Which Sigma Lens??

[rbkenya01]

Hi All,

I am looking to buy a travel lens and have narrowed it down to a Sigma 18-200mm. I have not been able to find any reviews for the new 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 II DC OS HSM; all reviews for the 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC are good.

Has anyone used the new version? Any advice is much appreciated .

Cheers,

Raj

[Rob Douglas]

If it has anywhere near the IQ of the 50-500mm I had then you should be more than happy with it. Sorry I don't have any experience with that specific lens though.

[siggi]

I have one , extremely happy , my wife has the Nikkor 18-200 at double the price and I cannot tell the difference in image quality , permanent on D60 , have used it on D90 and D7000.

[rbkenya01]

I have one , extremely happy , my wife has the Nikkor 18-200 at double the price and I cannot tell the difference in image quality , permanent on D60 , have used it on D90 and D7000.

Thanks siggi, sorry are you using the new mark II version?

Seems like a popular travel lens to avoid changing lenses.

[siggi]

it doesn't say MK 2 II , I have had it 18 months , sorry must be a MK I ,surely the new one is even better

[briankaren]

I am alson looking at the Sigma 18-200. Is it better than the Tamron 18-200?
briankaren

[ktuli]

Keep in mind that the newest Tamron is actually an 18-270. I supposedly has a newer/quieter Piezo motordrive for the AF. When I was debating an all-in-one lens, I was actually leaning towards the Tamron after reading reviews that said it performed better than the Sigma.

I ended up not getting any of them though, so take all of that with a grain of salt.

- Bill

[rpcrowe]

Even with some sort of shake compensation (OS, IS, VC) f/6.3 is a pretty small maximum aperture. It is a half stop smaller that the f/5.6 aperture avalable on some other wide range zoom lenses.

I would have a problem shooting at 200mm with a lens that slow. But, I guess that it would be all in how you use the lens...

[rbkenya01]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the advice. Would an 18-125mm f3.8-5.6 be a better option? Its also a little cheaper . As you mentioned it comes down to use; its for travel and have ability to take take indoor photos and have a bit of zoom for outdoor. (I also have a 70-300mm).

Cheers,

Raj

[Dave Humphries]

FWIW, I had problems with the Sigma 18-250mm on my D5000 (back focusing - tried two samples and 'calibration'), so I traded for the Nikon 18-200mm, which I'm pleased with.

I also now have the 70-300mm (Nikon).

[thequacksoflife]

uh the 18-200 doesn't get good reviews! nor does the Tamron 18-200. both the sigma 18-250 and Tamron 18-270 get better reviews than the 18-200's go figure.

i don't agree with Richard about the f5.6 - 6.3 thing honestly its not that big an issue, if we were talking f4 and f6.3......True Nikon/Canon et al say that autofocus is only guaranteed on lens that are f5.6 or faster but there are lots of f6.3 lenses from Sigma and Tamron that work fine.

I have an older Tammy 18-270 it's convenient but you will be better off with a two lens solution. the tammy comes out for family days out and the like.

btw why just sigma?

[rbkenya01]

Hi,

Comparatively, i found better reviews for the Sigma 18-200 than the Tamron equivalent (18-200, 18-250) eg on what digital camera, dp review and others (not to mention the numerous awards Sigma show the lens has received). Nikon would be a bit too expensive for now. Mind you all the reviews/ awards are for the 'mark I' 18-200, so i am assuming the 'mark II' is better. I agree a 2 lens sol is better but this is more for convenience when out and about. The tamron 18-270 seems to be reviewed well but is about £100 more than the Sigma.

[thequacksoflife]

uh there isn't a review of the Tamron 18-200 or 18-250 on dpreview....... just checked there is of the older 18-270

the sigma 18-200 is recommended with reservations....

Conclusion - Pros

Huge 11x focal length range, ideal general purpose and travel lens
Relatively low chromatic aberration
Low distortion (for a superzoom)
Reasonably effective optical stabilization system, 2.5 - 3 stops benefit

Conclusion - Cons

Very inconsistent sharpness through the zoom range - extremely soft at 80mm
Soft corners at all focal lengths
Occasionally indecisive autofocus
Slightly less resistant to flare than its more recent competitors

Sigma's approach will potentially pay dividends for the casual vacation photographer looking to use the images straight out the camera with no post-processing.

