Got my Canon 18-200mm...is it me or the lens?

[mitchel]

Hi:

<p class="justify"]I just got my Canon 18-200mm and put it on my XTi and went outside to play around.
<p class="justify"]The very first thing I noticed was that from 18 to 135mm (numbers viewed on the lens) the lens kept zooming in quite nicely and you could definetly tell it was zooming, but from 135 to 200mm I did not see as much zooming in. My test object was around 30 feet away.
<p class="justify"]To tell you the truth it looked like the lens is an 18-135mm + "a little more" zoom lens.


So...am I crazy or is this "normal".

I have 2 weeks to decide wether to keep it or not.

<p class="justify"]My other choice that I decided on a while ago before the 18-200mm was announced was the 70-300mm but thought it would be nice not to carry around two lenses all the time when playing in the park with the family.


Thanks.

[Tim]

From here:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-200mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx


"The focal length labels above correspond to those marked on the lens (the 135mm-labeled shot was actually 140mm according to the EXIF data). As the focal lengths make large increases relative to the prior setting (2x from 24 to 50mm), the angle of view rapidly narrows - bringing the subject in closer. The relative increase declines at the longer focal lengths - and the rate of change slows. The lens does not physically extend as fast above 135mm and the net change in angle of view from 170 to 200mm is very small.



Too small of a change? Well, myCanon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lensframes a 47.25" x 31.5" (1200 x 800mm) test target at 424.88" (10792mm) while the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens frames the same target at 369.88" (9395mm) at the 200mm setting (both lenses mounted on a 50D). TheCanon EF 200mm f/2.0 L IS USM Lensframes the same target at 425.12" (10798mm) with a 50D. The 18-200 is 87% as far away when framing this subject size - making its 200mm seem more like 174mm at its longest setting at this moderate distance. Regardless, the EF-S 18-200's focal length range is really nice."

[mitchel]

Thanks Tim...exactly what I saw. []


Ido like the extra zoom as compared to my 17-85mm....so I guess I am really getting double the zoom for $500, but I wonder if I would be happier with the 70-300mm and just live with swapping lenses which is what DSLR's are made to do.


I'm sure if the only lens I had was the 18-200 I would be fine, but now that I compared it to my 17-85mm things changed.


To be honest...I thought that when I looked through the 18-200 I was going to say...holy $#!@, that is one stupid sweet zoom lens!!!


So...what do you guys think...what would you do?

[Oren]

I thought that when I looked through the 18-200 I was going to say...holy $#!@
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

That's what I thought before looking through a sigma (I think) 70-300... but it let me down - wasn't that great at all.


As for greater focal length, I have no idea as I haven't had a chance to look through anything beyond 300mm. But I do have a 12x25 bushnell binocular, and according to Bryan, x12 magnification is equal to a 600mm lens and I must tell you that it's amazing. I even used my Canon S60 and took photos using my binocular lol - IQ is of course not even close to what you can take with an SLR + 600mm lens, but it was still nice to try.


Maybe I'll post these pictures later so you can see what the results look like.

[Tim]

I've always wondered this, what focal length equals binocular multiplication. I figured that since a normal lens is 50mm, a 6x binocular would be equivalent to 6x50mm, or 300mm. I guess since a 600mm lens should be 12x, this supports my logic.