# Any chance for a 18-250 or 18-300 lens from Canon in the foreseeable future?



## rfe777 (Jan 23, 2013)

Hello everyone

I have a Canon 550D, and currently use a Sigma 18-250 lens as my "workhorse" lens, but would have wanted a lens with such focal length from Canon(18-200 is not enough), and not from a third party manufacturer.

Are there any rumors about such a lens coming soon from Canon?Anybody knows? 

TIA


----------



## bseitz234 (Jan 23, 2013)

doubtful, I can't really think of why they would. if you're not looking to spend money that'll get you a 28-300, you're probably talking 15-85 + 70-300 to cover that range.


----------



## robbymack (Jan 23, 2013)

28-300L

There are a few folks on the forum that use that lens and like it I'm sure someone will chime in.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 23, 2013)

As a rule of thumb, the wider the zoom range the worse the image quality. The 18-200 has the worst MTF curves of any lens Canon makes and extending the range will probably make it worse. It might come out, but I would not buy one. A pair of cheap lenses like the 18-55 and 70-300 would probably outperform an even wider rage superzoom


----------



## rfe777 (Jan 23, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> doubtful, I can't really think of why they would.


Nikon has a 18-300 lens, and I'm sure that Canon users will want one(or 18-250) as well, and also from Canon for the competition between the two companies.


----------



## Ryan708 (Jan 23, 2013)

I agree with the other posters here. There is a reason the best zoom lenses have a limited range. If you want an 18-300 you can't be expecting great quality images, so why do you want a more expensive canon version. Sigma's build quality is on par with canon EF-S lenses(probably better honestly) but their AF is sometimes off on certain copies of a lens. Just my $.02 the 15-85 is quite a nice EF-S lens, and adding a 70-300 would give you that extra reach for when you want it.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 23, 2013)

as others have said the only decent super zoom for canon is the 28-300L and its massive, heavy and expensive
but its a great lens probably the best super zoom there is.

to be honest Nikon make the best super zoom around with the 18-200 VRII even the older VR model was great
They have brought out a 18-300 but i'm not sure how it performs

if you want the best here you are probably better off selling the canon and sigma lens and getting a new Nikon D5200 and the 18-200 VRII maybe check out the 18-300 see how you like it but as i said i have no first hand experience of the 18-300


----------



## rfe777 (Jan 23, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> As a rule of thumb, the wider the zoom range the worsae the image quality. The 18-200 has the worst MTF curves of any lens Canon makes and extending the range will probably make it worse. It might come out, but I would not buy one. A pair of cheap lenses like the 18-55 and 70-300 would probably outperform an even wider rage superzoom


The whole idea of a "workhorse" lens is one that covers a very large focal length, both wide and tele, without me having to change lenses. 
For my day-to-day photography, I need a focal length from 18mm to >200mm.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 23, 2013)

rfe777 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > As a rule of thumb, the wider the zoom range the worsae the image quality. The 18-200 has the worst MTF curves of any lens Canon makes and extending the range will probably make it worse. It might come out, but I would not buy one. A pair of cheap lenses like the 18-55 and 70-300 would probably outperform an even wider rage superzoom
> ...



while that's certainly a valid way to interpret "workhorse lens", I think a lot of people would say that what makes a lens a workhorse is its ability to consistently give you results that you would be satisfied with delivering as product, or the result of your "work". trying to mush a whole bunch of functions into a single lens usually means the opposite, in which you can shoot anything, but not at a satisfactory level.

I'm not saying you're using your lens wrong. certainly, if I were just traveling on vacation and I prioritized being able to get any shot I wanted without having to carry much weight, an 18-250mm might be just the right thing. however, given the fact that you seem rather adamant about needing to go beyond 200mm, yet also being rather adamant that superzoom image quality is exactly what you want, is a little puzzling.

don't be too scared to switch lenses, even if you're in the field. exposing your camera's innards momentarily isn't quite the danger zone some folks make it out to be (unless, yes, you are in a sawdust-filled wood shop, or a decomposing abandoned building, or similar). and frankly, for you to buy yet another superzoom (if Canon were to release one), you might as well spend that same money on a consumer telephoto that will give you fast apertures at the same focal length, and better image quality.


----------



## weekendshooter (Jan 23, 2013)

rfe777 said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > doubtful, I can't really think of why they would.
> ...



The 18-300 doesn't seem to be that great optically. Nikon's 18-200, on the other hand, is quite fantastic considering its zoom range. It's also very well-built and quite compact; it's often purchased as a kit with the D7000 and produces quite solid images.

A new 18-200 would be a good thing for Canon to release, now that Nikon has shown that you don't need to make too big of a sacrifice in image quality to get that zoom range in a single lens. Nobody's 18-300 is very good, and Nikon's is absolutely enormous and very expensive, so that's probably not something Canon wants to emulate.


----------



## bseitz234 (Jan 24, 2013)

kubelik said:


> rfe777 said:
> 
> 
> > The whole idea of a "workhorse" lens is one that covers a very large focal length, both wide and tele, without me having to change lenses.
> ...



I agree with this. My workhorse right now is my 70-200 2.8 (non-is/classic), which I leave on my camera at all times because I know I can get a great result from it time and time again, including when I take it xc skiing and fall and get it all snowy : When it's too long, I will have a 17-55 starting tomorrow, which I fully intend to complement, not replace, the 70-200. And given that I can usually predict the situations in which 70-200 will be too long, I'm not very concerned about the 30 seconds it will take to switch lenses... anyway, just my second two cents.


----------



## skitron (Jan 24, 2013)

weekendshooter said:


> The 18-300 doesn't seem to be that great optically. Nikon's 18-200, on the other hand, is quite fantastic considering its zoom range.



