# Canon EF-S 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM on the Way? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 2, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-ef-s-18-300-f3-5-5-6-is-stm-on-the-way-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-ef-s-18-300-f3-5-5-6-is-stm-on-the-way-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>A new EF-S superzoom


</strong>There is really only one lens in Canon lineup that I can’t think of a nice thing to say about it, and that is the EF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS. From the subpar optics, no USM, terrible build quality, high price and the industry worst “lens creep”. What can I say that’s positive?</p>
<p>I have been told that a new superzoom with STM should be expected in 2013. There will be a superzoom for EF-S and and and affordable non-L one for EF, apologies to the 28-300L, but you’re too big and expensive for most people to carry around. No mention on the focal length for the EF lens, but a 24-300 would be nice. The EF-S version will get the new STM motor found in the recent EF 40 f/2.8 STM and 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM. Both could possibly be available in the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2013.</p>
<p>I definitely welcome an upgrade to the 18-200, and a nice long walk-around for full frame would be nice too.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## enraginangel (Oct 2, 2012)

I had a buddy that bought the Canon 18-200 superzoom and I told him not to buy it. I lent him my Sigma 17-50mm OS before his 18-200mm was shipped to him. While my Sigma just blew away his superzoom in image quality, he decided to still keep it because it was convenient.


----------



## traveller (Oct 2, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> No mention on the focal length for the EF lens, but a 24-300 would be nice.... a nice long walk-around for full frame would be nice too



Nice... No it would be sh*t, but I suppose that these lenses are necessary for the consumer market. 24-300mm sounds a bit ambitious, I can't think of one superzoom that currently goes wider than 28mm equivalent; pushing for 24mm may severely compromise image quality as well as compactness. As for an EF-S 18-300mm, don't get me started! There are so many more lenses missing from the EF-S lineup without producing yet another bloody superzoom... <end rant>


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Oct 2, 2012)

Any idea/experience regarding how the Tamron 18-270 performs?


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 2, 2012)

I would hate to see the MTF on this puppy... On it's defense, the STM is geared towards video, and video doesn't have the same resolution demands as still cameras 1080x1920 vs 3000+x5000x pixels.. Plus technology improvements... BUT... we will see when this and if this hits the market.


----------



## phemark (Oct 2, 2012)

Is it in Canon's interest of producing a cheap long zoom for EF-S, something like 55-250, but longer. 
Like Sigma's 50-500, or 150-500 (which i want, but is a bit too expensive)
Do you see it ever happening?


----------



## preppyak (Oct 2, 2012)

RAKAMRAK said:


> Any idea/experience regarding how the Tamron 18-270 performs?


Its ok. Basically, with a lens like that, you are assuming a situation where you are unwilling to change either due to conditions (rain, dust, etc), or to travel restrictions (can't carry 3 lenses on a long trip). Having a DSLR and that lens gives you more freedom creatively than a P+S, but, you are also make big sacrifices in terms of IQ. If its the only lens you buy, then its sort of a waste, and a better P+S for $4-500 would probably be more worth it.

Agreed on the 18-200s problems though. It's soft on the tele end (15-200) and has awful distortion on the wide end. Add in the zoom creep and the $500+ price tag and I can't imagine they sold many of them outside of kits. An update can't really be worse


----------



## Etienne (Oct 2, 2012)

These super-zooms are great ... if you want cellphone quality from your DSLR !


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2012)

preppyak said:


> Agreed on the 18-200s problems though. It's soft on the tele end (15-200) and has awful distortion on the wide end.



Just to add, horrible focus breathing. If your subject is not actually _at_ infinity, but rather something like across the street, the 200mm long end is actually only a little longer than 150mm, meaning it's not far off the 18-135mm.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 2, 2012)

Not a big surprise. Tamron has owned this market for the last several years and I'm sure Canon wants it back.

The 55-250mm proves that if Canon wants to, they can make a sharp, cheap zoom with a long range. If they can produce an 18-300 EF-S that matches that lens in image quality, it would be worth having for those times when you really cannot carry more than one lens. 

I think Canon would have to try really hard to make a new 24-300 mm zoom _worse_ than their current lineup of non-L 300 mm zooms.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 2, 2012)

18-200mm is full of compromises but, if you avoid its weak areas, it still can deliver some pretty decent images. I kept one around for single SLR travel use because it performed far more consistently than Tamron's 18-250 and first gen stabilized 18-270.

