Not a good match - the 1.6x crop factor makes it a 45-320. Th e320 part might be nice, but the 45 is rather wide. Pretty much the 28-whatever class of lenses are for full famre or film cameras. Lenses starting at 18 or so are the 'digital' ones.
The longer the zoom range the more compromises have to be made, and image quality suffers at some point. The 18-200 lenses are the ones being pushed by the lens companies for digital cameras. That is a 10 or 11:1 zoom lens. that is a LONG way to zoom. Also, they are f6.3 at the long end - pretty dark IMO.
Pretty much you get what you pay for. If you going to shoot with this lens at f5.6=8 in the 40-120 range and print 5x7 or less, i'm sure it'll be fine. I know a pro that shoots weddings, high end even, with a canon 28-200 on a 10D. that is pretty much a consumer lens, but she uses a diffuser filter and flash all the time, so sharpness and speed are not issues for her.
As for that specific lens...lens?this site pretty much says it sucks. On a 1-5 scale, 2.5 or so is average and acceptable. L glass is 4+. this lens on film camera is .95, and on a digital....29. that is POINT 29. I have not seen a lower rated lens on this site. the ratings do vary over time, so you can check back and see if it changes.
What are you looking for? A walk around lens or a cheap lens?
Best choices for walkaround and quality ona digital camera:
canon 17-85 3.5-5.6 IS USM $600
Tamron SP24-135 3.5-5.6 $400
Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC $500
Tamron 28-70 2.8 $300
|
