Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC

[Pa]

I just learned that this lens is available. Looks like an ideal travel lens as it is compact and lightweight, and covers a very wide zoom range.

But is it any good? Does anyone know anything about it? I haven't been able to find any reviews/test reports.

Note added later: I just found an older thread on this, concentrating on a comparison with Tamron 18-200. I would still like to know if there is any updated info.

 

[Pa]

Still no responders on this?

Thanks for reading.

 

[GeeJay]

Hi Pa,

I do have the Tamron 18-200 and like it. Also know you can go to www.dpreview.com and search for the two lenses...you may find something there that compares them..

I also know that GENO ,on this forum, has the Tamron 18-200 and he had some good pictures ..I just don't recall where they are but you might want to write him a PM and ask him about his lens experience with the Tamron 18-200.

I hope this helps and wish I could help you more. I just don't know about the other Sigma lens.

Best to you and post what you find out,
Gaye

 

[Francis]

Hello Pa,

I have the Sigma 18-200 and here's a small test I made myself ( kleinste = smallest and "Op aanvraag nog enkele andere opnames = On request some other takes ---> translation of the Dutch used in the webpage :
http://users.skynet.be/Francis/18-200/

This is an image I made of my brother with the SIgma 18-200, believe me, it' s sharp!!!

http://users.skynet.be/Francis/D70/Hans.jpg

Greetz from Belgium

 

[Pa]

Thanks, folks, for your input. Francis, it appears that your lens arsenal is similar to mine, but more complete. I have a D70 with Nikkor 18-70, 70-300, and 50 f/1.8. They are all excellent lenses.

I'm planning an extended trip to Western Canada in late summer, and besides riding around in the car we'll be doing quite a bit of hiking. It would be nice to be able to get by with a single lens, especially while hiking. The 18-70 would be the logical choice, but lacks reach for those long shots of wildlife, etc.

Your samples with the 18-200 are quite impressive, especially the picture of your brother. Have you done any direct comparisons with the 18-70 in their common range?

Thanks again.

p.s. I also have a Coolpix 5700, similar to your 8700. Haven't taken an picture with it since getting the D70.

 

[Francis]

Your samples with the 18-200 are quite impressive, especially the picture of your brother. Have you done any direct comparisons with the 18-70 in their common range?

Thanks again.

p.s. I also have a Coolpix 5700, similar to your 8700. Haven't taken an picture with it since getting the D70.

Hey Pa,

I don't have any direct comparisons with the 18-70 in their common range, if I have the time and if you let me know what you exactly want to be tested, just give me PM and I'll try to do it before my 18-70 is sold....yep, I'm selling it....and I'm going probably for the Tokina 12-24 :wink:

And yes, I know the feeling with the Coolpix, I bought it as a backup camera but I only used it once

 

[GenoP754]

Thanks, folks, for your input. Francis, it appears that your lens arsenal is similar to mine, but more complete. I have a D70 with 18-70, 70-300, and 50 f/1.8. They are all excellent lenses.
quote]

Hi there,

Very interesting the lenses you have, considering they are the lenses in Thom Hogan's Back-country Kit.

http://www.bythom.com/bag.htm

I think the Tamron or Sigma would serve you well with one exception. This would be in low light situations.....unless of course your willing to bring a small tripod. That f/6.3 on the long end is a bit slow and will also limit you if you want to use a polarizer. They basically add up to almost f/9 which the D70 will most likely not focus at all.

Personally if I would opt for the two lens option to get better quality. My last trip I even brought my 70-200VR. One option you may want to consider is the new 55-200 3.5-5.6 to go along with your 18-70. It is half the weight of the 70-300 and also has AFS plus two ED elements. Remember I have not gotten my hands on one yet, however I find the most interesting thing is they have chosen to include 9 (That's RIGHT 9) rounded diaphragm blades! Sounds like the 85 1.4......although you will not be able to open up to 1.4 the sweet spot on the 85 is 5.6 anyway.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2156

Also here are some samples of the 18-200....which are really good if your in nice light or willing to use flash.

GenoP

Nikon D2x ,Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Xr Di-II LD IF
1/60s f/6.3 at 120.0mm iso640 with Flash

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

View attachment 10040

View attachment 10041

View attachment 10042
Tripod!

View attachment 10043

View attachment 10044

 

[Francis]

Pa,

Here's the result of the test I proposed to make for you :
http://users.skynet.be/Francis/Nikkor18-17_Sigma18-200/

I hope it helps you out

 

[Pa]

Super job, Francis, and many thanks!