However the Sigma is in some other areas a slightly sub-par performer; its optical stabilization unit doesn't provide quite the same level of benefit as the latest, very impressive systems in the Canon 18-200mm EF-S F3.5-5.6 and Tamron 18-270mm F3.5-6.3 Di-II VC. The F6.3 maximum aperture at 200mm also compromises autofocus performance (in terms of accuracy and consistency) a little when compared to the aforementioned Canon and the Nikon AF-S 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G VR DX. On the other hand, it's also substantially cheaper than any of these lenses.

all copyright dpreview.

two of the better review sites are photozone.de or http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

honestly the 18-200 both sigma and Tamron aren't well reviewed. I find it curious that Sigma's 18-250 and Tamron's 18-270 get better reviews. A friend had the Sigma 18-200 on her canon 40d and sold it as it wasn't sharp.

the Sigma 18-125 did well in review i read in a Canon mag.

again why just sigma? what dSLR do you have?

[rbkenya01]

hmm sigma as its cheaper, i have a Nikon D3000 with the 18-55 kit and a sigma 70-300 APO DG. A little confused as i am increasingly finding comments that are not very positive towards the sigma 18-200 but at the same time those who have it seem happy e.g reviews on amazon for the (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-5-6-18...5778375&sr=1-5) this is for the 'mark 1 version'. The pzd Tamron 18-270 is the same price ~£450 as a used but mint condition Nikon 18-200 from a local Nikon dealer.

i agree the sigma 18-250 has better reviews, so may be something to consider. thanks for the other review sites, i'll have a look.

[Robertpb]

Have a look here for some of the best lens testing http://www.photozone.de

The Sigma doesn't come out very well.

[Sigmaman]

I have a Sigma 18-250mm OS HSM and it is truly amazing. The sharpness through all the focal lengths is fantastic. It is well built and is not too heavy. The OS is fast and accurate allowing handheld steady shots even at the 250mm range. The AF is very fast and rarely misses fixing the focus first time. For the price this lens is superb. I have three Sigma lenses and they are all brilliant.
Hope this helps!
David

[Bobobird]

I have the older version of the Tamrom 18-270 which I use for walkaround purposes or when I dont feel like switching lens (especially in this cold).

It is a very decent lens and is good at all FLs.

It has excellent OS. The pics in the recent "ash and coal" thread were taken with this lens and most were shot in the sub 1/30 ISO 200/400 range. Yes, lighting was pretty bad that day.

[Brev00]

I found in my travels that I did not use the long end of my Tamron 28-300 zoom that much. So, I split up the zoom and have found that I use the Sigma 17-70 os most of the time when I am touring a location. It might really be worth checking your own data to determine the focal lengths that you commonly use. With my new lens, I tour areas differently seeing possible images from the prism of my Sigma's range. When I changes lenses, I typically do that for a specific reason and then keep that lens on my camera for a good deal of time. You might be surprised at how effective a range 17-70 really is.

[rpcrowe]

I think that we have to consider equipment reviews with a grain of salt because, IMO, they may just not be totally accurate...

"Professional Reviews" Many of these "reviews" are simply regurgitations of the manufacturer's press releases. Other of these "reviews" are written by people who have a vested interest in not offending the manufacturers for several reasons which can include: manufacturers advertising on their web site and manufacturers loaning equipment for testing. There is also one popular "professional" reviewer, who will remain, nameless whom I consider absolutely incompetent.

"User Reviews" My daughter purchased a "keychain" digital camera at the checkout stand of a supermarket several years ago. I don't remember the name of this plastic monstrosity but it had about 128kb of built in memory and absolutely no removable memory capability. The image quality was horrible but, my daughter loved it! In fact she took it to Europe. I had offered her a 350D to take but, she said the Rebel was too heavy and cumbersome. If my daughter had written a review of this camera, it would have been in glowing terms. However, if you were to have purchased this toy camera, based on my daughters reviews, I am sure that you would have been unhappy. OTOH, other folks are probably far more likely to write a review of equipment that they don't like. Is it always the "arrow" at fault in that case or does the capabilities of the "indian" share the blame?

"Needed Quality" Despite the fact that I shoot with excellent glass, I really believe that many people are "over-gunned" when it comes to digital camera equipment. The photographer who only uses the images to post on social networking sites or to email images of the kids and dog to the grandparents and only gets prints done at discount store photo counters doesn't really need the optimum quality lenses. UNTIL... Until he or she wants to shoot in venues which are beyond the capability of the lenses, such as indoor sports like gymnastics or hockey.

[Brev00]

I would not go this far. I think there is a difference between 'using your own judgment' and 'taking things with a grain of salt.' Since the Sigma 17-70 was not available at any local stores, I had to rely on online sources of information for my midrange lens decision. There are a lot of lens tests and a lot of opinions out there. Some were not favorable. Many sites had not even reviewed it at the time. But, looking at many expert reviews, checking out the pics on the flickr group, and reading user reviews all helped me make my choice. There probably is a great deal of variety to user reviews as indicated but less so if one reads the B & H reviews. Even the Amazon reviews often have enough information to give you a sense of the reviewer (i.e., links to the person's other reviews). My advice is to do your research and subject all of it to your own judgment.