File :-(, x, )
Canon EF-S 18-200 3.5-5.6 IS USM Anonymous
coming september

$1,000USD

i fucking lold

http://www.fotokonijnenberg.nl/product_details.php?id_product=1351143
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
Hm...necessary lens. Unfortunate price, if correct.

Canon's really been needing this lens for quite some time. Still, a 25%+ jump in price relative to Nikon isn't too great. Well, at least this will mean people stop going Nikon for their 18-200.
>> Anonymous
Guys I figured it out the extra $300 on the Nikon is for the tripod collar.
>> Anonymous
>>227295
Guys I figured out how Nikon made the D40 cheaper than Canon's entry level cameras, it can't autofocus.
>> Anonymous
the nikon 18-200 vr MSRP was $750 when it came out

ken rockwell posted a preview and said it was the greatest lens ever, price rocketed to over $900 because of demand

settled back to $650 now
>> Anonymous
No way it will be $1,000.

18-55 IS + 55-250 IS = $170 + $280 = $450

17-85 IS = $500

17-55 IS = $1,000

People who buy 18-200s aren't going to spend $1,000 on a lens.

It will probably be $700, that leaves room for an updated 17-85 that might stay $500 or be $800 if they make it a constant f/4.
>> Anonymous
For $700, I'm so buying it.
>> Anonymous
make it 600-700$

make it not have shitty distortion and vignetting, decent at all ranges, good build quality and you have a winner
>> Anonymous
>>227299

autofocus??
ur guys dont know how shoot or wat?
>> Anonymous
I don't think I'll ever spend more than 500 dollars for a lens. It's just not worth it.
>> Anonymous
>>227492
Actually, I gladly spent more (much more) than $500 on my L series lenses. I can easily sell them back for more than $500 less than what I paid and get great lenses in the meantime. With a basic consumer lens, you're looking at at least 50% depreciation or more.
>> Anonymous
I buy most of my lenses used for bargain prices so I can sell them back for the same price any time.

The only notable exception is my $900 olympus 12-60mm, but it was sold as part of the kit that includes a free flash, so it's still PROFIT
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
lol, EF-S
>> Anonymous
I hope Canon does a thing with EF and EF-S like Nikon did with DX/FX on their new FF cameras. I'd kill for a 5D mkII that took EF-S lenses (and not least because it would mean the mirror would accept a short back focus, and therefore even more of the weird old lenses with fun flange-focal distances).
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>227605
Says the guy who had to take out a loan for his CANON REBEL from craigslist.
>> Anonymous
Nah. I bought my CANON DIGITAL REBEL 300D EOS about 3 months after it came out, new, with cash, from B&H. So it's old now but still takes excellent photos.

What's wrong with wanting your camera to be compatible with more lenses? I mean, having so many dick size issues that you only buy huge lenses is one thing, but being threatened just because your camera _Can_ use the small ones? wow.
>> Anonymous
if it was f/2.8 I would love to buy it. as long as it's on par with the quality of the 17-55

I love my 17-55 f/2.8.

But, I don't understand why this lens doesn't have a gold ring. Somehow I think this is a spoof or a misprinted ad.
>> Anonymous
>>227619
A constant f/2.8 18-200mm would've weighed like ten pounds. And cost $3000.
>> Anonymous
>>227584Moron, ef-s is here to stay now stfu with this gearfag faggotry
>> Anonymous
>>227813

try like 40 pounds and at least 20,000 dollars.
>> Anonymous
>>227849
Wait, I thought cameras were more expensive in Britain? The dollar isn't *that* bad yet.
>> Anonymous
>>227851
nono the price on the hypothetical 18-200mm constant 2.8

it'd be at least that much. If not more actually. Regardless of the cost, the sheer size of it would require a hummer to carry it.
>> Anonymous
>>227853
I know, I was just making my entry for "worst /p/un of the month."
>> Anonymous
>>227619But, I don't understand why this lens doesn't have a gold ring. Somehow I think this is a spoof or a misprinted ad.

the picture is a 28-300 L, not the rumored EF-S 18-200
>> Anonymous
>>227270
Oh a Canon version of a Ken Rockwell special.
>> Anonymous
fuck a 18-200 with variable aperture

15-50/75/85 at f/4 with IS at $700

FUCK YEAH, everyone else has a 24mm equivalent except Canon, maybe not Olympus but no one cares about the,
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>228027
>maybe not Olympus but no one cares about them
24-120mm equivalent, f/2.8-4, IS in the body, $900 (fucking expensive, but awesome. dpreview agreed, don't bother them about it)
>> a challenger appears Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Sigma 18-200 F/3.5-6.3 DC OS Lens
$499
where is your god now?
>> Anonymous
>>228027

16-35L is close enough.

Also, just get someone else's lens and stick it on. The EF mount will take every other 135-based mount AFAIK, except the FD mount. I think it *might* not do Minolta AF, but I don't remember for sure.
>> Anonymous
>>228034Sigma 18-200 F/3.5-6.3 DC OS Lens
>> Sigma
>> fail
>> Anonymous
>>228036
16-35L is 25.5-56mm, which is a really fucking small zoom range for the money. Using it as a standard zoom on EF-S is a waste.

