Help, please!: Canon 15-85mm IS USM or Canon 18-200mm?

Hi Group!


This is my first post. I just want to say that Brian runs an incredibly useful and informative site. Thank you, Brian!


To the point... For our wedding anniversary, my lovely wife just gave me a fantastic dslr starter kit, including the Canon T2i and the Canon 18-200mm lens.


I did a lot of research on lenses and asked for the 18-200mm despite the known and obvious drawbacks. Like many, I wanted a versatile super-zoom so that I would only need one lens for day to day use. I chose the Canon over the Sigma 18-250mm and Tamron 18-270mm.


Now the Canon 15-85mm IS USM has come to my attention and I am seriously confused about having the 18-200mm. The 15-85mm appears to be of superior build and lens quality, as well as producing higher quality pics.


After comparing the angle of view changes between the 85-200mm range, I notice that there is a drop off in change after about 135mm. I guess that is the result of the smaller change of difference in the percentage of the focal length. I hope I am articulating myself well enough.


I also have a concern about the 18-200mm, as I have read numerous reports about the lens lock failing. Though, many seem to be very happy with the lens and the images it produces.


So it comes down to, If I were to have only one lens for now, do I sacrifice the longer end of the zoom range (85-200mm), in favor of a superior lens, with a more than capable zoom (at the 1.6 crop).


Any advice would be greatly appreciated. I have ten days to make a decision before B&H won't take back the 18-200mm and the 15-85mm rebate expires.


Thanks in advance!

Hi Lynx!


From 18 to 85mm the 15-85mm lens has superior image quality. But you can't ignore the versatility of the 18-200. It can do almost everything and although on paper it's IQ isn't as good, in real world use it's plenty good and IMO you shouldn't always judge a lens by lab results. To have the IQ of the 15-85 AND the versatility of the 18-200, my suggestion would be to buy the 15-85 and the 70-200 f/4L which will give you great telephoto performance and L build for around $600. Or, if you really like superzooms the 28-300L will do the same thing that the 18-200 does with better IQ.


hope this helps


brendan

Hi Lynx!


Welcome to the forum and obviously... Congratulations to you and your wife!![Y]


To be honest, everyone can tell you that the image-quality of the 15-85 is better than the 18-200. But as I see it, I'm missing a few vital details before anyone could give you a good personal advice.


- What kind of photographer are you? occasional shooter or more serious plans?


- What are the subjects you'd like to take photos of?


- What do you expect from a lens? Sharpness? Zoom and versatility? Strong back- and foreground differentiation? (wide aperture) etc etc


- Have you got problems with post-processing and editing your photos(cropping etc)? Or do you expect clear results straight from the camera? (speaking of composition, not image quality)





Jan

Hi Jan,


Thanks for your reply and kind words!


You have asked very pertinent questions for background that I should have included in the original post, but left out because I thought I was already saying too much!


- What kind of photographer are you? occasional shooter or more
serious plans?
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]For all intents I am a newbie. Back in high school I had a Pentax K1000 and then a Minolta XG-7 (am I dating myself?) and had an active interest in photography. I even had my own dark room. After college I switched to point and shoots, and didn't look back at SLR's until recently. Let's say I am an ambitious amateur who has basic knowledge of how SLR's work and wants to grow.


- What are the subjects you'd like to take photos of?
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]At this point, mainly be a recreational photography (vacations, landscapes, my kid's ballgames, etc.)


- What do you expect from a lens? Sharpness? Zoom and versatility?
Strong back- and foreground differentiation? (wide aperture) etc etc
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]Sharpness is important, but I don't have a L level budget. I'd like to have a fairly strong zoom capability (hence the 18-200mm), but might be willing to sacrifice the longer range, knowing that I could do some decent cropping with 18mp images (is that right?).
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]At this point in my development, I don't really want to carry multiple lenses such as a 15-85mm and a 70-200mm. From what I understand though, the 18-200mm is not very good at producing sharp images at the full 200mm. Also, as I mentioned before, the angle of view change from 135-200mm, isn't that dramatic to my eyes.
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]I really like the idea of strong back and foreground differentiation, as I've been learning about bokeh and how when done properly, with a good lens, you can get beautiful results. I may at some point get a fast 50mm prime.


