Distortion at 18mm: ............. 18-200 mm: good, almost linear mapping .... 18-270 mm: insufficient significantly Barrel
Distortion at 200 mm: ........... 18-200 mm: low distortion ............ 18-270 mm: insufficient significantly pincushion
Distortion at 270 mm: ........... 18-200 mm: Void ............................ ......... 18-270 mm: inadequate, more pincushion
Filter Size (mm): .......................... 18-200 mm: identical (62 mm) ......... .......... 18-270 mm: identical (62 mm)
visual sharpness (gen.): ... 18-200 mm: slightly higher ........................... 18-270 mm: something less
Engine (volume / speed): 18-200 mm: a little louder / slower ...... 18-270 mm: instructive quiet / fast
Aperture: .................................... 18-200 mm: identical (f / 3.5 6.3) ............ 18-270 mm: identical (f / 3.5 6.3)
Haptics (weight / diameter): ... 18-200 mm: easier 400g / slimmer ..... 18-270 mm: slightly heavier 450 g / "thick"
Macro properties: ..................... 18-200 mm: comparable (1: 3.7 = 0.27) ..... 18-270 mm: comparable (1: 3.8 = 0.26)
Lens engraving (in meters): .................. 18-200 mm: 0.45 1 2 3 7 30 oo 18-270 mm: 0.49 1 3 7 oo
Purchase price (approximate value, 05-2014): 18-200 mm 130 EUR ............................... ... 18-270 mm 350 EUR (about 2.7x more expensive)
An analysis on a camera screen is insufficient, only the image-evaluation on the PC provides more accurate data. Only in engine power the 18-270 mm lens has clearly ahead. By contrast, in the distortion has 18 -200 mm lens at all focal areas clearly ahead. In other words: The lower priced 18-200mm lens is crucial in lens characteristics, the distortion, clearly superior.