>Also, just get someone else's lens and stick it on.
This way you lose AF and aperture coupling.

>The EF mount will take every other 135-based mount AFAIK, except the FD mount.
Except FD, Minolta MC/MD and AF, Sigma, Four Thirds, exotic shit like Praktica B and all new Nikon and Pentax lenses that don't have a mechanical aperture ring.
>> Anonymous
>>228042
>Sigma
>some win, some fail, just like every other lens company

>18-200

Too much for the coverage and size/weight/price goals to be well-corrected.

Too much for general use, just get yourself a few primes to taste between 24-50mm, a medium tele prime, possibly two depending on what you shoot, and a tele zoom for when you can't adjust your vantage point.

Use one normal or wide FL most of the time, one of whichever one you pick for when the other isn't suited, the medium tele for portaits and/or events, and the tele zoom for when you physically cannot zoom with your feet, e.g. shooting some boats in the middle of a bay or whatever

Or if you really prefer a zoom, one in the focal length range you usually use or whatever and then one fast prime for when you don't have any light, then the MT and TZ.

Set.

>F/3.5-6.3
Slow

>Sigma 18-200 F/3.5-6.3 DC OS Lens

So to return, yes, fail. Slow, poorly corrected, does not encourage good shooting or good shooting habits. Probably very obtrusive, too.
>> Anonymous
>>228048
>Too much for the coverage and size/weight/price goals to be well-corrected.
I haven't seen any reviews yet, but owners of Leica 14-150mm testify that it *is* possible.
>> Anonymous
>>228045
>16-35L is 25.5-56mm, which is a really fucking small zoom range for the money. Using it as a standard zoom on EF-S is a waste.

Really? If I shot Canon EF-S and wanted a standard zoom, it's exactly what I would get. Zoom range is perfect, that plus a 50/1.4 would be all someone needed. Ultrawide-normal is the range most people use for general shooting. Stick the 50/1.4 on there for reach and portraits. Nice and simple. Does most everything someone could need.

Really, "zoom range for the money" sounds like it's taken from a Consumer Reports review of the S5IS.

>This way you lose AF and aperture coupling.

Okay? Plenty of people work it like that just fine. Except at large apertures, just set it to the hyperfocal distance and you're golden. Faster than AF.
>> Anonymous
>>228053
>Really, "zoom range for the money" sounds like it's taken from a Consumer Reports review of the S5IS.
Sorry, I've been learning English from magazines.
But $1500 for a 2x zoom with no IS is a fucking overkill no matter how you look at it.
>> Anonymous
>>228062
No, it's not an error of English, it's that a big zoom range is stereotyped (pretty rightfully) as being the sort of thing buyers of consumer point and shoots worry about. Truth is, more great photographs have been taken within the range of 28-50mm than with all the rest combined. It's just the magic range of focal lengths for almost every type of photography.

It's expensive, which is to be expected for an f/2.8 L. Canon should come out with a 16-35 midgrade, though, and it is worth the cost. (Whether anyone who's not a professional can really justify it is a different matter, when I said I would shoot it I was talking about a perfect situation.)

And yeah, it should have IS. They'll probably be an IS version coming within the next decade.

Your English is fine. I never would've thought you weren't a native speaker
>> Anonymous
>>228053
>just set it to the hyperfocal distance and you're golden.
O RLY? Even at f/8, the hyperfocal distance is 8 meters at the long end of your 16-35, much more if it's something like a 16-85.
>> Anonymous
>>228069
Rhetorical exaggeration, but you get the point. They put distance scales on lenses for a reason.
>> Anonymous
>>228068
>It's expensive, which is to be expected for an f/2.8 L.
Pentax DA* 16-50/2.8 costs less than half as much with comparable image and build quality. And it's not because "lol pentax", with the 16-35L you pay lots of extra money for full-frame compatibility you may never need. Canon should come out with an *EF-S* 16-35/2.8 (or better yet, 16-50 or 16-80 if they can make 'em good enough).
>> Anonymous
>>228072
16-35L does not have a DoF scale and its distance scale is useless ("0.3m - 0.5m - 1m - infinity"). Same with most 16-XX zooms.
>> Anonymous
>>228079
I wasn't saying work the 16-35L like that. I was saying work some old, other-brand glass that won't AF like that.

>>228078
Yep.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>228068Canon should come out with a 16-35 midgrade, though, and it is worth the cost. (Whether anyone who's not a professional can really justify it is a different matter, when I said I would shoot it I was talking about a perfect situation.)

it's called the 17-40 f/4

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:06:08 22:54:14Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width504Image Height371
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>228078Canon should come out with an *EF-S* 16-35/2.8 (or better yet, 16-50 or 16-80 if they can make 'em good enough).

are you serious?

oh hai, here's my friend EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS

sharper than the 24-70 at comparable focal lengths and with IS
>> Anonymous
>>228086
>>228084

if you read the thread, we were talking about 24mm equivalent lenses (which is 15mm on canon, 16mm on everything else)