- Have you got problems with post-processing and editing your
photos(cropping etc)? Or do you expect clear results straight from the
camera? (speaking of composition, not image quality)
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]I have a basic knowledge of post-processing. I don't trust myself at this point with adjusting color, sharpness, vignetting and such, but don't have a problem with cropping. Ultimately, I'd like to develop my composition skills so that minimal cropping is needed to get a nice result.


I hope that provides a bit more context on my situation. I'm feeling a strong pull toward the 15-85mm for the better quality build, USM, and sharper images, but I'm concerned about loosing the extra focal length that the 18-200mm provides. Currently my budget is for only one lens (in addition to the kit lens).


Thanks again for any suggestions or thoughts!


Randy

Hi Brendan,


Thanks for the reply!


I keep seeing the term IQ, but I'm not sure I understand what it means as applied to lenses. If I understand what you are saying, it's that the 18-200mm performs better in real use, than it does when looking at specs and technical lab results. So, would you say that it is a decent lens for my purposes? (see my reply to Jan's post). I'd love to have the full range you suggest with the two lens, but at this point, I think I should start with one for simplicity sake and current budget limits. I think I need to earn the right to move up to an L build.[:)]


Thanks again,


Randy

Hey Randy,


thatks for your detailed reply.


I must say I have never used the 15-85 nor the 18-200 and so my knowledge of these lenses comes from reading reviews, so at that point I'm just as far as you are.


I can put some general thoughts into the equation though [:D]


From reading your answers I can get a lot of information regarding lens choice. For me it doesn't seem like you'd really need a long focal length. I'd really doubt it that you would miss the 85-200mm range when choosing the 15-85. You've got the ability to crop and you're willing to use it. 18MP is more than plenty to crop quite a bit I can tell you.


Of course there will be times when you wish you have the 200mm, but when you do have 200mm there will also be times you want even longer. It's a non-stop road. If you shoot a lot of wildlife for instance, the 200mm will be a benefit. But then the f5.6 won't help you out a lot since wildlife is often seen in the less brightened times of days. (Not to mention you'd have to stop your lens down to f8 to achieve best results...) Also for your kids ballgames, you'd probably like something faster with a fast auto-focus.


In my eyes you could do great with a decent general lens (like the 15-85) A lens with a nice wideangle to a good portrait focal length.


I don't know a lot of people who buy the 15-85, mainly because normally the Canon 17-55 f2.8 is just a little more expensive and has a constant maximum aperture of f2.8. That being said, normally I would advise you to look at the Canon 17-55, but after rebates I'm not sure what the differences are.


My conclusion, from what I've read the Canon 15-85 delivers very good image quality, a very nice IS implementation and good use for you. The only downsides to that lens is the variable and slow aperture. Not really an issue for normal outdoor snapshots, but the f5.6 maximum aperture is very often too little for inside.


Also f5.6 minimum makes it hard to create that desired foreground/background blur.


But when you're willing to buy a fast prime, this won't be much of a problem I think. (for instance: 50mm 1.8/1.4 or 85mm 1.8)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

I hope that provides a bit more context on my situation. I'm feeling a strong pull toward the 15-85mm for the better quality build, USM, and sharper images

---

Good points for choosing the 15-85. You could also look at the more expensive Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS(L-quality images, constant aperture, IS) or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8(cheaper, great image quality, no IS and no USM) perhaps with another lens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

but I'm concerned about loosing the extra focal length that the 18-200mm provides

---

The Canon 18-200 proves to be more versatile, but at the expense of some, in my eyes very important, qualities. With that 18MP, you can crop a lot. Also if you can try it out, just put the 18-200 on your camera and start shooting and limit yourself to 85mm. See what the real life difference is between 85 and 200mm and how it affects your photos.
<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

I keep seeing the term IQ, but I'm not sure I understand what it means as applied to lenses

---

IQ stands for Image Quality. It's defined by things like sharpness, colors and contrast of the pictures.


I hope I didn't miss anything.


