Opinions on 18-200mm lens

[jw3571]

What do people think of these so called do it all lenses? They are fairly expensive but I don't like bringing multiple lenses with me to kids games, sporting events, etc. Does Nikon or Canon make a better 18-200mm? I'm still trying to decide between getting a D5100, T4i, or waiting for a D5200? It seems like people don't love the T4i?

 

[jrizal]

General argument against 18-200mm lenses is IQ is sacrificed over convenience. Also at the given price of an 18-200mm, one can get an 18-55mm, a 50mm prime, and a 55-200mm telephoto. So for me, it all boils down to your needs - IQ vs convenience. As to which is brand is better, this is what I have found:

Nikon 18-200mm Vs. Canon 18-200mm | eHow.com

 

[bratkinson]

As already mentioned above, the 'do it all' lenses sacrifice image quality for zoom-range. In general, the greater the zoom range (200-18 = 182mm range, or 200/18 = 11x), the more IQ that is sacrificed.

When I first moved from Point-n-shoot to a DSLR not quite 2 years ago, I was quite satisfied with the Canon EF-S 18-135 f3.5-5.6 IS lens. It was wide enough for all but the smallest of rooms, and had enough on the high end to do just about everything I needed in a telephoto. It's limitation was in low light...a flash is necessary, and the pop-up flash just won't do...an external flash is needed. Before I bought the 18-135, I checked out a couple of reviews on the lens. Here's one on the 18-200...

Canon EF-S 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS review: Digital Photography Review

Bottom line, if you can live with the less than completely sharp pictures produced by the 'do all' category of lenses, then, by all means, go for it. In most cases, few pictures are taken at the extremes of the zoom range, so the IQ is acceptable by most standards. Unfortunately, in browsing various web sites and seeing drop-dead-sharp pictures taken with expensive lenses (Canon L series, mostly) and people that know how to use them, I got 'bit' real hard...and my credit cards are still screaming! (but the credit card company is very happy!). The 18-135 got sold with the 55-250 to make way for a 24-105 f4L and 16-35 f2.8L, that I now use for about 90% of my shooting.

You may also want to ask yourself do you really 'need' something as telephoto as 200mm on the high end?. I started with the 18-135 but thought 'just in case', I'll get the 55-250 as well. Turns out, after a couple months, I could count on 1 hand the number of times I mounted the 55-250, and that was more to 'see how it does', than needed the range. However, taking pictures of Mount Ranier outside of Seattle from a moving train called for the 250 end, but that was about the only time I really needed it.

Bottom line, it's your money, don't waste it buying something that may not work out for you.