Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon EF-S 18-200 IS: Good For Spotting?  
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1342 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 2 months 1 week ago) and read 3724 times:

I'm a bit frustrated with my current lens for walking around/close up shooting, an EF 24-105 IS USM- some may remember my travails trying to get it fixed, which I've mostly solved now, but still, it does tend to run out of focal length rather quickly and it's sometimes a bit unhappy at the far end of its focal range still. Looking through a Canon catalog, I see a 18-200mm lens that would be useful in that respect, if not necessarily anything else. Has anyone used it? Was it a good lens? Thanks.

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3715 times:

I don't any experience with this lens, but all in one zooms are known for their vesatility, not their all around sharpness. If you want a walkaround lens, it is great. For spotting, look at the 70-200mm.
FLPhoto


User currently onlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6705 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3708 times:

For $50 less you can get the 70-300f4-f5.6IS that is very well received and for a bit less (on offer) there's the 70-200f4L which is excellent, but no IS.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2578A002_EF_70_200mm_f_4L_USM.html

(the link for the 70-300IS is getting mangled, but you can find it at b&h)

As said, such a wide range of focal lengths on the 18-200 inevitably means optical compromises. It depends on the quality you want to obtain and whether you want to be swapping lenses.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9957 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3695 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Newark727 (Thread starter):

Are you looking for more range at the short end, long end, or both?

If you need a wider lens and don't want to spend a whole lot, the 18-55 IS is actually a pretty decent lens for the (cheap) price.

I haven't used the 18-200, but I would expect it to be quite soft at the long end, based on my experience with the EF-S 55-250. Even the EF 70-300 IS USM gets quite soft over 250mm.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3633 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
Are you looking for more range at the short end, long end, or both?

If you need a wider lens and don't want to spend a whole lot, the 18-55 IS is actually a pretty decent lens for the (cheap) price.

More range at the short end would be nice. The issue I have is that I use the 24-105 or 28-135 for subjects nearby, but if I am tempted by something smaller or further away while using it I have to decide whether to switch to the 100-400L (which is heavy, and too big to keep fitted to the camera when not in use with my current camera bag.) But the answers I've seen so far aren't altogether surprising as to the difficulties encountered by general zoom lenses, I'll think on other solutions.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3632 times:

18mm is almost super-wide-angle. 200mm is getting towards super-telephoto. A lens that professes to do both well will either be mega, mega expensive or... well.... doesn't exist. Big compromises at both ends I'd say.

Plus you have two L series lenses in the 24-105 and 100-400. It's pointless 'down-grading' to a lesser lens unless you absolutely need the flexibility. Changing lenses is a pain but normally it's par for the course.

Karl


User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3624 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):

18mm is almost super-wide-angle. 200mm is getting towards super-telephoto. A lens that professes to do both well will either be mega, mega expensive or... well.... doesn't exist. Big compromises at both ends I'd say.

Plus you have two L series lenses in the 24-105 and 100-400. It's pointless 'down-grading' to a lesser lens unless you absolutely need the flexibility. Changing lenses is a pain but normally it's par for the course.

Karl

If I was really serious about this I'd consider the 28-300 L, but it is over $2500 on Canon's website. As it is, I'm just kicking around ideas, I'm not ready to jump back into the market for a new lens.


User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3612 times:

This may sound stupid, but would you like another body? Mabye you could get a used or refurbished Canon 60D or 7D.
FLPhoto


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9957 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days ago) and read 3608 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 7):
This may sound stupid, but would you like another body? Mabye you could get a used or refurbished Canon 60D or 7D.

What would that possibly do to expand his focal length range or solve lens issues?



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineNOTAXONROTAX From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3604 times:

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 7):
This may sound stupid, but would you like another body? Mabye you could get a used or refurbished Canon 60D or 7D.
FLPhoto

You and your new body..........it´s getting repetitive.
A new body is not the solution to everything....as was explained a few hundred times already!



Als vader voorlicht, kan je merken dat hij achter ligt.
User currently onlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3587 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 8):
What would that possibly do to expand his focal length range or solve lens issues?

Well it would mean I don't have to change lenses on one body, and can just switch from camera to camera. Which, in a limited range of situations I've been in recently, would be pretty handy to do, but ehhhh.


User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3586 times:

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 7):

What I meant by this is he said he had a 100-400, and he could have two bodies with a 100-400 on one and a 24-105 on another.


User currently offlinesouthwest9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3569 times:

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 11):
What I meant by this is he said he had a 100-400, and he could have two bodies with a 100-400 on one and a 24-105 on another.

Ok, but he could also just switch between the lenses instead of dropping $600 or more, on a brand new or used body. It's not the end of the world to have to do.

It's not like you need a 1:1 for lenses and bodies, that would be ridiculous. Maybe you should learn how to shoot with the body that you have rather than just wanting a new one.

To address you Newark727: I can't really add anything, everyone seems to have helped you out, but I would not waste money on a body that you don't absolutely require. Glass is good to have in different ranges... bodies, not so much.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon EF-S 18-200 For Aviation Photography posted Tue Oct 14 2008 21:13:57 by Paparadzi
LAX Is Good For Spotting Again?! posted Thu Nov 29 2001 07:24:54 by N178UA
Older SLR, Is It Good For Spotting? posted Fri Mar 12 2010 22:20:49 by 66chargerfan
Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM Lens On Canon EOS posted Wed Jan 9 2013 02:04:07 by ypphluke
Any Experience With Canon EF 28-135mm Is USM? posted Fri Aug 31 2012 10:04:49 by Newark727
How About The Canon EF-S 15-85 F/3.5-5.6 Is USM? posted Wed Nov 30 2011 14:59:58 by ToVeR
Cork Airport, any good for spotting? posted Wed Jun 8 2011 13:32:27 by DublinSpotter
Canon EF-S 28-135mm Is USM posted Tue Jan 4 2011 03:35:15 by yerbol
Tell Me About The Canon EF 70-300 Is USM posted Sat Aug 7 2010 05:03:29 by Newark727
Will The Canon EF-S 55-250mm F/4.0-5.6 Is Do? posted Mon May 11 2009 06:31:31 by AM744