Good luck,


Jan
</div>

If I were in your shoes I'd get the Canon 18-200. I find that it's rare that I need 17mm out of my 17-50 and those few 17mm shots never end up being favorites but I'd really miss 200mm. I tend to frame portraits pretty tight and longer focal length help most anyone's apearance.
I don't have any expirience with the Canon 18-200 but have used the Nikon 18-200 and given ample light it's a hoot.
Of course the Nikon body that it was on was a D300, maybe ? 12mp prosumer body? Anyhow it made my XSI look kinda bad. It make's me want a 50D or 7D really bad.

Hey Randy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

I keep seeing the term IQ, but I'm not sure I understand what it means as applied to lenses

---

It means the quality of the images it can produce in terms of sharpness, color &amp; contrast, susceptibility to distortion, etc. At comparable focal lengths the 15-85 has better IQ on paper and in lab results, but in normal use the difference will be smaller and if you're planning to have one, versatile lens than the 18-200mm is the best unless you want to shell out $2500 for the 28-300mm L. I suggest you review your shots and see how many of them were taken between 85-200mm. If there are many, than stick with that lens. However, if the majority of your shots are taken from 18-85mm than the 15-85mm might be the better choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

So, would you say that it is a decent lens for my purposes?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

I'd love to have the full range you suggest with the two lens, but at this point, I think I should start with one for simplicity sake and current budget limits.

---

Sounds good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

I think I need to earn the right to move up to an L build.[img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]

---

Since you're considering the 15-85mm, you could also buy the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM for $300 more. You gain a fast f/2.8 aperture (really helpful if you shoot indoors a lot). It isn't an L lens but it has the optics and IQ of an L. However, I have a feeling that 55mm is probably too short a focal length if the 17-55 was your only lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Thanks again,

---

happy to help [H]


brendan

I'd also get a 50 1.8 ASAP even if it is your only other lens.

Hi Randy,


This is also my 1st post/reply on Brian's website. I've been reading the forums forthe pastcouple of years, but never felt I could contribute as a newbie myself. But here goes anyway.


I like Brandon's suggestion of the 15-85 coupled with the 70-200 f/4. The 18-200 has a very useful focal range, but I suspect you may want more out of your photos. And those lenses, from what I hear, can really deliver.


My main lens is the 17-55, but itoften seems a little short in situations. I sometimes contemplate switching to the 15-85, but I really love the larger f/2.8 aperture. It comes in handy in low-light situations.


I don't really have anything on the long end, other than my 85 f/1.8 (my favorite outdoor lens). Oh, and a Sigma 150 macro. The 70-200 f/4 L is has long been on my wishlist. But if you want to carry around something lighter and a little less conspicuous, how about the ef-s 55-250? I hear it has surprisingly good quality for a budget lens. Probably better than the 18-200 in the overlapping range.


If you cannot afford a 2 lens solution, I would still recommend the 15-85. You can always add lenses to your system when you really develop as a photographer and know what you want in your photos. Eventually you may want to buy the 18-200 again as a travel lens.[:)]


John

Welcome to the TDP Forums, Randy, and congrats on your new camera and lens!


Seems like you're faced with a difficult decision. In general, any time you look at a superzoom like the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS or even the more expensive EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM (four times the cost!), you're talking about compromise. The biggest downside to such a lens is usually barrel distortion at the wide end - almost every zoom lens has it, but it's more extreme and noticeable on zooms with &gt;5x range. The 18-200mm suffers from &gt;4% barrel distortion; even the L-series 28-300mm superzoom has &gt;4% distortion, although since it's an EF lens, when used with a 1.6x crop body over half of the distortion is eliminated by the sensor crop. Unfortunately, even though the EF-S 15-85mm lens is sharper than the 18-200mm, it suffers almost as badly (3.2%) from barrel distortion at the wide end. For comparison, 'better' lenses like the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS exhibit less than 2% barrel distortion at the wide end (and I still notice it in some shots with both lenses).


The other main issue with superzooms is vignetting at the wide end. This is not such a big deal, though, since the T2i can correct this in-camera for JPGs with peripheral illumination correction (and the correction is applied to RAW images if you process them in DPP). Especially if you shoot in JPG, make sure you have PIC enabled and data available for your lenses (done by connecting to your computer and using EOS Utility) - by default, data is only pre-loaded for a few lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

After comparing the angle of view changes between the 85-200mm range, I notice that there is a drop off in change after about 135mm. I guess that is the result of the smaller change of difference in the percentage of the focal length. I hope I am articulating myself well enough.

