Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC

[rallyant]

Im new around here ant not to sure where im suppose to post this.

I hate been a newbie with a steep learning curve infront of me again.
I have a new Canon 350d with kit 18-55 lens and am looking to get another lens while I have a friend OS.
I was wandering what the down side or trade off of a wide range lens like the new sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC is over 2 separate lenses?

I cant even find any info on the net, no reviews or anything with info on the quality of this lens.

I assume it will be better than the kit lens in the 18 - 55 range and I like the convenience of been able to go to 200 with the one lens, especially for little outings etc where I just cant take a pile of lenses.

What are your thoughts on this lens?

I know its a very general question, but what do you recommend my next lens should be?

Cheers
Glen

[MCWB]

To be quite frank, these 'all in one' super zooms tend to suck. I have a Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 myself; it's soft even stopped down, and the glass itself is sloooow. I don't bother using it anymore. At 300 mm wide-open you're at f/6.3 but you're going to have to stop down even more to get a hint of sharpness. Fine if you're in bright sunlight (as long as you don't mind soft pics) but pretty useless if the light is sub-optimal. Convenient range of focal lengths, but less than stellar optical performance across the range. As someone who's been there and done that, save your money and get something worthwhile, all-purpose = no-purpose.

[ozonejunkie]

Im new around here ant not to sure where im suppose to post this.

I hate been a newbie with a steep learning curve infront of me again.
I have a new Canon 350d with kit 18-55 lens and am looking to get another lens while I have a friend OS.
I was wandering what the down side or trade off of a wide range lens like the new sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC is over 2 separate lenses?

I cant even find any info on the net, no reviews or anything with info on the quality of this lens.

I assume it will be better than the kit lens in the 18 - 55 range and I like the convenience of been able to go to 200 with the one lens, especially for little outings etc where I just cant take a pile of lenses.

What are your thoughts on this lens?

I know its a very general question, but what do you recommend my next lens should be?

Cheers
Glen

Without using / knowing / ever heard of this lens before, the biggest complaint I would have is the small minimum apperture at the 200mm end. f6.3 is pretty tight.

When I bought my 300D, it came as a kit with the Sigma 55-200 f4.5-5.6 DC lense. For the amount of money it is worth, I think it does an excellent job.

What lense you buy next mainly depends on your price range. Judging by your starting point, you are after a budget lense, which rules out most of the canon range, leaving you with other brands.

I will admit that the 55-200 is not the sharpest lense around, but for the price range you don't expect it to be.

I will also tell you that I am selling my 55-200, as I have upgraded. It is not yet 6 months old, and is very good nick. Comes with UV filter & hood. Let me know if you are interested.

Where are you, one of the mods will probably request that you add your location to your profile as well.

I hope this helps,
Tristan

[ozonejunkie]

Just to further that comment about the Canon's, the only all in one zoom of reasonable telephoto lengh that they make is a 28-300 L series. I would assume it is great, but the AU$4,400 RRP kinda turns me off it!
See:
http://www.canon.com.au/products/camera ... isusm.html

The next step back is a 28-135 IS USM - which a mate of mine owns, and loves. I have just bought the 24-105 3.5-4.5 USM lens, and am learning to love it.

Tristan

[DionM]

While in my opinion a coke bottle would have better optics than the 18-55 kit lens (oooh that's a bit harsh, but anyway ) I would steer away from the super zooms.

To be honest, I find it strange that people buy an interchangable lens camera system and then don't want to change lenses?

You ask the question "what should my next lens be" ... well what do you shoot? I could recommend you a 50 1.8 as a good lens, but if you want to shoot wildlife, it would be no good.

If you want a decent-ish zoom lens, get the Canon 100-300 USM. It is a very good lens - quite sharp from 100-250 mm, and only a touch soft at 300mm.

[rallyant]

Thanx everyone for your replies. ill have to change my order now
I think I will get me a 50 1.8 regardless since its a well priced lens anyway.
As for what I shoot, that's the hardest part about the decision I think.
I am away on holidays in Seychelles atm and will get to use this new lens b4 I come home.
on one hand I guess I have the kit lens for the general stuff, and the 75-300 I have borrowed has a couple of scratches witch ruin the shots and its really annoying.. I do like getting the nature shots and I really like macro, I want to do everything really.... I think a better question might be what is a good general range of lenses. though I know this is still a general question. then I can work out what one I think I will use most to start with.
ortho this may backfire forcing me to use my kit lens for longer?

