Canon 18-200 EF-S?

[JTL]

Well the rumors have been flying and a source of mine has today confirmed the rumors to be true. Now, let's see...the Nikon has IS and is f/3.5-5.6 and costs around $750. So, that means that the Canon version, if similarly spec'ed, should cost what? Like $1,400? :eek:

Really, if the street price is more than $800.00, my Canon love affair will be over...unless of course, it's f/2.8 across the range...

[timmciglobal]

If canon made a 18-200 F3.5>5.6 IS lens I'd buy it in a quarter of a second providing it wasn't priced > 1000 or so.

Honestly I think canon went the wrong wroutr with the 18-55 F2.8, they would of gotten more sales I think with a lesser quality optic but "sigma but better" all in one walk around.

We'll see, I'd love a wide to tele one solution lens with USM and Is. The 24-105 I ahve now is basically filling that roal as a "walk around" lens and while 24 isn't wide enough and 105 isn't exactly long enough it's as good as I've found as I tend to be more of a >35 mm length person then <.

Tim

[coldrain]

Well the rumors have been flying and a source of mine has today confirmed the rumors to be true. Now, let's see...the Nikon has IS and is f/3.5-5.6 and costs around $750. So, that means that the Canon version, if similarly spec'ed, should cost what? Like $1,400? :eek:

Really, if the street price is more than $800.00, my Canon love affair will be over...unless of course, it's f/2.8 across the range...
That is just silly, JTL. You know perfectly well what the 70-300 IS USM costs.

[JTL]

That is just silly, JTL. You know perfectly well what the 70-300 IS USM costs.Yeah...like five and change street...

What are you saying? That you think it will only around $500.00 US? I'm thinking they'll want double that...

No point speculating I guess, we'll just have to wait...;)

[coldrain]

And why would they double that? It is not exactly a high end high quality concept, that of 18-200mm all purpose lens. Be objective a little bit. A 17-55 f2.8 of very high optical quality costs. A 70-300 or 18-200 are very different concepts for very different groups of customers.

[JTL]

And why would they double that? It is not exactly a high end high quality concept, that of 18-200mm all purpose lens. Be objective a little bit. A 17-55 f2.8 of very high optical quality costs. A 70-300 or 18-200 are very different concepts for very different groups of customers.If it's a 3.5-5.6 (I didn't ask the Canon guy that question directly...doh!!! But based on the bench testing info he shared it must be) then I'd expect $700-$1000...which if closer to $700, I'd be on line the day it comes out.

If it's another in the new fake L-lens line (and/or a constant f/2.8) then I think it's gonna be more.

But like I said...price speculation is pointless. My intention with the thread was just to let the good people know it's coming...

[coldrain]

No way a 18-200 will be a constant 2.8 lens. You can't make something like that. Not for consumer prices anyway.

[DonSchap]

I suspect, with all the glass involved... about 4 lbs... and have a snout about 96mm across. LOL :D

Get a wagon!

11812

[JTL]

No way a 18-200 will be a constant 2.8 lens. You can't make something like that. Not for consumer prices anyway.Then I'm anticipating being a very happy camper when it comes out, being the the crass consumer that I am. ;)

[TheObiJuan]

I suspect, with all the glass involved... about 4 lbs... and have a snout about 96mm across. LOL :D

Get a wagon!

11812


haha Don, that's awesome.