practical OR a waste?

[pplneedthelord]

not too sure whether this has been raised before..

How do you people feel about canon releasing a 18-135 lens even with the 18-200 lens already in the market? do you think it is a wise choice Canon made?

 

[egnaro]

not too sure whether this has been raised before..

How do you people feel about canon releasing a 18-135 lens even with the 18-200 lens already in the market? do you think it is a wise choice Canon made?

in my own opinion, I dun think it is waste... 11x zoom lens vs 7.5x zoom lens... usually I wun choose lens more then 5x zoom...

 

[havocidal]

that's like saying it is a waste to release primes because they cannot zoom at all.
They all have their pros and cons and of course varying costs which appeals to different people.

 

[soons]

Unless 18-135 has optically proven to be better than 18-200, I think most average consumer will top up a little more to get the remainding 4.6x zoom.

 

[infinity]

I don't think it will be a waste as each lens will ultimately find it's niche segment of supporters.

 

[FriedKimchi]

If the new lenses have better optics, then its practical.

 

[pplneedthelord]

well okayy,

lets discuss in terms of focal length. would it affect the sales of either lenses?

 

[StrifeYun]

for me , depends on quality/sharpness ...no diff. then waste hehe

 

[icelava]

that's like saying it is a waste to release primes because they cannot zoom at all.

But primes give wider apertures, and clearer refraction since they don't have to take extra zoom elements into consideration.

 

[flipfreak]

i would think even if their optical quality is similar, the price difference is still there and they do serve a different group of users. some people have a very tight budget and the price difference between the 2 lenses will probably make them opt for the 18-135. the only advantage the 18-200 has is the extra 65mm on the telephoto end. i think the image quality between the 2 lenses will not be far off from each other. so is the extra 65mm worth your extra dollars? take into consideration there are users who work on a $400 - $600 budget for a zoom lens. not everyone is working with a $2000 budget for a standard zoom like alot of the users here.

 

[Anson]

I think if you compare the current aftermarket selling price for this two lens, the different is not that great.

Having said this, if the 18-135 have ring-USM then it would make a difference. :think:

 

[Majest1c]

not too sure whether this has been raised before..

How do you people feel about canon releasing a 18-135 lens even with the 18-200 lens already in the market? do you think it is a wise choice Canon made?

why would it be a waste?
canon is doing a business.
they release every range there is to entice you to spend regardless of your budget... thus they have diff price range and diff pedigree of lens.

 

[Shen siung]

I feel both serve different purposes.
Also, the 18-135 comes with USM right?

 

[Anson]

18-135 comes with USM right?

No...

 

[pplneedthelord]

I think if you compare the current aftermarket selling price for this two lens, the different is not that great.

Having said this, if the 18-135 have ring-USM then it would make a difference. :think:

I feel both serve different purposes.
Also, the 18-135 comes with USM right?

does that answer your question?

-

anyway, yes in terms of image quality i don't think there would be much of a diff.

personally for me, i will never buy such lenses as i am (to a certain extend) spoilt with fast lenses. as such, a f/3.5-5.6 doesn't really catch my eye.

but i agree with what flipfreak has mentioned that it does serve the group of people who aren't willing to spend that extra amount for that 65mm. thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Anson]

personally for me, i will never buy such lenses as i am (to a certain extend) spoilt with fast lenses. as such, a f/3.5-5.6 doesn't really catch my eye.

Personally for me, having owned a few F2.8 zoom & prime. The Canon 18-200mm is no doubt still my now my fav lens. :thumbsup:

 

[soons]

It will actually be a different thing if it is price more competitively against 18-55mm IS.

 

[goering]

Personally for me, having owned a few F2.8 zoom & prime. The Canon 18-200mm is no doubt still my now my fav lens. :thumbsup:

Hi does anyone know what are the aperture values for the various zoom lengths

Meaning:
For 18-135mm/18-200mm
18mm = f3.5
24mm = f?
35mm = f?
50mm = f?
70mm = f?
100mm = f?
135mm = f5.6 for 18-135mm =f? for 18-200mm
200mm = f5.6 for 18-200mm

 

[Maltese]

Digital photography equipment depends on technology much more than the olden days. Last time we always try to dig old lenses from 2nd hand shop because optically they are often more superior than the later ones. Once they discontinued, our heart sinks. That is why there is a period of time where camera makers launched lenses where people are very reluctant to upgrade because besides having some minor features added, its not worth sacrificing for optical quality.

Now the situation is so different. DSLR made use of a lot of technology elements. So when the camera makers launched a new 1, it really make sense to upgrade because technical wise, they should outperform the older ones and there would be improvement they have made to correct the older replacement model or probably cater to future ones.

 

[satch]

Hi does anyone know what are the aperture values for the various zoom lengths

Meaning:
For 18-135mm/18-200mm
18mm = f3.5
24mm = f?
35mm = f?
50mm = f?
70mm = f?
100mm = f?
135mm = f5.6 for 18-135mm =f? for 18-200mm
200mm = f5.6 for 18-200mm

for superzooms, i'ld caution against shooting at the widest aperture, esp on FF cameras. Loss of sharpness & other flaws will surface quite easily. I'm quite kiasu, and normally shoot at F8 and above on my 24-85.