# Canon EF-S 18-270 f/3.2-5.6 IS Coming Soon?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 29, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;;width: 55px;" name="fb_share"><div id="fb-root"></div><script src="http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#appId=125029517579627&xfbml=1"></script><fb:like href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/06/canon-ef-s-18-270-f3-2-5-6-is-coming-soon/" send="false" layout="box_count" width="55" show_faces="false" font="arial"></fb:like></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/06/canon-ef-s-18-270-f3-2-5-6-is-coming-soon/"></a></div>
<p><strong>A New Superzoom

</strong>The 18-200 didn’t light any sales fires for Canon. Omitting USM was a mistake and the lens has never gained the popularity of its Nikon counterpart.</p>
<p>An updated version of the lens has shown up in a patent.</p>
<div id="attachment_6685" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 463px"><img class="size-full wp-image-6685" title="2011_90190_fig01" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2011_90190_fig01.png" alt="" width="453" height="304" /><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon EF-S 18-270 f/3.2-5.6 IS</p></div>
<p> </p>
<p>There is no mention as to whether or not this lens will get the USM treatment. Omitting it for a second time would be a mistake.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## bkj216 (Jun 29, 2011)

I like my 18-200mm. Having USM would be nice, and a reduction in weight and lens creep would be appreciated.


----------



## traveller (Jun 29, 2011)

If they do fit USM, I bet it will be micro-USM like Tamron has with the "piezo-drive" motor on their new 18-270.


----------



## J (Jun 29, 2011)

I completely agree that leaving out USM was a mistake. When you pay $500 for a lens, you kind of expect at least that much from it.

But :X on the micro-USM. Damn marketing. FTM ring-type only please.


----------



## Heidrun (Jun 29, 2011)

Is ther a chanse that it will have IF


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2011)

Heidrun said:


> Is ther a chanse that it will have IF



Looking at the lens design, it has rear focusing (which is internal). But it will be an extending zoom.


----------



## tivoboy (Jun 29, 2011)

This would make a great lens for my FIL, he only likes to carry ONE lens.  Was going to look at the 18-270 Tamron, but reports say it is a bit slow


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2011)

tivoboy said:


> Was going to look at the 18-270 Tamron, but reports say it is a bit slow



It depends on what you mean by 'slow' - in the aperture sense, this rumored Canon will only be 1/3-stop faster than the Tamron (which goes to f/6.3 at the long end, and 'tricks' the Canon AF system into thinking it's an f/5.6 lens so AF still works). If you mean 'slow' in the autofocus speed sense, it depends on whether Canon puts USM into the lens. While I agree with Craig that they'd be foolish not to make it a USM lens, Canon has done many things that have been considered foolish (though likely there were market research-based reasons for Canon's decisions). If it's a standard micromotor AF, likely the Tamron lens with the 'PZD' AF (micro-USM) will focus faster.


----------



## hutjeflut (Jul 1, 2011)

looks rather interesting if the IQ is the same as both kit lenses in that zoom range and the lens has usm im loving it.

hope they do improve the wide open sharpness a little then tho F8 to F11 for optimal sharpness isnt really great.


----------



## infilm (Jul 1, 2011)

Sounds like a dog of a lens to me. As soon as you get inside you will zoom in a bit and be at a f4 or f4.5 and be struggling for enough light. Or you activate your flash and have to deal with different color temps. OR you'll up the ISO and have to contend with a less than razor sharp image due to noise. I think that what these "super zooms" offer up is compromise at best, and these types of lenses limit what the novice or amateur photographer is able to do. I know, I used to be the guy that only had one lens and it was a f4-5.6, and as soon as I took it indoors I found myself having to compromise how my images were going to turn out. My humble opinion... If you are in the market for a zoom lens then examine the types of images that you most capture, I.E. wide, medium, or tight focal lengths, and then go out and get a f2.8 zoom that will work for you. I did it and I don't have an ince of regret. I can shoot in nearly any light condition and have a low enough ISO so that noise isn't an issue, even if I am forced to shoot a bit wide. I can always crop in. My 10 cents...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 1, 2011)

infilm said:


