stenojj

I am debating if purchasing an 18-200 Canon lens for my T6s crop sensor camera would make a good walk-around lens. I do like my 18-135 but it would be nice to have a little extra reach. I sold my 70-300 lens and purchased a 100-400 (which I love with all my heart). Canon has a refurbished one, but they are out of stock at the moment. I was looking for some input/thoughts on this. I got the 100-400 for wildlife, but wanted to carry around something more versatile when out and about and not doing birds, etc. I've read a lot of reviews (taken with a grain of salt). Some say a barrel effect at low focal lengths. The rest of the reviews were pretty positive. Thanks in advance.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I'm thinking maybe the 100-400 is a bit large and heavy for 'good walk around'. The Digital Picture's review of the 18-200 is very positive and reads like a worthy consideration for a crop body giving a zoom between 18mm wide and 200mm long. If 18-135 isn't versatile enough, the 18-200 seems like the next valid option. But, the idea can be expressed as $700 to buy another 65mm and what becomes of your 18-135?

When you're out and about, are you all over the zoom range or always zoomed to the long end, say 50mm and up? If zoomed, that would put you back in the 70-200 / 300 market where size and weight come back into the discussion, particularly for IS-enabled lenses.

stenojj

I carry my 100-400 in the car only to have the far reach in case I see an eagle or an owl, etc. Or I have it set up in the house on my tripod with a wired remote ready to go. This lens is way to heavy for me to use as a walk around lens.

The last time I took my 18-135 with I used both ends (18 and 135) and 50ish for some portraits of friends. You are so right about spending the money on the extra 65 mm reach. The refurbished price through Canon is $349 so thought maybe that was doable. I guess I would have to try and sell the 18-135 but is it really worth the hassle. My 70-300 was pretty heavy (a Tamron) and I wasn't impressed with the outcome probably because of the weight.

Thank you so much for your input.

jdub82 Loc: Northern California

[quote=stenojj]I carry my 100-400 in the car only to have the far reach in case I see an eagle or an owl, etc. Or I have it set up in the house on my tripod with a wired remote ready to go. This lens is way to heavy for me to use as a walk around lens.

The last time I took my 18-135 with I used both ends (18 and 135) and 50ish for some portraits of friends. You are so right about spending the money on the extra 65 mm reach. The refurbished price through Canon is $349 so thought maybe that was doable. I guess I would have to try and sell the 18-135 but is it really worth the hassle. My 70-300 was pretty heavy (a Tamron) and I wasn't impressed with the outcome probably because of the weight.




I'm not sure which version of the 18-135 you have. My 18-135 IS USM (The newest version) autofocuses very fast on my 77D. Some of the reviews on the 18-200 say it is not a very fast focusing lens. I really like my 18-135, and it is my go to for a 'walk around' lens. Still, I understand the need you may have for just a bit more reach. My thought is that you may be disappointed in the 18-200 if the autofocus is slower on the lens, as some say. Just my opinion, although I don't have personal experience with the 18-200.

stenojj

I have the 18-135 IS STM. It does the job just fine. Just wanted something with a little bit more reach (albeit there isn't THAT much difference if I got the 18-200). Thanks!

pmorin Loc: Huntington Beach, Palm Springs

I recently bought the version II 70-300 lens. It is as clear as the 100-400 II that I have. Even at the 300 end. It weighs a couple ounces more than the 18-200 that I started with, but is so much better and faster. The price new is $500.00 at most sellers. Mine I found on Amazon as used but not ever used for $400. So deals are around.

Beruldsen

I've had the 18-200 for years and it is my main walk-around. I also have the 100-400 but it is way too heavy to walk around with. The 18-200 is perfect when you aren't sure what you might stumble upon.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I don't know which of the EF-S 18-135s you've got... the older, orignal micro motor version... the faster/quieter focusing STM version.... or the latest and greatest and even faster focusing Nano USM version (Canon claims 2X to 4X faster than the STM). But the last two have the same optical formula, improved over the first.