Its not that I don't want to change lenses. its just that while I have been here on holidays ding little island hop trips in boats etc there have been a couple of times I have taken my camera with only one lens on it, for various reasons, if I fell in the ocean etc. cheaper to replace my cam than a bag of lenses.
I also stress everytime I change a lens on the beach too. and Seychelles is nothing but beach!

You recommend the EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM how do you think that compares to the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?
Im leaning toward the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM atm. I am assuming that apart from the IS the rest of the lens is at least as good as the EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM?

budget of no more than about $1000 for the first lens.



Cheers
Glen K

[DionM]

Thanx everyone for your replies. ill have to change my order now
I think I will get me a 50 1.8 regardless since its a well priced lens anyway.
As for what I shoot, that's the hardest part about the decision I think.
I am away on holidays in Seychelles atm and will get to use this new lens b4 I come home.
on one hand I guess I have the kit lens for the general stuff, and the 75-300 I have borrowed has a couple of scratches witch ruin the shots and its really annoying.. I do like getting the nature shots and I really like macro, I want to do everything really.... I think a better question might be what is a good general range of lenses. though I know this is still a general question. then I can work out what one I think I will use most to start with.
ortho this may backfire forcing me to use my kit lens for longer?

Its not that I don't want to change lenses. its just that while I have been here on holidays ding little island hop trips in boats etc there have been a couple of times I have taken my camera with only one lens on it, for various reasons, if I fell in the ocean etc. cheaper to replace my cam than a bag of lenses.
I also stress everytime I change a lens on the beach too. and Seychelles is nothing but beach!

You recommend the EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM how do you think that compares to the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?
Im leaning toward the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM atm. I am assuming that apart from the IS the rest of the lens is at least as good as the EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM?

budget of no more than about $1000 for the first lens.

Glen,

The 100-300 is better than the 75-300. The IS model is a bit of a let down, the optics are a bit average really.

If you are looking at $1000 to get yourself a bit of a zoom, then the 70-200 F4L is probably your best bet. It is very sharp, and is L quality. You can't go wrong with it.

However that still leaves the 18-55 - if you want to replace that then consider the 17-40 F4L, which is a touch more than $1000. But that only gives you a wide angle for your money, you still don't have a zoom.

Ideally the 17-40 F4L, 50 1.8 and 70-200 F4L would make up a great set of 3 high quality lenses.

[rallyant]

Dayum im glad I found these forums
The more I look into this the more my budget is growing lol

I have given up and just asked for the 50 1.8. im not sure how good the prices are in Singapore are anyway? and tomorrow is his last day there so unless I make up my mine fast ill get nothing.

In reality I probly do take more pix in the 17 - 50 range. even though I prefer a big zoom. so your right.
I think ill get the 17-40 first up, or maybe the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM:), eBay seems to have them at 1700ish?(there goes that budget)
then save for a EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM instead of the 100-300
Is there anything equivalent in the sigma range? like 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC or Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 EX ASPH.
don't know anything about these other than the price is such that I can get it now

Cheers
Glen k

[DionM]

Dayum im glad I found these forums
The more I look into this the more my budget is growing lol

I have given up and just asked for the 50 1.8. im not sure how good the prices are in Singapore are anyway? and tomorrow is his last day there so unless I make up my mine fast ill get nothing.

In reality I probly do take more pix in the 17 - 50 range. even though I prefer a big zoom. so your right.
I think ill get the 17-40 first up, or maybe the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM:), eBay seems to have them at 1700ish?(there goes that budget)
then save for a EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM instead of the 100-300
Is there anything equivalent in the sigma range? like 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC or Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 EX ASPH.
don't know anything about these other than the price is such that I can get it now

Cheers
Glen k

The 17-40 is better than the 16-35. If you want f2.8 at wide angle, grab a prime. The 100-400 L IS is okay, but not really as sharp as most other Ls. It is sharper than the 100-300, that's for sure.