What does Canon EFS 17-55 IS USM lens do better than Canon EFS 18-200 IS?

[vladc77]

<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]Hello everybody,<o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]I probably have a stupid question, but I cannot answer to this question on my own. I got these two lenses after reading multiple reviews on both of them. It looks like that Canon EFS 17-55 IS USM lens is much superior in terms of quality than Canon EFS 18-200mm IS as well as it is much more expensive. It doesn&rsquo;t have the samezoom range but itshould do better images. I decided to test both of them against each other shooting with the same zoom ranges and all settings. I can see that distortion might be more obvious on Canon EFS 18-200mm IS but in term of the quality such as sharpness, colors and even Chromatic Aberrations it doesn&rsquo;t look that different. Really, I don't see something that stands out and noticeable. I am kind of upset since I spent much more money on Canon EFS 17-55 IS USM and expected that this investment will pay off dramatically. I might be wrong and probably look at wrong points to compare them. Please let me know what you think about these lenses and how to find out the advantages of the Canon EFS 17-55 IS USM in terms of the quality. Now, it looks like that that Canon EFS 18-200mm IS is pretty good choice regardless reviews on it and does the same job that Canon EFS 17-55 IS USM can do<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"] [/b]and even more. I might be totally wrong.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"]<o></o>[/b]


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]I am highly appreciate your inputs and advices,<o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]Thanks

[apersson850]

First, the focus range of the EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS USM is actually longer than that of the EF-S 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. The 17-55 will focus between 0.35 meters and infinity, the 18-200 from 0.45 meters to infinity.


I think you refer to the zoom range, which of course is significantly longer on the 18-200 mm than it is for the 17-55 mm. So much longer that it will more than compensate for the longer nearest focus distance.


The 17-55 mm has a very fast USM focus motor, which also allows manual focus adjustments without having to set the focus switch to MF.


The EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS USM is obviously 2/3 - 2 full stops faster than the 18-200 mm. This means that you can use a correspondingly shorter exposure time if you need to freeze subject motion. It will also allow a significantly shorter depth of field, if that's beneficiary to the image you intend to take.


The max aperture of f/2.8 also allows the high-precision autofocus center point in your camera to come into action. It takes a lens with a max aperture of at least f/2.8 for that to work. It will give you a more accurate focusing performance from your camera.


Regarding optical performance, take a look at the bottom third (close to a corner) part of this test image. You can see the dramatic difference in chromatic abberation between the two lenses. Then if that's something you are bothered by or not, that's just up to you.

[Justin Stone]

The max aperture of 2.8 allows for some nice subject isolation by creating a blurred background toward the long range of the 17-55's focal length. I think also if you are interested in attaching a filter that the 18-200's front element rotates which creates problems for filters like polarizers. The 17-55's optics are far superior to the 18-200s. But you give up the reach, albeit not very optically impressive reach. If $ were no problem and weight and switching lenses didn't matter much I'd get the 17-55 and either a 200 f2.8II or a 70-200 f4 IS.

[vladc77]

<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]Great. Thank you for your quick responses. I looked at the comparison chart. It seems like EF-S 17-55 2.8IS USM can do a better job. I need to test my lensesinthesimilar environment to make sure my EF-S 17-55 2.8IS USM works the same. I tested my lenses during a nice sunny day and shooting mostlylandscape scenes. These tests did not indicate much visible differences, however, I need to do more testing. Regarding chromatic aberration, yes, I can see that EF-S 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS created more dramatic chromatic aberration but it is removable using software such DDP or Capture 1 Pro. <o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]Regarding filters:


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]"I think alsoif you are interested in attaching a filter that the 18-200's front element rotates which creates problems for filters like polarizer&rsquo;s."<o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #000000; font-size: 9pt;"]Iwant to mention that front element does not rotate on 18-200 lenses. It rotates on 55-250 IS. Here there is no issue with that.<o></o>


Thak you for the responses.

