I've been waiting and waiting for Canon to release an 18-200 IS USM like Nikon have but... nope... Still nothing.I've been fooling around with a D80 with a 18-200 VR on it... and I gotta say... Canon has missed this one... It's an excelent match and a dream to work with.But... I will be back the day Canon launches an 18-200 IS USM;)So long for now folks. See ya around:)

Toppewrote:I've been waiting and waiting for Canon to release an 18-200 IS USM like Nikon have but... nope... Still nothing.Sigma has announced an 18-200OIS for EF mount so you can get that if you want. It's also a lot cheaper than the Nikon version.Personally, if I need a one-lens solution for travel, I'll take my S3IS. Otherwise, a 2-lens solution is way better.

If that lens is important and essential to your shooting and it's a must have then, you made the right choice.But looking at a bigger picture, there are way more better lens than that one from Canon.I always look at thing with a deeper DOF

ljfingerwrote:Toppewrote:I've been waiting and waiting for Canon to release an 18-200 IS USM like Nikon have but... nope... Still nothing.Sigma has announced an 18-200OIS for EF mount so you can get that if you want. It's also a lot cheaper than the Nikon version.Personally, if I need a one-lens solution for travel, I'll take my S3IS. Otherwise, a 2-lens solution is way better.I have to say I agree with Toppe. I would love a lens like that and if Canon made one with a 77mm filter ring (to match my other lenses) I would buy it in a heartebeat. The Sigma is just not as good - IQ and IS.That Nikon 18-200 IS USM isverytempting......

Photo Gerbilwrote:I have to say I agree with Toppe. I would love a lens like that and if Canon made one with a 77mm filter ring (to match my other lenses) I would buy it in a heartebeat. The Sigma is just not as good - IQ and IS.200mm/6.3 = 37.7mm. Why would you want 77mm filter threads on a lens with an aperture half that size?And how do you know the quality of the Sigma? It's hasn't been released or tested yet. The Nikon has been tested and it's pretty mediocre as you'd expect from a lens with such a wide focal length range.

Damn! I'm sure gonna miss that guy. -- -Larry http://www.pbase.com/lardog

such as that one will never be as good as lenses built for specific purposes. The longer the zoom range, the more lens elements you need. The more glass between your subject and your sensor, something has to give - either IQ goes down or price goes WAY up. All glass, no matter how clear it looks, reflects a significant amount of light and introduces some distortion. The more lens elements you have, less light is reaching your sensor, and the more distortion you get. This is why primes have the best IQ - they have the least glass.You can see for yourself how much light plain glass reflects by taking a UV filter (basically plain glass) off your camera and shining a laser pointer at it at an angle. Part of the beam goes through, part is reflected. Or just hold the filter in a beam of sunlight coming in a window and you can reflect a bright dot of light around the room. This trick and laser pointers in general are good for hours of entertainment with your pet, by the way.

Who? -- Glenn NK Victoria, BCThe capacity of the mind is limited only by attitude.

I would love to have a variety of lenses to play with, but until such time, a Tamron 18-200 is attached to my Eos400 (yes, I know, another forum).Most photographers will agree that there are always better lenses, and no matter what you may have attached to your camera body, some one will tell you that another lens or complete set up would have done the job better.But consider that such "compromise" lenses do have a very valid purpose.The camera is always ready to take the shot. No requesting your subject hange on while you swap to the 85mm lens with DO glass, image stabilisations etc......18-200 give a great range from macro to telephoto.The sensor is not subjected to dust quite so often.A few minutes of post processing (photoshop etc.) can work wonders.Everyone says to carry a 50mm lens. Sure it can take a good picture, but it is in itsef a compromise lens for 95% of photographs.

Stevep4wrote:I would love to have a variety of lenses to play with, but until such time, a Tamron 18-200 is attached to my Eos400 (yes, I know, another forum).The problem with the Nikon 18-200VR is that it's no better than the 18-55 kit lens on the wide end, and no where near as good as the 70-300IS on the long end. It's also shorter. So you're paying $750 (if you can find one) for vastly inferior performance covering a smaller range.The camera is always ready to take the shot. No requesting your subject hange on while you swap to the 85mm lens with DO glass, image stabilisations etc......18-200 give a great range from macro to telephoto.Another issue is this. It's an f4-f5.6 lens while my S3IS is an f2.8-f3.5 lens. The Nikon's are around 2 stops better at high-ISO than my S3 which means a Nikon DX body with an 18-200VR attached is only about 1 stop better than my S3IS. The S3 is much smaller and cheaper.The sensor is not subjected to dust quite so often.I've never noticed any correlation to changing lenses and getting dust. I think most dust is generated internally.A few minutes of post processing (photoshop etc.) can work wonders.You can't add back detail that isn't there. I'd take an XT or XTi + 17-85IS + 70-300IS over any Nikon body + 18-200VR. I have the XT and those two lenses at work and they are both quite good and cover a very wide range. I sometimes carry the spare lens in my shirt pocket.