---

What you're noticing (and articulating perfectly well) is not merely the result of 'diminishing returns' because of proportional decrease in relative change (18-28mm is a much bigger relative change than 190-200mm). According to Bryan's review, his testing indicates that 200mm on the EF-S 18-200mm is really around 174mm, when compared to two different 200mm prime lenses (the section is the 3rd paragraph down from the starfish picture). So it's a combination of decreased relative change and probably some non-linear decrease in absolute focal length relative to the markings on the barrel, at the long end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

I really like the idea of strong back and foreground differentiation, as I've been learning about bokeh and how when done properly, with a good lens, you can get beautiful results. I may at some point get a fast 50mm prime.

---

I'd do that sooner rather than later. A great way to experience the benefits (and limitations) of a fast prime is the 'nifty-fifty' - the $100 EF 50mm f/1.8 II. Build quality is not great, but it's a nice little lens that will let you experience a fast prime for low cost. For a larger investment, the EF 85mm f/1.8 is one of the best values in the Canon lineup - excellent IQ, fast, and a great focal length for tight portraits on a crop body, for under $400.


The other purchase I'd recommend you consider (do you have a birthday coming up?) is an external flash. If you'll be shooting indoors, you'll quickly discover that f/3.5-5.6 is too slow, and you'll need a flash. IMO, the onboard pop-up flash provides horrible lighting (except for fill flash in daylight). Bouncing the flash off the ceiling will substantially improve the look of your indoor shots. Have a look at the Speedlite 430EX II - I recommend that over the 270EX since the 430EX II swivels as well as tilts, and more importantly offers a red/infrared AF assist lamp (versus the annoying multiple flashes of the main strobe for AF assist).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

So it comes down to, If I were to have only one lens for now, do I sacrifice the longer end of the zoom range (85-200mm), in favor of a superior lens, with a more than capable zoom (at the 1.6 crop).

---

My recommendation would be to stick with the 18-200mm lens. Brendan's suggestion of the 15-85mm + 70-200mm f/4L is a good one, although a 200mm lens without IS can be difficult to handhold. But for a one-lens solution for, "vacations, landscapes, my kid's ballgames, etc.," I think you'll want the flexibility of wide angle to telephoto coverage. Despite the fact that I have an excellent collection of fast zooms and even faster primes covering 10-400mm in total, I still sometimes find myself considering the EF-S 18-200mm as a one-lens solution (in fact, I may take my 7D into a camera shop this weekend and try one out!).


Shoot with the 18-200mm for a while, and that will help you decide where you want to spend your money in the future (a better wide angle like the 17-55mm f/2.8, a better telephoto like the 70-200mm f/4L IS, or something even wider like the EF-S 10-22mm).


--John

I agree! Thanks!

Thanks, John! I really appreciate the input!


After spending today getting to know my new camera and lens, I found that I used the full focal length range of the 18-200. I'd love to have more than one lens, but I feel that at this time it would be best for me to stick with the 18-200 and learn how to use it, which unfortunately is the opposite approach to what you suggested. Right now, my eye is not very attuned to things like chromatic aberration, barrel distortion, pincushion, vignetting, etc. The pictures I took look very nice, and to my untrained eye, sharp. I'm sure as I get more experience these unpleasant details will become more apparent to me.


The 18-200 may not be the brightest, sharpest, or fastest, but it really is a huge step up for me from my little PowerShot point and shoot (which I still love). So in time, with use and experience, I'll likely need to expand my range of lenses and get that 15-85 and 70-200, and the 18-200 will become the travel lens. Until then, I really need to work on composition and learning to effectively use the manual controls.


Thank you very much for your suggestions!

Hi Jan,


Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I took your advice and put the 18-200 on the camera and started shooting. What I learned was that I do appreciate having the broad focal length range that the lens affords.


As mentioned in another reply to John, I think I'm going to stick with this lens for now, and as I develop some experience and am better able to discern lens limitations I'm sure I'll want to upgrade to better quality lenses. At that point, the 18-200 will simply become my travel lens. For now, I need to learn how to compose better shots, and as I've used a point and shoot for so long, to master the manual controls.