And that's typically the use of such a lens, comparing it to shorter zooms is a bit apples-to-oranges.
EF-S 18-200's central areas is almost always quite sharp and for simple, centric compositions, it works.

I far prefer the 15-85mm range tho but the 18-200mm preceeded it.


----------



## RS2021 (Oct 2, 2012)

Slow week at CR?


----------



## preppyak (Oct 2, 2012)

unfocused said:


> I think Canon would have to try really hard to make a new 24-300 mm zoom _worse_ than their current lineup of non-L 300 mm zooms.


A new non-L 24/28-300 is gonna be interesting to see. Mostly because I think of how poorly those lenses do on APS-C, so, I can only imagine it on full-frame. Then add in the non-L factor and you are talking cheaper glass, weaker build; I guess the good news is that it would be lighter than the street-sweeper.

Might be missing the audience though, as I'd imagine it'll have a price similar to the current full-frame kit lens, and I'm not sure how many people want a nearly $3000 one-lens full-frame solution.


----------



## KyleSTL (Oct 2, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> ...apologies to the 28-300L, but you’re too big and expensive for most people to carry around....



I can see Canon making it lighter and cheaper, something akin to the superzoom Nikon put out 2 years ago.

Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR - 83 x 115mm - 800g - 77mm filter - $1050 currently
Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM - 92 x 184mm - 1670g - 77mm filter - $2570 currently

Hopefully it's not junk like the 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM:
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/lenses/ef_28_200mm_f_3_5_5_6_usm#Specifications
No IS, Micro-Motor USM (not Ring), no FTM, terrible IQ

Actually, comparing the Canon 28-200 to the Nikon 28-300 shows that the Nikon is marginally better than the Canon.
TDP Comparison Canon 28-200 vs. Nikon 28-300

The Nikon is definitely worse than the Canon 28-300, though (especially when it comes to CA and corner sharpness), as you would expect with the L designation and significant cost differential.
TDP Comparison Canon 28-300 vs. Nikon 28-300


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 2, 2012)

phemark said:


> Is it in Canon's interest of producing a cheap long zoom for EF-S, something like 55-250, but longer.
> Like Sigma's 50-500, or 150-500 (which i want, but is a bit too expensive)
> Do you see it ever happening?



I've seen people shooting street photography with a 40D & EF 18-200mm, and the (rather well advertised) Tamron 18-270 is popular enough for some retailers to make kits of Tamron 18-270 & a Canon body.

There are plenty of laymen who stumble into local photography forums and compare a DSLR's zoom range to that of some P&S (which they consider or want to upgrade from), and to them a lens that ends somewhere between 500mm and 1000mm looks oh so attractive.

So, yes - I see Canon making a low end lens that would make them money first time when people buy / upgrade to a DSLR with superzoom, and - hopefully - a second time when they buy more lenses that have lower zoom ratio and better IQ.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 2, 2012)

Every one of the EF-s zooms should start at 15mm, not 18mm. Heck even their P&S cameras start at 24mm-equivalent now, including the SX50 with it's 50x zoom lens.


----------



## niccyboy (Oct 2, 2012)

Very interested to see this. 

Last year I searched and searched for the 28-300 and found a good version and used it twice in 12 months.... i travel a lot and as a PJ lens it was just too damn heavy and obvious.... I'm currently away working in sicily and i have the 24-105 and 70-200IS on my mk3s, but would settle for slightly lower quality optics in exchange for one camera body and a decent range.

I actually almost kept my 7D and bought the 18-200 until i saw reviews for it.

I'm looking forward to seeing this... the 24, 28 primes, and the 400+ lenses that have been announced recently don't really do anything for me, but this actually is really interesting.


----------



## bradleyg5 (Oct 2, 2012)

You know with the C100 supposedly having support for video auto focusing with STM lens this could be a very versatile reporterage lens when paired with that camera. It would be light, large range, image stabilization, only needs to resolve 1080p, continuous auto focus that might actually work since it's not very fast. Not a terrible idea if they are looking at making one.