Yes, it helps quite a bit. Convinces me that it would take a very critical eye to discern the difference. Looks like the 18-200 would serve my purposes quite well, except for low light conditions as pointed out by GenoP above.

Looks like I'll just have to add that to the travel budget!

 

[Pa]

I think the Tamron or Sigma would serve you well with one exception. This would be in low light situations.....unless of course your willing to bring a small tripod. That f/6.3 on the long end is a bit slow and will also limit you if you want to use a polarizer. They basically add up to almost f/9 which the D70 will most likely not focus at all.

Personally if I would opt for the two lens option to get better quality. My last trip I even brought my 70-200VR. One option you may want to consider is the new 55-200 3.5-5.6 to go along with your 18-70. It is half the weight of the 70-300 and also has AFS plus two ED elements. Remember I have not gotten my hands on one yet, however I find the most interesting thing is they have chosen to include 9 (That's RIGHT 9) rounded diaphragm blades! Sounds like the 85 1.4......although you will not be able to open up to 1.4 the sweet spot on the 85 is 5.6 anyway.

Thanks Geno. I'm sure you're right about taking two lenses for better quality. I went for a hike yesterday in the mountains near here and carried the 18-70 and the little 50mm f/1.8. That is an easy combo to carry, but I still like the convenience of one lens. Invariably for me when a photographic opportunity arises there is not time, or it is inconvenient, to change lenses. (Need another body, right?...NOOOO).

I don't find the 55-200 3.5-5.6 listed at B&H. Have you seen a price?

Thanks again for your input.

 

[GenoP754]

Thanks Geno. I'm sure you're right about taking two lenses for better quality. I went for a hike yesterday in the mountains near here and carried the 18-70 and the little 50mm f/1.8. That is an easy combo to carry, but I still like the convenience of one lens. Invariably for me when a photographic opportunity arises there is not time, or it is inconvenient, to change lenses. (Need another body, right?...NOOOO).

I don't find the 55-200 3.5-5.6 listed at B&H. Have you seen a price?

Thanks again for your input.

I have yet to see it listed anywhere...but it sure looks interesting. What I do to be ready to switch lenses is I use a Lowepro lens case on my belt with the alternate lens in it. Open the pouch and take the new lens out. Take caps off and drop them in the bag. Have you D70 dangle against your body and grab the current mounted lens. Place the new lens right next to your camera and push the dismount button with a finger from the same hand. Twist of the old lens and quickly mount the new one and place the old one in the same pouch the new lens came from.

With practice this lens switch should take no more than 10 seconds at worst. I learned this little ditty from Ron Reznick who uses mostly primes. With practice you would be surprised how fast you can do this. It's worth it's weight in gold.

It's not as fast as a twist of the zoom, however it will usually get you a good result to have a better lens. One other option you should consider is the 24-120VR which will give you a wide range plus a higher yield because of the VR and AFS. Gale bought mine from me and many times I really miss it.

GenoP

 

[misupix]

I`m in the same boat!

Right now I´m trying to decide between Sigma/Tamron 18-200 or the Sigma 18-125.

All I need is a walk around lens, when I won`t carry my other Gear!

I`ve handled the Tamron 18-200 and a Sigma 18-125!

My thoughts so far:

- Tamron 18-200 is 379€ while Sigma 18-200 is 349€ (Sigma 18-125 is only 249€!!!)
- After handling the Tamron I decided build quality can`t justify 379€: Plastic Lens mount, won`t feel very solid! (I already have the Tamron 28-75 and love it!)
- the Tamron showed much more CA at the edges, then the Sigma 18-125
- Sigma 18-125 felt much better, sturdier nice feeling on zoom-ring, Metall-Lens-mount
- The 18-200 become from about 90mm to 200mm a very slow f6.3!
- The Sigma 18-125 keeps a f5.6 up to 125mm!
- 18-200 will need very much light to get sharp pictures at 200mm f6.3 handhold!
- There isn't`t so much gain in magnification between 125mm and 200mm, can be cropped!
- if I really need good pictures with the tele range, I will need to carry my nikon AF-S 70-200 VR with TC1.4

My conclusion so far, for getting the Sigma 18-125 f3.5-5.6:
- Save 100€
- Don`t need the 125-200mm Range when hand holdable shooting will be very difficult!
- Sharpness, Contrast and Ca are better optimized in the smaller Range from 18-125mm, then on the 18-200 Lenses.
- Nikon 24-120 VR would be nice, but it out of my pricerange for a walk-around zoomlens and lacks the 18-24mm range.


Does this sound reasonable, too you?

BTW:
The Spell check allways tries to correct Tamron to Tampon! :wink: :wink: :wink: