Canon 18-200mm is going back...

<p class="justify"]I was very pleased with the image quality and focus speed of the lens, the problem was that apparently 200mm is not enough for me.
<p class="justify"]I was in the back of the house looking at the squirrels playing in a tree that was no more than 10 or so feet away, I had the 18-200mm lens on my XTi and took some photos, perhaps it was unrealistic but I really thought I was going to be able to zoom in a lot more than I could.
<p class="justify"]At 10 or so feet away, at 200mm I thought I was going to be able to tell if the squirrel had something between its teeth. :-)
<p class="justify"]I also like going to the zoo and taking photos of the animals and felt that 200mm would not cut it. I know about the 200mm and infinite focus, but some things are only 20 - 50 feet away.
<p class="justify"]So...I may look into the 70-300mm IS or just wait and see if something new is announced at the next PMA show, fortunately I'm in no rush and can wait.


Has anyone else ran into this feeling that 200mm is not what you thought?

Thanks.

I used to have a 28-200mm that I bought after I had my 28-135mm. I was disappointed that I didn't get more reach improvement, and liked the 28-135mm more overall, so I gave the 28-200 to my sister, who is still using it.


You could go 70-300mm, which is fine, though if you get a 70-200mm L, I think you'd have more fun :D If its tack sharp, you can always drop :)


But what you REALLY probably want is the 100-400. I'd like one too. Just not this year. The year's going to be long, in that regard.

yeah same here, you should look into the 100-400 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

I used to use my 70-200 f4 IS for the zoo before getting the 100-400 and I think it makes all the difference in the world. The 100-400 is the only one I use for the zoo or well lit sporting events now. Even with the crop factor, 200mm really doesn't provide you with enough reach for getting tight shots on most animals.


Unfortunately, your also talking about a significant price difference for the 100-400 compared to the 70-300 IS and the fact that you have to get used to the push/pull mechanismon the 100-400 (which really wasn't a big deal for me).


You could keep your 18-200 as a good walk-around lens and then save up for something like the 400 f5.6 for the added reach when you need it, but at that point the 100-400 would only be a few hundred dollars more andwould bea much more versatile lens (and with IS).


If your not in a rush as you say, I would start saving some pennies ;)

The 100-400mm would sure be nice, but good grief...it sure is heavy and costly. [:)]

The 100-400 is too short, trust me...go with the 500/4 ;)


In all seriousness though, the feeling you got shooting at 200mm's is the feeling I often get shooting at 400mm's--sounds crazy, but it seems I can never get close enough. As for the 100-400 being heavy and expensive, relatively speaking its really not that bad.


-Matt

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to save up for the 100-400 f/4-5.6 L IS USM lens. What I found on my safar in Kenya was that we weren't taking photos of fast moving animals but mostly stationary animals from our vehicles (with the exception being when the pride of lions walked around our vehicles in the Masai Mara). And since we were not out on safarin during the wee early hours of the late afternoon hours where the sun was defnitely down and the light would be low, the lens doesn't necessarily have to be that fast: I'll have to post a few of the photos we took at 300mm so you get a reference point of what I'm trying to improve upon.

Have I mentioned that I'm mildly jealous of anybody with a 100-400?


*totally wants one*


I should stop whining, and go make some money :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen

yeah same here, you should look into the 100-400 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

...alas it is only a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM :(





...&euro;0.02...





Kindest regards!





Max@Home

They had one refurbished at Adorama...