----------



## preppyak (Oct 2, 2012)

phemark said:


> Is it in Canon's interest of producing a cheap long zoom for EF-S, something like 55-250, but longer.
> Like Sigma's 50-500, or 150-500 (which i want, but is a bit too expensive)
> Do you see it ever happening?


The reality of making a useable lens that goes to 400, 500, etc is that you need a decent amount of glass. Even if you make it for the APS-C image circle, it'd still probably have to have a 77mm front filter. And all Canon lenses that size end up with a price tag of $500+. So, if they did it, it'd be in the price range of the 17-55 and 10-22. 

They obviously do make a few niche EF-S lenses, but, I guess the question is if they see the market for someone pairing their T4i with a super-telephoto, or if they assume that crowd will just buy the L lenses instead


----------



## preppyak (Oct 2, 2012)

bradleyg5 said:


> You know with the C100 supposedly having support for video auto focusing with STM lens this could be a very versatile reporterage lens when paired with that camera. It would be light, large range, image stabilization, only needs to resolve 1080p, continuous auto focus that might actually work since it's not very fast. Not a terrible idea if they are looking at making one.


That thought makes me cringe a little. Putting a $500 lens on a $8,000 camera, when for that same price you could buy some really nice video cameras with better features.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Oct 2, 2012)

I have a Canon 28-135mm and really love it. Image quality is really good, but just doesn't have enough reach. Give it 160mm or 180mm with just a nudge better optics, same size and under $800.. I don't even need IS at that range... I'd buy that...


----------



## anden (Oct 2, 2012)

_"I have one of these 18–200mm lenses and, honestly, I love mine dearly. Now, you will see some photographers in forums online saying that these lenses are basically beneath them, because they’re not as sharp as they could be, or they’re not as rugged as the more expensive lenses, etc. Don’t let that throw you. I don’t know a single photographer that actually has one of these that doesn’t love it, mostly because when it’s on your camera, you’re never going to say, “Oh, I missed that shot because I didn’t have the right lens,” because it does it all in one lens. As for quality, I have a 30x40" print of a photo I took with that lens while on vacation, framed, and hanging in my home. Everybody loves it, and it looks perfectly sharp and crisp all the way through."_
Scott Kelby, Digital Photography 3

I have used the ef-s 18-200 at a few trips, and just took a look at the exif statistics from them. I have many shots at the wider angles, a bit fewer at the medium lengths, and almost always a peak a 200mm. So, if up to 300mm would be possible without sacrificing much of today's performance, then I'm interested. I have made 12"x12" photo books made entirely of 18-200 pictures, and are very happy with them.

If I during travel are dealing with bags with clothes, shopping bags, kids, snack, tickets, and are jumping on and off ferries and buses, I sure appreciate not having to carry and change lenses.

I may more often use higher grade lenses, but wouldn't hesitate to recommend the ef-s 18-200 for general traveling and to beginners.


----------



## traveller (Oct 3, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> Every one of the EF-s zooms should start at 15mm, not 18mm. Heck even their P&S cameras start at 24mm-equivalent now, including the SX50 with it's 50x zoom lens.



Don't be ridiculous, like a lens design for a 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor can be compared to one that has to cover an APS-C sized (22.3 x 14.9 mm) sensor. By your logic, all EF-S lenses should go to at least 600mm equivalent on the long end too?


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 3, 2012)

I have the 18-200 lens. If you are taking pictures that will end up on facebook then it is wonderful. If you are going to zoom in to a 1-1 crop, you will really notice the flaws of the lens. Compared to a prime lens it has poor contrast and poor sharpness.... if you do not keep the lens level then the zoom will creep out.....

This is not a lens for high quality super-sharp pictures, it is a compromise lens. It allows lots of zoom range at the expense of quality.... something to expect from all super-zoom lenses, and I would expect the same out of an 18-300 lens. You are going from 11 times zoom (18-200) to 16 1/2 times zoom (18-300), this is a harder range to cover and one would expect that the same quality of lens will have worse image quality at the increased zoom range.

Will it sell? Of course so. If you can only bring along one lens with you then it is a great choice, but don't expect the same quality as out of a fixed prime or a narrow zoom range prime.


----------



## ageha (Oct 4, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> Both could possibly be available in the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2013.


3rd or 4th quarter of 2013? :'(


----------