Here's a comparison of the two:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=295&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=667&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=1

I think the Canon looks slightly better based on this.


----------



## weekendshooter (Jan 24, 2013)

skitron said:


> weekendshooter said:
> 
> 
> > The 18-300 doesn't seem to be that great optically. Nikon's 18-200, on the other hand, is quite fantastic considering its zoom range.
> ...



Scratch that, the photozone charts look pretty close for both! I was under the impression the Nikon was better at the long end than this, my mistake.

On another note, I think something is wrong with TDP's Nikon setup - many of his tests show very strong CA and other optical defects that aren't corroborated by other review/sample sites. I've found that it's useless to use his site's Nikon samples as a reference when shopping for lenses.

Look at this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=791&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The Canon 85/1.8 is well-known for having purple fringing in high-contrast areas, while the Nikon 85/1.8G was just named best 85mm ever tested by DXO, in no small part to its great CA control. I certainly have never seen CA like that from my 85! Many of his Nikon samples are like this for some reason.


----------



## nightsky87 (Jan 24, 2013)

Disregarding the point about image quality, what exactly are you looking for in a "workhorse" lens?

Remember that your focal length can affect the perspective *if you move closer or farther from the subject*. Your 18mm would be horrible for portraits but acceptable for landscapes. Likewise, the 85-135mm range is usually chosen for flattering portraits. Higher would be good for birding and sports.

The point is, its best to identify specific ranges for what you're shooting. Glass can be designed for specific purposes (i.e. some are designed for the best bokeh) and using a single superzoom won't satisfy all purposes. 

No harm switching lenses often (except for the minor inconvenience). I remember taking the 60D while rowing and I was constantly switching between the Canon 15-85 for landscapes and Tamron 70-300 for animal shots. Worked great and the camera works flawlessly to this day.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jan 26, 2013)

Go look at a Lumix 200fz - it has a fantastic zoom range (25-600), is cheaper than the lens you
would want (~$400), and is a single piece sealed unit for dust, etc. And if you want a little "status",
you can double the price and get the same camera branded Leica.


----------



## ronderick (Jan 27, 2013)

Seriously, I really am having doubts about Canon's commitment to EF-S lenses. With the exception of occasional upgraded of existing kit lens, the EF-S seems pretty dead for the past year or two.

While Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma have been coming out with their versions of 18-xxx zooms, Canon's 18-200 has never seen an upgrade since its release. Meanwhile, Nikon has moved from the first 18-200 VR all the way to 300.

My suspicion would be if there's any progress in terms of lens for the APS-C format, it would be for the EF-M mounts...

Again, just my opinion.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jan 27, 2013)

My own take is that the ef-s line up is pretty well covered, between the EF-s and EF lenses, especially given the likely budgets and aspirations of the aps-c market. Canons kit zooms between the 18-55 and 55-250 combo are pretty good, compact, light, cheap, the uwa could be faster, but how much R&D for how many units?

Canon have upgraded their ef short primes, which make great standard lenses on aps-c.

I think a wider cheap pancake, in ef mount to keep volume up and costs down.

The travel superzoom segment is already well covered by sigma and tamron, who can sell to many more potential users of different systems.

Personally I'd rather canon came up interesting lenses that are'nt akready done elsewhere.

I look at the pentax pancakes with ency.

But thats just me.


----------



## nightsky87 (Jan 31, 2013)

ronderick said:


> Seriously, I really am having doubts about Canon's commitment to EF-S lenses. With the exception of occasional upgraded of existing kit lens, the EF-S seems pretty dead for the past year or two.
> 
> While Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma have been coming out with their versions of 18-xxx zooms, Canon's 18-200 has never seen an upgrade since its release. Meanwhile, Nikon has moved from the first 18-200 VR all the way to 300.
> 
> ...



I think you may have missed the EF-S 18-135 STM from last year though...


----------



## preppyak (Jan 31, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> My own take is that the ef-s line up is pretty well covered, between the EF-s and EF lenses, especially given the likely budgets and aspirations of the aps-c market. Canons kit zooms between the 18-55 and 55-250 combo are pretty good, compact, light, cheap, the uwa could be faster, but how much R&D for how many units?
> 
> Canon have upgraded their ef short primes, which make great standard lenses on aps-c.
> 
> I think a wider cheap pancake, in ef mount to keep volume up and costs down.


Yep, Canon has the standard kit (18-55), standard tele (55-250), medium zoom (18-135, 15-85), faster (17-55 f/2.8), ultra-wide (10-22), and ultrazoom (18-200) covered, and that's not counting the 17-85. All at pretty reasonable prices relative to quality; and the ones that could stand to be better (17-85, 18-200) probably wouldn't be appealing at the resulting higher prices. An updated 17-85 would cost the same as a 15-85, so why not just get that already. And an updated 18-200 would rival the price of the 24-105, etc...it'd have to get a pretty major IQ upgrade to be worth the price.



> The travel superzoom segment is already well covered by sigma and tamron, who can sell to many more potential users of different systems.


And then there is this. Making an 18-270/18-300 that is good is not easy, it's usually heavy and bulky and not as desired as people think. So, if you can make one for 3-4 mounts, maybe you can make money...but just making it for EF, that's a tougher sell. Better to release a bunch of decent travel-zoom P+S cameras instead.

I'd much rather see Canon release an EF-S 30mm or EF-S 12-14mm prime before I'd want them going super-zoom. Nikon and Sigma show that the 30/35mm aps-c specific lens can sell; and Samyang seems poised to show that a 10mm prime can sell as well


----------

