# New EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Around the Corner? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 12, 2015)

```
<p>We’re told that Canon will replace the EF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS with a new version soon, and it will come as an EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. This lens has been rumoured for a while now.</p>
<p>There was no word if this was coming for CP+ next month.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## trulandphoto (Jan 12, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>We’re told that Canon will replace the EF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS with a new version soon, and it will come as an EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. This lens has been rumoured for a while now.</p>
> <p>There was no word if this was coming for CP+ next month.</p>
> <p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>



If it improves on the previous version as much as the other STM lenses I might just pick one up. Imagine carrying just the 10-18mm and this lens and all the options it would cover - as long as speed or image quality didn't need to be exemplary.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 12, 2015)

All these lenses need to start at 15mm Canon! Even most of your compacts start at 24mm-equivalent, why not your much more expensive SLRs?


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 12, 2015)

EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

Hm... I am always puzzled, if people who need/want such an "one for all" lens better should buy a good bridge camera.
But such lenses get sold.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 12, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
> 
> Hm... I am always puzzled, if people who need/want such an "one for all" lens better should buy a good bridge camera.
> But such lenses get sold.



Not many bridge cameras with APS-c sensors and for which you can quickly exchange the range for, say, a 10mm fisheye, a 600/4, or an 85/1.2.


----------



## Slyham (Jan 12, 2015)

Depending on the cost and IQ, I will sell my 18-135 STM and pick this one up for my all-around/travel lens.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 12, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
> ...


Yeah, right! 
But how many 18-300 owners might also own/lend/use a 10mm fisheye or a 600/4?
And how many 10mm fisheye and 600/4 owners need/want a 18-300?
Honestly? ???


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 12, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



An 18-300 style lens can be very useful as a video lens or as an all-in-one travel lens when you can't take the big stuff with you, such as on a hike, rock climb, or in a canoe or kayak.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 12, 2015)

I think the bigger and more appropriate question is...

Will this Canon lens compete with and surpass the ever popular *Tamron 16-300 SuperZoom*? 

http://dustinabbott.net/2014/08/tamron-16-300mm-vc-pzd-review/


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 12, 2015)

There is not a lens for me. But I know some people who want to travel with a single lens that allows you to see the Statue of Liberty, whole and then and do the detail of a pigeon perched on the head of the statue.

For video, it makes perfect sense to have a zoom of 16X.


----------



## jefflinde (Jan 12, 2015)

I think that those of you who are poo-pooing this lens and lenses like this forget that a large percent of DSLR camera owners only have the kit lenses. There are also those that may have a 600/F4 but don't want to carry all that with them when they go to the zoo with their kids/grand-kids. That is who this lens and the Tamron and sigma equivalent are for. Pro's were not who this was intended for. So to say this is a dumb lens and how many will buy it is very short sighted and ignorant. Pro's don't keep the DSLR market afloat, average Joe that buys a Txi and some kit lenses is who keeps it afloat. the same argument could be used for a $12K + 800mm lens. how many does canon sell in a year? 100? who would actually buy one? /s 

It is all what you want and need. Clearly Tamron/Sigma proved that there is a market for these lenes and Canon wants a piece of the pie.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 12, 2015)

I agree with *jefflinde*. I'm not a "Pro" per se but I shoot a LOT of images and like many on this forum, I probably _spend more_ than a "Pro" on gear. So it's not about money. The best tool for the job is what is needed at the time. That isn't always a Canon L lens.

I shoot many types of images at different types of events and venues. Sometimes, a superzoom like this is ideal and more than adequate for my needs, esp when I am at a dusty hot summer camp during the day and I am walking 10 - 20 miles all over the place all day long in the heat and the images are intended primarily for the web.

So for those who would dismiss this or other superzoom lenses, keep in mind that sometimes it's not always about the absolute best IQ, sometimes other factors will dictate what compromises are acceptable. And sometimes it pays to have a less expensive but versatile lens on a less expensive DSLR body to get decent images but be able to better absorb a loss in a high risk situation. Or not remove a lens repeatedly in a dirty environment.

Plus, I would rather be able to use a high quality DSLR camera with an All-In-One lens and shoot Full Frame or APS-C images in RAW than use a small sensor bridge camera in JPG that is an even bigger compromise in all aspects of the system.


----------



## Tripod (Jan 13, 2015)

I'm very much Rusty & jeff on this one. I bought this very lens for the convience it offers. 

I have the Tamron 16/300mm for about about 4 weeks now,( it was my Christmas present to myself  ) and it has not been off my 70D since and that included a two week trip to Spain. 

Yes I could have packed my full kit and brought along my 100/400L, my 10/24mm ultra wide, my 90mm Macro and even my 18/50 2.8. But to be very honest I needed to travel light as I was flying on a local budget airline and as I was travelling with "Boss" I knew I be dragging her large suitcase behind me for most of the way. On top of this I knew that I would not be attending any major events to which I would normally bring my full kit along to.

I now use my 16/300mm as my walk around lens and I am more happy with the end products.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 13, 2015)

So we get back to the question I think is most relevant... is this new Canon lens better than the new Tamron? I haven't purchased the 16-300 from Tamron yet and according to Dustin's fine reviews, it sounds like I should wait a bit. Although I still wouldn't mind gaining the extra 2mm on the wide end, FWIW.