Is there a difference between F2.8 on the S3 and F2.8 on an SLR lens? I thought the Fn indicates the fraction of the lens that opens. I'll take a look at the glossary.ljfingerwrote:Another issue is this. It's an f4-f5.6 lens while my S3IS is an f2.8-f3.5 lens. The Nikon's are around 2 stops better at high-ISO than my S3 which means a Nikon DX body with an 18-200VR attached is only about 1 stop better than my S3IS. The S3 is much smaller and cheaper.

Ah, I see on the glossary:"Because of basic optical principles, the absolute aperture sizes and diameters depend on the focal length. For instance, a 25mm aperture diameter on a 100mm lens has the same effect as a 50mm aperture diameter on a 200mm lens. If you divide the aperture diameter by the focal length, you will arrive at 1/4 in both cases, independent of the focal length. Expressing apertures as fractions of the focal length is more practical for photographers than using absolute aperture sizes. These "relative apertures" are called f-numbers or f-stops. On the lens barrel, the above 1/4 is written as f/4 or F4 or 1:4."So the question remains: wouldn't there still be a difference in lgiht going through the lens comparing S3 to dSLR because of the difference in sensor size? Or is sensor size irrelevant if you don't think in terms of 35mm equivalent?Jeremywrote: Is there a difference between F2.8 on the S3 and F2.8 on an SLR lens? I thought the Fn indicates the fraction of the lens that opens. I'll take a look at the glossary.ljfingerwrote:Another issue is this. It's an f4-f5.6 lens while my S3IS is an f2.8-f3.5 lens. The Nikon's are around 2 stops better at high-ISO than my S3 which means a Nikon DX body with an 18-200VR attached is only about 1 stop better than my S3IS. The S3 is much smaller and cheaper.

Jeremywrote:So the question remains: wouldn't there still be a difference in lgiht going through the lens comparing S3 to dSLR because of the difference in sensor size? Or is sensor size irrelevant if you don't think in terms of 35mm equivalent?Yes, but you normalize that with ISO to get the same exposure. F2.8 on my S3IS will provide the same light per unit of sensor area as f2.8 on the larger sensor camera, but the larger sensor camera has much more area so it captures much more total light. But remember, my S3 is f3.5 at the long end instead of f5.6 like the 18-200. The aperture of the Nikon at the long end is 200mm/5.6 = 35.7mm, while my S3 is 72mm/3.5=20.6mm. That means the SLR captures about 3 times more light or about a stop and a half worth. That's something for sure but it's not as much as you'd normally think when comparing an SLR to a compact.

... I can't remember what started the thread again... -- Robert (Phoenix, AZ) - Canon EOS 30DSince the beauty of this world is merely a reflection the Creator's brushstroke, then my hope is to capture but a glimpse of that exquisiteness. This is my passion and endeavor, though I have just begun to nurture my skills in photography.

We're celebrating a life - used to be called funerals. -- Glenn NK Victoria, BCThe capacity of the mind is limited only by attitude.

BYEToppewrote:I've been waiting and waiting for Canon to release an 18-200 IS USM like Nikon have but... nope... Still nothing. I've been fooling around with a D80 with a 18-200 VR on it... and I gotta say... Canon has missed this one... It's an excelent match and a dream to work with.But... I will be back the day Canon launches an 18-200 IS USM;)So long for now folks. See ya around:)

I am not sure if any 12x zoom for a 35mm camera ever has been made that is really a very good lens....they tend to be slow....and suffer from lots of design compromises so that while they are versatile, they really do not master well any of the focal lengths......so I find it amusing that you would abandon a perfectly good system because the manufacturer decides to not produce a mediocre lens. Hope you enjoy your new one lens system. But I also question why you don't just get a PS instead. -- Richard Katris aka Chanan

The Nikon 18-200 is a zoom with many compromises...why not just buy a D50 and the 18-200 is to see how you like it? Boris -- http://public.fotki.com/borysd/ http://www.pbase.com/borysd

The AFS-Nikkor 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6 VR G ED DX lens is by no means mediocore. Yes there are compromises but it is a sweet lens. Why do you think they are hard to get? Here is a link to a very balanced review:http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#AFS18-200VR