> Sounds like a dog of a lens to me. As soon as you get inside you will zoom in a bit and be at a f4 or f4.5 and be struggling for enough light. Or you activate your flash and have to deal with different color temps. OR you'll up the ISO and have to contend with a less than razor sharp image due to noise. I think that what these "super zooms" offer up is compromise at best, and these types of lenses limit what the novice or amateur photographer is able to do. I know, I used to be the guy that only had one lens and it was a f4-5.6, and as soon as I took it indoors I found myself having to compromise how my images were going to turn out. My humble opinion... If you are in the market for a zoom lens then examine the types of images that you most capture, I.E. wide, medium, or tight focal lengths, and then go out and get a f2.8 zoom that will work for you. I did it and I don't have an ince of regret. I can shoot in nearly any light condition and have a low enough ISO so that noise isn't an issue, even if I am forced to shoot a bit wide. I can always crop in. My 10 cents...



The thing is, Canon's competition is selling them like hotcakes. Buyers who move up from point and shoot want superzooms, and they will sell. The main use for one of these definitely is not indoors, they are outdoor lenses. Change lenses for indoor photography.


----------



## EYEONE (Jul 1, 2011)

infilm said:


> I think that what these "super zooms" offer up is compromise at best, and these types of lenses limit what the novice or amateur photographer is able to do.



Of course it's a compromise. Any zoom lens is a compromise. You are (typically) sacrificing aperture and a little IQ for the ability to adjust composition more easily. The trade off is a little larger with these super zooms but they have their place for certain people.


----------



## infilm (Jul 2, 2011)

@Mt. Spokane. The person that buys a superzoom is buying it because they want a lens that will to "everything". They won't be buying another lens. BTW, how's the weather up there. I have a place in Hayden...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2011)

infilm said:


> @Mt. Spokane. The person that buys a superzoom is buying it because they want a lens that will to "everything". They won't be buying another lens. BTW, how's the weather up there. I have a place in Hayden...



I think a lot of people with superzooms probably have a 50mm f/1.8 II. It's continually among the top few lenses sold on Amazon (was #1 a short time back, currently #3, behind two of the cheap Canon telezooms (EF-S 55-250mm, EF 75-300mm III) that were just on rebate.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 2, 2011)

infilm said:


> @Mt. Spokane. The person that buys a superzoom is buying it because they want a lens that will to "everything". They won't be buying another lens. BTW, how's the weather up there. I have a place in Hayden...



I live on the West side of Mt spokane, just over the hill. Today was a nice day, but windy and, for the first time this year, we will see several nice weather days in a row.

Anyone who buys a superzoom and tries to use it in their home without a flash will either give up or buy a 2nd lens. I know, there are some photographers who are new to DSLR's and buy whatever the Best Buy expert sells them, but then they either learn, or give up and put their camera up for sale. I've bought quite a few literally unused cameras from situations like that, I keep family members supplied with bargain priced cameras or sometimes resell them.

I looked at a Tamron superzoom at Huppins several years ago, the salesman told me of its limitations. They no longer have pro photographer quality salesmen, but many who work there are reasonably knowledgable about the equipment.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jul 2, 2011)

Is there any chance they could make it the quality of their new 70-300 IS L lens? I know it can't be a superzoom and be as good as the new 70-300 but that is really quite the lens (see the review) if you can't find a place to try it out. Personally I have the Tamron 18-270 and I really like the color and contrast and sharpness of that lens. I have the VC version before they went to the new motor and made the lens smaller and less sharp at the 270 end. My VC version is the sharpest Tamron that I've ever tried. I've already tried the 28-300 VC and non VC and I've been very disapointed (both were full frame lenses). I'm hoping that Canon could make a full frame 24-200 L lens for people like me that like the 24-105L but at times would like to have just alittle more reach. If they re-design the 28-300 L into a non pull-push that is weather sealed that would also be an alternative. I'm shooting the World's Largest Salmon BBQ today in Fort Bragg, CA and I'm making my lens decision today. Do I use a 7D with a Tamron 18-270 as I've done other years or a 5DMKII with the new 70-300L. I have a Canon 18-135 but the quality to me is so poor I don't really want to use it - the Tamron is a better choice (bad lens creep though). I don't want to carry more that one lens. Sorry for talking so long.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 2, 2011)

Bruce Photography said:


> Is there any chance they could make it the quality of their new 70-300 IS L lens?



A zoom longer than about 3-1 starts to degrade in quality. 4-1 is about as high as you go and still be excellent.

So, what do you think a low cost 15-1 zoom ratio lens would be like? A severe compromise that will please those used to superzoom point and shoot cameras to take on vacation with them. 

I maintain that a good photographer can capture excellent images from any Canon lens by understanding the capabilities of the lens and taking advantage of its strong points. A 15-1 zoom makes capturing supurb quality images more challenging, but it can be done.


----------



## gee4time (Jul 4, 2011)

Wouldn't it be beneficial to canon to acquire tamron and improve the quality of there lens with canon manufacturing and design.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2011)

gee4time said:


> Wouldn't it be beneficial to canon to acquire tamron and improve the quality of there lens with canon manufacturing and design.



Beneficial to whom? To Canon, perhaps. I suspect Canon would then 'improve' the Tamron lenses with Canon manufacturing and design marketing. Translation: They'd raise the prices of Tamron lenses, and cut the 6 year warranty to one year to save costs. So, IMO it would _not_ be beneficial to the consumer.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 5, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> gee4time said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't it be beneficial to canon to acquire tamron and improve the quality of there lens with canon manufacturing and design.
> ...



If Tamron were going broke, and no one else wanted them, and Canon rescued them it just might squeek by the anti-trust regulators, but if they outright bought them to eliminate competition, it probably would not be approved either by the Japanese. the Europeans or the United States, at least, I'd hope not.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 6, 2011)

Bruce Photography said:


> Is there any chance they could make it the quality of their new 70-300 IS L lens?



they tried that, it's called the 28-300L, and it's â‚¬2500, 10% above the 70-200/2.8ii, the cheapest of the lower half of the canon range (next price up is the 200f2 at â‚¬5500).

looking at the review, it's got a *lot* of compromises, the 'barrel' distortion at 28mm is high enough that i'd be tempted to call it 'beachball' distortion, the vignetting on FF is 1 stop or worse everywhere except 50mm and f8, in the text they talk about loss of contrast, and the MTF are nowhere near what i'd call L-quality on their own.
But to put all of those features, especially the 10x focal length range, and making it faster than f/5.6, that's what you have to put up with, it's the best they could do to keep it within the realms of affordable.
Even making the same design down to 18mm, the vignetting and barrel distortion on the wide end would be horrible. but making it efs-only would take out a hunk of extra glass, lighter, saving money there to make it 18mm wide might keep the price the same. (but who would buy a â‚¬2500 efs lens? people with that money either love their 7D to death, or would be on a 5d or 1d)

comparing to the tamron 18-270, they've got slightly less barrelling at wide, and a slightly bit better vignetting (everything's under 1-stop except 18mm wide open). for the MTF, it's a bit hard to compare FF to APS-C, but the graph-shapes look about the same rough shape, the tamron only a little bit behind. But the CA, eesh, unless you want to take pictures that look like a kaleidoscope, that's enough to put me off.

in short, the only people who would buy a super-zoom type lens like this would be:
- beginners moving up from 'superzoom' or 'bridge' whatever you call them, dslr shaped but smaller and one lens. the IQ you'd get from these would (probably) be better, the manual features would be enough to make pics better if you knew what you were doing.
- size/weight constrained people who absolutely *can't* take more than 1 lens, or can't swap it for any reason (ie, you're covering the paris-dakar rally in a sandstorm).
- people who don't know any better, and think higher number means better.
- personally, i'd go the 70-300L and 24-70L with change left for filters rather than the 28-300L, again, unless i was travelling light through the desert and couldn't change lenses.


meanwhile, it's probably too late for your salmon bbq (sounds interesting though). my decision would go on focal length, if you wanted wide or zoom. my 70-300L has hardly been off my 7D body since i bought it, it's getting to the point where i'm taking very cropped landscapes with it and finding good excuses for making 'artistic' crops instead of swapping to my wide lens.


anyway, back to the OP, just based on gut feeling, canon's version of an 18-270 would have to be as good or better than a tamron equivalent, it's almost definitely going to be more expensive (how much does the 'canon' nameplate add on?), but there's no way it'll even come close to the 28-300L, which itself is no stunner either. it'll keep the mass-market, facebook-uploaders, 4*6 printers, and compact-upgraders happy though...


----------