I wasn't as impressed with Tamron's older 28-300 Full Frame lens and Dustin thinks the new one is MUCH improved so that will likely be a sure buy very soon.


----------



## Etienne (Jan 13, 2015)

It would be a good lens to turn the C100 into a Run and Gun ENG camera.
Keep the IQ decent, and I'd probably buy one


----------



## preppyak (Jan 13, 2015)

jefflinde said:


> I think that those of you who are poo-pooing this lens and lenses like this forget that a large percent of DSLR camera owners only have the kit lenses.


Yep, even my friends that are into photography own lenses like the 18-200 currently, so, they no doubt have their market. In this forum, a lot might not buy it. But, in the real world, the most purchased lenses beyond the 18-55 kit are the 55-250 and the 18-XXX superzooms.

Otherwise every lens brand wouldnt have its own variation


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 13, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I think the bigger and more appropriate question is...
> 
> Will this Canon lens compete with and surpass the ever popular *Tamron 16-300 SuperZoom*?
> 
> http://dustinabbott.net/2014/08/tamron-16-300mm-vc-pzd-review/


Of course, as the price with be north of the Tamron (pretty sure) and they'll lack that extra 2 mm on the wide end, they should really come close to or past that one concerning IQ.
If they just make a so-so lens maybe they should have stayed in the dev dep then, because they'll only deliver a marketing argument for Tamron.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 13, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


So then in this case I am absoutely contrary to "the market" as even in the described cases I'd take at least two lenses with me. Otherwise I wouldn't choose a system camera. But that's just me (someone odd, that takes IQ over convenience).
I know that there is a market for such lenses, but as I said in my initial post this market gets me puzzled.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 13, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>We’re told that Canon will replace the EF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS with a new version soon, and it will come as an EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. This lens has been rumoured for a while now.</p>
> <p>There was no word if this was coming for CP+ next month.</p>
> <p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>


When Canon is going to produce a quality EF 28-200/300mm lens for FF cameras? Nikon counterpart delivers very good IQ despite the narrow aperture.
Tamron one is also a good option but I'd prefer something from Canon.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 13, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p>We’re told that Canon will replace the EF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS with a new version soon, and it will come as an EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. This lens has been rumoured for a while now.</p>
> ...



Canon already produces the best one available the 28-300L.


----------



## daleg (Feb 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



yes. the FF Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L USM - a heavy, bulky, beast of a lens with borderline fantastic IQ. 

argh. I recently evaluated this monster via the CPS loan program. the copy I received had experienced a lot of hard use - as the tripod collar wouldn't rotate (to shift from landscape to portrait on a monopod).

I do a lot of photography at a major botanical gardens - both with and without my sherpa (grin). But seriously, there are huge distances between where my car would be parked with additional lenses, etc. and where I might be shooting in need thereof. Thus the appeal of such "all-in-one's" with decent IQ. Sounds like an oxymoron, but...

The two good things I can say about this Canon L 28-300: It produces seriously impressive IQ. And the second virtue is its amazing image stabilization. While mostly on a pod, I shot this lens at sub 1/30th shutter speeds, at 300mm focal lenght, and had very high retention rates. It really happened. But at the end of a long day, I felt physically defeated - beaten up hauling & shooting with this monster (over hundreds of acres & who knows how many miles). 

My Kirk MPA-1 monopod head even struggled to contain it. Note that I later learned that this head (a manfrotto 234 w/ a kirk AS plate in place of the manfrotto QR mess) was only rated for loads <6#. Perhaps that's why it was replaced by Kirk's current MPA-2 - rated at a load capacity of 80 lbs. - without the Manfrotto base.

Meanwhile, I have since acquired a clean copy of the discontinued Canon EF 35-350 L - a non-IS lens that is both lighter, shorter and ~half the price of the 28-300. I've yet to give it an honest workout - not wanting to shovel through the gardens, just yet.

I was once told that the best camera/lens is the one you have with you. When shooting over vast acreages, even WITH a sherpa, a trunk full of L glass is just impossible to cart about and have available. Even using rolling cases, it's a logistical nightmare - especially on your own. So the alternatives? Few, if any other lenses, can provide the IQ possible with these L lenses.

While I use the current EF-S 18-200mm on my 70D crop body, frankly - the IQ could be better. With careful post processing, I've had lots of success with the 18-200 - but I've seen the differences in IQ - and I know the extent of the IQ compromises. While I will probably, at some point, add Tamron's 28-300mm VC PZD (which also works on the APS-H, 1.3x crop bodies and on FF sensor bodies) and Canon's rumored EF-S 18-300mm to my kit, I do not expect to see anything supplant these "super-zoom" L lenses.

Except perhaps a combo, on FF & 1D series bodies, of a 24-70mm (f4 or f2.8 ) and the 70-300mm L. 

Then again, ymmv.


----------



## RGF (Feb 23, 2015)

Slyham said:


> Depending on the cost and IQ, I will sell my 18-135 STM and pick this one up for my all-around/travel lens.



+1 for my wife. I got here a pair of 70D for Safari. On 1 I place at 18-135 and on the other 100-400. Nice if her general purpose zoom had a long range.


----------