Thanks again.


Regards,


Randy

Hi John,


I think your suggestions are spot on for my current needs. I really appreciate everyone's input, it's all good, but I think what it comes down to is that I am not technically ready to make the investment in multiple lens, even if they are faster and produce sharper images.


I don't want to repeat myself too much, so please see my reply to the post from the other John: I need to learn, and right now, the 18-200 lens will afford me the ability to do so with a wide focal range to choose from. I'm sure at some point I'll want to upgrade to the other lens solutions that you and the others have suggested.


Two other things: I agree with you and the others about getting the "nifty fifty" or similar lens. I understand the value of that. Also, I have in fact been considering the 430EX II. I will likely be getting these two items sooner than later!


Again, thanks for the great insight and suggestions. I really appreciate it.


Regards,


Randy

Hey Randy,


Congrats on your decision. I know it's hard to make a choice when there are so many excellent products out there. You have a great camera. And a desireable lens with that awesome focal range. Enjoy them.


John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

I took your advice and put the 18-200 on the camera and started shooting. What I learned was that I do appreciate having the broad focal length range that the lens affords.

---

That's the most important factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

I think I'm going to stick with this lens for now, and as I develop some experience and am better able to discern lens limitations I'm sure I'll want to upgrade to better quality lenses

---

Sounds like a good choice to me. As long as your happy with it, it's good right? After a while you'll figure out what matters most to you and you get a better idea of what you might want to upgrade later on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

For now, I need to learn how to compose better shots, and as I've used a point and shoot for so long, to master the manual controls.

---

Just practice and practice a lot! Memory is cheap and photos are erasable, use that in your advantage. When you start experimenting(I personally shot beer-bottles at different distances on the kitchen table to learn the meaning of aperture) it's no big deal if you shoot 200 photos and you'll delete them all. Just make sure you'll learn from it.


Have fun and good luck with photographing and in your marriage of course...Randy! [Y]


Jan

I just pulled the trigger on the 15-85mm, mainly because Canon is promoting a $100 discount (until 7/10/2010). I already have a zoom to cover the longer end out to 200mm, so this makes sense for me (and I generally shoot outdoors). The 17-55mm with a fixed f/2.8 would be nicer, but that lens would be roughly 70% more expensive.


Looks like the 18-200mm fills your needs quite wellfor a one-lens outfit. It pretty much covers the range that my two zooms will cover. Our next option will likely be a fast intermediate prime, no?


As Sheiky stated, memory is cheap and erasable... something I must also keep in mind since I come from the old days of film SLRs. Good film was not cheap, reusable, nor did it offer instant results (required processing).


Enjoy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I may take my 7D into a camera shop this weekend and try one out!

---

So, I did head into a camera shot this weekend and give the EF-S 18-200mm a try. My first impression was that it was a nice size, light, and better constructed than I thought it would be. The zoom ring had little play and good resistance, but not too much. Even though the manual focus ring is thin, it was a bit unnerving to feel it move under my fingers during autofocus. AF was reasonably fast (definitely not typical USM, but similar to the 85L). The focal length range was nice (but could be nicer - see below). I took a grab-shot of my daughter running toward me from across the shop, with the lens at the long end of the zoom range - the background was crisp thanks to IS, but with f/5.6 in the poorly-lit shop, shutter speed was too slow to stop her motion. For indoor use with moving subjects, flash is a must.


I was also interested in the apparent issue of focal length at the long end of this lens. The phenomenon Randy mentioned (when zooming from wide to tele, there is less change as you zoom at the long end) was very apparent with this lens. You can see the same thing with any zoom lens, but it seemed more noticeable with the 18-200mm, perhaps due to the 11x range? I took a pair of shots at 200mm - one with the EF-S 18-200mm, then changing lenses without changing my position, a second shot with myEF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II.


