trade-off is poorer image quality than the Sigma for wide angle shots, even after stopping down. Finally, the Canon lens costs about $200 more than the Sigma at this time.
Both lenses auto-focus accurately (no front or back focus) although the Sigma is slower to lock focus in low light and is a little noisier in getting there. Their IS/OS are equally effective at about 3 stops of compensation. Build quality, size and weight are about the same and both use the same 72mm filter size. Sigma includes a lens hood while Canon wants to sell you one.
In summary, the Canon is slightly better for me due to the faster and quieter low-light focus and improved telephoto image quality. The trade-off is poorer image quality than the Sigma for wide angle shots, even after stopping down. Finally, the Canon lens costs about $200 more than the Sigma at this time.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 stars
My new all-purpose lens
I keep this on my camera (Canon 7D) all the time now unless I need a specialty lens or I'm shooting portraits. Is it L-series quality? Read more
Published 6 days ago by T. Bumgarner
3.0 out of 5 stars
The lens is, as others have written so much, a jack of all trades and...
Fairly sharp at 200mm, softer at wider angles. A lot missed shots. Adequate if the light is right or with flash..
Published 8 days ago by emac2
5.0 out of 5 stars
A must have
Great product, great walk around lens, I just received it and I'm in love. Every camera should have a lens like that
Published 12 days ago by Guerby P.
5.0 out of 5 stars
fantastic
This lens is great for both long distance and short without having to switch back and forth. packed well too.
Published 14 days ago by Elizabeth
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great Lens
I tend to only use one lens so I was looking for something that was adaptable. This lens is it. I've used it with the T4i inside video and outside using the telephoto for... Read more
Published 1 month ago by Myron W. Davidson
5.0 out of 5 stars
This is a great lens
This is one awesome lens, tryng to figure out how i went so long without it. I would recommend this lens to all that looking for a great lens and affordable.
Published 2 months ago by Clayton Denson
1.0 out of 5 stars
JAMMED AFTER 1 YEAR - 2 LENS
Warning! Do not buy this lens!
I purchased this lens 2 ys ago, used for 6 months, as I considered very practical I convinced my sister to buy one for her. Read more
I purchased this lens 2 ys ago, used for 6 months, as I considered very practical I convinced my sister to buy one for her. Read more
Published 3 months ago by Sergio S. Mulinari
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent range of lenght
This lens is perfect, I don't need anything else, since its range 18-200 allows to cover many different situations. Read more
Published 3 months ago by A D C
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great Buy
Lens in great conditioin - found no evidence of rough use or that it had been used. With 18-200mm I don't have to change lens very often indoor or out.
Published 3 months ago by Claude Hardison
4.0 out of 5 stars
Nice lens for the price
This lens does everything I expected. It is by no means top end but for the size and price it does a very good job. Read more
Published 3 months ago by Cyclops