[George Slusher]

The others have done a good job of pointing out the technical differences. Here are some practical differences. I don't have the 18-200mm lens, but do have the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, as well as the cheaper 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS.


What 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS does better:

• Travel - If you want to take one lens, this might be a good choice. Others could be the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS (slightly slower, but $160 cheaper!), Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS (longer tele, $70 cheaper), or Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II VC LD (longer at tele end, about the same price). They all have IS (Sigma calls it "Optical Stabilization," Tamron's is "Vibration Control").
• Walking around outdoors in daylight where you don't know what you might find and where a larger aperture isn't that important compared to longer focal length range and IS/OS/VC.
• Nature photography outdoors, especially as an adjunct to a long prime (e.g., 400mm f/5.6L IS). If, like me, you carry the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, then this lens wouldn't be as useful. I carry the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS ($450 vs $595). OTOH, if you want the best quality, the 70-200mm f/4L or f/4L IS is much better. (In nature photography, the barrel distortion at the low end wouldn't matter as much, as you don't see many straight lines.)
  
• Most anything where you want to carry just one lens outdoors in daylight. You can even get a third-party 1.4x teleconverter (Kenko makes one that will work with EF-S lenses, as I recall), which would take it to 280mm but cost you a stop to f/8, which is pretty slow.
• Quasi-semi-demi-sort-of-"macro": the 18-200mm has a max magnification of 0.24x vs the 17-55mm's 0.16x. Neither is really even close to "macro," which would be at least 0.5x, but it could work in a pinch. It's true that the 17-55mm focuses closer, but the longer focal length of the 18-200mm gives greater magnification.

Note the emphasis on "outdoors" and "daylight" above. That is critical.


What the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS does better:

• Almost anything indoors. It's up to 2 stops faster. That is a major difference indoors, especially if you're shooting a moving subject or the light is rather dim. (The difference could mean using a faster shutter speed and/or lower, less noisy ISO.) I use mine for indoor horse shows, along with a Canon 170-200mm f/2.8L IS. Even f/2.8 often isn't fast enough, so I have an assortment of faster primes (Sigma 30mm f/1.4; Canon 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2--the 200mm f/2L IS would be great, but there are many other things I could get for $5300! Even one stop can make a significant difference in motion blur.) There is no way I could do this with the 18-200mm lens. There's a huge difference between 1/400 sec &amp; 1/100 sec (2 stops).
  
• "Bokeh"--blurring the background. The difference is dramatic at similar focal lengths.
• Where you want the best image quality. Check Bryan's reviews. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is, he says, sharper than 24-70mm f/2.8L over similar focal lengths and apertures. That is, frankly, amazing. This is an "L-quality" lens without the red ring and high price. (The closest to it, the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, is $1549 vs $1030; the 24-70 f/2.8L is $1380--and neither L lens has IS.) The quality of my 17-55mm lens is startling. I don't have the 18-200mm lens--it is on my "wish list" for traveling, though the Sigma or Tamron lenses might win out, as f/6.3 isn't that much slower than f/5.6. It would depend upon image quality.
• Where barrel distortion at the wide end is important. According to Bryan, the 17-55mm lens has lower distortion than the 16-35mm &amp; 17-40mm L lenses--again, amazing considering the difference in price. It is much better, apparently, than the 18-200mm lens. It's certainly a lot better than my 17-85mm lens. The only reason I keep the 17-85mm lens is that I am often out with a 100-400mm lens. The gap between 55mm and 100mm is just too great, plus the 17-85mm lens is 6 oz lighter

As Bryan says in his review, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (I keep wanting to put "L" in there!) is one of the best quality "general-purpose" lenses for 1.6x bodies. (It has the same field of view as 27-88mm on a full-frame body, close to the ever-popular 24-70mm.) Couple it with a 70-200mm lens (f/4L, f/4L IS, f/2.8L, f/2.8L IS--whichever works best for you) and you have wide coverage at very high quality, but at the cost of weight and expense vs the 18-200mm lens.

[vladc77]

Thak you a lot for your very well done comparisson. I am highly appreciate it.