Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist View Post
It was significant. Bryan notes the same phenomenon in his review of the 18-200mm, and the pics of the starfish seem no different at 170mm vs. 200mm.
Wow...this really muddies the answer to Rubar's original question. If you go to Canon's website it says that this lens is the FF equivalent to 29mm-320mm. If what you and Bryan found is true, which I do not doubt what you found, this would really be blatant false advertising. But I guess 18-200mm just sounds and sells better than say a 18-170mm