[url="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4118/4767799586_3662021c1c_b.jpg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4118/...62021c1c_b.jpg[/url]


As you can see from the superimposed version on the right, at 200mm, the 70-200mm L lens frames quite a bit tighter than the 18-200mm lens. How much tighter? By my calculations, about a 1.3x crop. That makes the effective focal length of the 18-200mm @ 200mm only about 154mm compared to the L-zoom @ 200mm. My estimation comes in a bit worse than Bryan's (he estimated it at 174mm). On the wide end, compared to an EF-S 17-55mm, the 18-200mm delivers ~18mm. From Bryan's test shots with the starfish, it seems most of the 'compression' is at the long end - there's only a small difference in framing between 135mm and 170mm, and almost none between 170mm and 200mm.


This gets me to thinking - if the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 is really an 18-154mm lens, is it worth $150-200 more than the EF-S 18-135mmf/3.5-5.6? That additional cost only buys you 20mm and a few mm delay in the transitions to slower apertures.


In any case, even if you're not getting the full 11x range out of the 18-200mm lens, even a 9x zoom is a huge range, making it a very convenient lens for travel. Personally, I think deal with the additional bulk and weight and some lens changes, and I'll stick with my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS andEF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II lenses as a 'travel kit', or my EF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]L IS as my 'one-lens' solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

This gets me to thinking - if the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 is really an 18-154mm lens, is it worth $150-200 more than the EF-S 18-135mmf/3.5-5.6? That additional cost only buys you 20mm and a few mm delay in the transitions to slower apertures.

---

Considering the 135mm of the 18-135 is really 135mm [A]


Thanks for the head to head comparison. That's a BIG difference! It almost looks like a comparison shot between a full-frame photo and a crop sized photo [A]


I remember shooting with a cheap Tamron 70-300 at maximum zoom and the exif would say 284mm or something. Does your exif with the 18-200 still say 200mm?


By the way isn't this just a marketing trick/scam and officially illegal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

By the way isn't this just a marketing trick/scam and officially illegal?

---

I dunno. I do know that Apple does the same thing -- their 16GB iPhones really have a capacity of 13.7 GB, their 32GB iPhones a capacity of 28GB, etc.

Well every hard-disk or other storage system has that, even on windows pc's. I believe it has something to do with computers seeing 1GB as 1024MB (bits-system) and the product makers state it as 1000MB(decimal system). So if you'd buy a 750GB HDD, devide it by 1.024 and you'll end up with what your PC makes of it...(or something like that [:P])


But focal length is not touched by any mathematic system or something. It's pure physics right? 200mm focal length "IS" 200 focal length. Got to dig that stuff back up before I can explain it [:P]

Interesting comparison. I did some shooting this weekend, and the EXIFs
for 200mm shots came up as 200mm. Go figure.


Having such a broad range of lenses to choose from is at the same time a blessing and a curse!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Interesting comparison. I did some shooting this weekend, and the EXIFs
for 200mm shots came up as 200mm. Go figure.

---

I would say you're getting scammed! [A]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Having such a broad range of lenses to choose from is at the same time a blessing and a curse!

---

If you're aware of the abilities of a broad range it's definitely an advantage! It's only a curse if something different happens that you didn't expect to happen [;)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Does your exif with the 18-200 still say 200mm?

---

EXIF with both says 200mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Considering the 135mm of the 18-135 is really 135mm

---

True - I almost added that statement to my post. Bryan's review of the 18-135mm doesn't mention anything odd about the long end, and the focal length comparisons shot that 135mm is a lot tighter than 87mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

By the way isn't this just a marketing trick/scam and officially illegal? ...focal length is not touched by any mathematic system or something. It's pure physics right? 200mm focal length "IS" 200 focal length.

---

I doubt it. For a camera lens, focal length is the distance from the nodal point of the lens to the sensor/film. For the EF-S 18-200mm @ 200mm, that distance will be 200mm as calculated by Canon's engineers (depending on lens elements, the nodal point can be well forward of the front element the lens). The relationship of focal length to angle of view makes several assumptions (e.g. perfectly rectilinear and no distortions). Presumably because of distortions in the lens, the angle of view for the 18-200mm @ 200mm is wider than for other lenses at that same focal length.



<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Having such a broad range of lenses to choose from is at the same time a blessing and a curse!

---

If you're aware of the abilities of a broad range it's definitely an advantage! It's only a curse if something different happens that you didn't expect to happen

---

<div>Is it considered a curse if I have a sore back after carrying them all around for a day? [:P]</div>
</div>