The EF-S 18-200mm has IS, but is a micro motor lens. I wouldn't expect it to have near the AF performance that the STM or USM version of the 18-135mm both offer... if you have one of those.

Compare for yourself at https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1045&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=476&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1, but to me it appears that the newer 18-135s offer better IQ.... sharper in the corners especially, less chromatic aberration... at every focal length they share.

Besides, the difference between 135mm and 200mm is approx. 4 or 5 steps forward.

A pretty good lens for its type, in its day (2008)... Maybe it was even one of the best "do-it-alls" ten years ago when Bryan Carnathan reviewed it for The-Digital-Picture.com way back then. But the EF-S 18-200mm now doesn't appear to be as good IQ as some similar, but more recent lenses of that type from other manufacturers. For example, Carnathan is a lot less enthusiastic about the Sigma 18-200mm from 2014, even though to my eye it appears to have the edge in image sharpness over the Canon at most focal lengths: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=946&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=476&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1 The Sigma also has HSM ultrasonic focus drive, which I imagine can run circles around the micro motor in the Canon.

Still, I'm just not a fan of 10X (and greater) "do-it-all" zooms.... They always have to compromise in some ways and sort of defeat the whole purpose of getting an interchangeable lens camera in the first place. Granted, ultra wide ranging zooms may be convenient... might even be important or necessary for some things like travel where gear is very limited.

And in this case I'll never know. Because much of what I shoot is sports and wildlife, I generally avoid slower focusing micro motor. I own two (one is a macro lens, where it slower focus is typical regardless... the other is an ultrawide, where so little movement of the focus group is needed, any delay is imperceptible). Everything else... particularly the lenses I use most for action photography, are USM.

Besides, with an 18-135 you are within a few steps of 200mm anyway.... And if your 18-135 is one of the two newer versions, you've already got a sharper, better corrected, versatile walk-around lens.

EDIT: I was really surprised to see they're asking $700 for the EF-S 18-200 new (plus it appears to lose half its value used, a lot more depreciation than most Canon lenses while still in production)!

Heck, for that kind of money... or even less... I can think of a number of other lenses I'd buy instead! Telephotos would include the new EF 70-300 IS Nano USM II, for example, now going for $500. The EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (non-IS version) is currently on sale for $600. The EF 200mm f/2.8L USM II is $750. None of those would be light and convenient as a "do it all" 10X zoom, but they all offer a lot of other advantages.

Now, if you've just got a case of G.A.S..... If it were me I'd pick up an EF-S 10-18mm IS STM to stick in a pocket and take with me. Under $300 and it would extend your focal length range into new territory, rather than just duplicating focal lengths you've already got.

stenojj

That sure is a lot of information - thank you so much. I do own a Canon 24 mm prime lens, the 50 mm prime, and an 85 mm prime. My 18-135 is the STM version. I just sold my Tamron 70-300 simply because I thought I'd get more use out of the 100-400 Canon L Mark II lens for birds and wildlife for which I am getting "wonderful" photos even on a crop sensor. I was also thinking of upgrading the T6s to a 7DII but I am thinking about waiting to see if the Mark III will come out yet this year. I have had (and sold) a Canon 55-250 and the Sigma 150-600 (both GAS attack regrets). I had made those purchases because I was new and wasn't sure how everything worked, mainly going by other people's images.

Thanks!

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I use the 18-200 as my walk around and I rarely use anything over 140mm, so I don't think you will get any great advantage over the 18-135. Probably 80% of my shots are between 40 and 140. I would go for the 24-105 L as a walk around supliment to your 100-400

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The EFs18-200 has a huge amount of zoom creep, unusual barrel distortion on the wide end which is not completely fixable in post processing, a high level of chromatic aberration which is fixable in post processing, slow and noisy auto focus with a micro motor autofocus motor, and it lacks full time manual focus. The images you will get are decent enough, but the lens is very long in the tooth and way past the time it should have been replaced. If you can get one used in very good condition and its cheap enough, it may be worthwhile, otherwise I would pass it by and instead look at some of the other superzooms by Sigma and Tamron.