Sigma 18-200mm

[zafra52]

Has any of you the new Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon?

[gstark]

Amongst other things, we have a Tamron 18-250 on hand ATM. I expect to be shooting with it tomorrow.

[zafra52]

I am contemplating getting a walk around lens to avoid changing lenses and I wanted something reasonably sharp and preferably with vibration compensation for my Canon 30D. How good is the Tamron 18-250?

[gstark]

I'll let you know after I've had a play with it.

What we have is one of the new "enthusiast" kits that they're hawking around the place: 2 lenses, plus a handful of Cokin stuff.

We have the 11-18 and 18-250, which means that I'll also be able to shoot side by side comparisons from the Siggy 10-20 against the Tammy 11-18.

I'll be shooting on the D200, but I expect that my impressions will be able to be applied against Canon as well.

[zafra52]

Thanks. I will look forward to see the results of your test.

[Marvin]

Here are a couple of reviews:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Sigma-18-200mm-f35-63-DC

http://www.dphotojournal.com/sigma-18-200mm-f35-63-dc-review-roundup-sample-photos/

[zafra52]

Thank you Marvin for your help. I thought because the Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS is being promoted as a new lens that there would be some optical improvements over the previous model, which is almost half its price.

I found that in Fred Miranda's site the new Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) has a rating of 8.6; while the Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS has only 8.0. And yet, the Sigma has optical stabilisation; while the Tamron should have vibration compensatio but it hasn't.

What makes it more confusing that I read some reviews that praise the Tanrom lens over the Sigma and vice versa that is why I was asking for a first hand opinion just in case some member happened to have one. I guess I am being fanciful because I already got the Canon 17-55, 28-135, 70-200 and the Sigma 70-300 and I found it difficult carrying and changing lenses and avoiding dust in the censor. The last two lenses are too obvious when you are trying to take a candit picture.

[chewlinyip]

I got that lens, along with my first Dslr (400D) for xmas.

I"m very new to photography, but to me its a nice lens. The build quality is very good, and the image stabalizer works as advertised. Colours are nice, some fo my images turn out soft, but i put that down to human error rather than the lens.

Since then i've bought a couple more lenses (Canon 50mm 1.8 and Tokina 12 -24 f4). But i still end up it 90% of the time ! I"ve read reviews of it at places like photozone.de saying its not very useful at 30mm and not to use apetures less than 8, but for my purposes i can't tell the difference!

hope that helps. PS I've just posted some photos of Chinese NY in Melbourne, they were all taken with the sigma.

chewy

[shane33]

would this lense be alot better that the kit 300 mm lense and also should it work ok with a 2x tc

[Glen]

Shane probably worth stating what camera you have and the lens, there have been a few kit lenses with different models

[shane33]

ah yea sorry canon 400d 70-300 non is lense thanks

[zafra52]

I had the Canon 70-300 Non IS, but I was not that happy with it so I swapped for a Sigma 70 -300 Macro APO and and I was a bit more happy because It is a better lens. Now the Sigma 18 - 200 OS would be a more versatile lens that the one you have at the momen from the point of view that it is a wide angle and a telephoto lens at once ( I believe it is also a macro lens for close-ups), but all the literature I have read so far tells me not to expect miracles because you sacrify sharpess. However, the fact that the OS works means that you can take photos at a lower OS without a tripod.

Now, I will never buy a lens without IS (Sigma OS) unless it is a very quick one and it is a prime lense. For further reading check:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=332&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

Sorry I couldn't fine a review for the Canon 70 - 300 Non IS

[ipy]

My 1st Sigma lense & it's great for travel & walkaround lense. During my last oversea trip, I used it 95% of the time even when I had/brought a EF50mm f/1.8 & Tokina 12-24mm. It's not the sharpest of my lenses but love the wide focal range & the lightweight vs the "L" lenses .

[Joshman]

i just got my lens today, so i haven't had a real chance to look at it all that well, however my first shots indicate that the OS works rather well, but my lens appears to be quite soft at the extreme wide end.

from what i read and hear, Sigma have a few quality control issues at times, so some lens' aren't quite upto scratch.

eithe way, 'll prolly check back in once i'ce had a bit more of a play, possibly with some shots to show off.

[Grev]

The Sigma 18-200 OS isn't that good I think, too much noise when focusing or when OS-ing and just don't focus as fast as the other lenses.

[mickeyjuice]

but my lens appears to be quite soft at the extreme wide end.

Well, it is an ultra-zoom.

[Joshman]

both very good point on it being noisy and and slow to focus, as well as it being soft because of the ultra-zoom range, however, on further use of this lens, there are a few things that i like:
the OS works
the 200mm end of the zoom is sharp. sharper than i'd hoped, and sharper than the wide end, which suits me and my style fine.
it's fairly compact and fantastic for a walk around lens.
the price, only cost me $370 delivered to my door.

however that being said, there are a few things that it could do better.
there is a bit of CA appearing every now and then, but only around the edges of the images, which can be avoided with the use of careful composition and camera settings.
it is a noisy and slowish focus system, but it is fairly accurate.

overall, for the money i put down on this lens, i'm not disappointed, and it will suit me fine until i can afford a better body, at which point i'll prolly grab an 'L' lens anyway.