Sigma or Nikon 18-200 VR/OS?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by MikeG76, Aug 16, 2008.

  1. MikeG76

    MikeG76

    950
    Jun 11, 2008
    Middletown, NY
    I'm trying to find a review on the Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 to compare it to the Nikon VR2 model and can't find one. Does anyone have sample pics of each or recommendations?
     
  2. monkay

    monkay

    250
    Jun 12, 2008
    New Jersey
    Funny you ask. I'm in the exact same situation and made a thread and I think it was very productive. I'm still gathering the money, but I'm planning to go with the Sigma because it's cheaper and will let me save for my next lens. Also, I saw a few reviews in which the Sigma beat the Nikon in IQ and has a thread lock to prevent creep. Lastly, at this point in my photography "career", I don't need top of the line glass (not that I don't want it) so I'm opting for the option that'll take less of a bite out of my wallet. Okay I'm done ranting now. See my thread.

    https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=183469

    Oh and a great site to see plenty of sample images is Pixel Peeper.

    http://www.pixel-peeper.com
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  3. The latest Popular Photography just recommended it as the logical all-in-one. They did a test sometime in the last year or so on it, if I recall. You might check out their website test link.
     
  4. I had the Sigma in a Canon mount. It's a good lens, for it's purpose. I think the two biggest differences are going to be the warmer tone the Sigma gives and mainly the slower minimum aperture. The OS of the Sigma is very effective too. You also get a nice padded case and zoom lock.
     
  5. Forgot to mention..

    As with most super-zooms, there's going to be a compromise somewhere. Taking into consideration where the two lenses fall off/excel, I'd give overall IQ to the sigma, especially at the long end.
     
  6. Why buy an Apple computer if you're just going to run Windows Vista? Get the real deal Nikon!

    That's the reason Nikon made a ton of consumer grade lenses, so you guys don't have to buy ******* products!
     
  7. pforsell

    pforsell

    Jan 15, 2008
    The Sigma is so much better built and does not suffer from the zoom creep. If I ever wanted a superzoom those would be reason enough.

    How do you like your real deal Nikkor 90 macro and real deal Nikkor 500 HSM?
     
  8. monkay

    monkay

    250
    Jun 12, 2008
    New Jersey
    Nikkor 500 HSM? :confused: 
     
  9. JusPlainCrayzee

    JusPlainCrayzee Administrator Administrator

    You might want to check out dpreview.com for a review of the sigma and the nikon 18-200mm. also cameralabs.com has a review with examples of the tamron vs nikkor vs sigma 18-200. here's the link:

    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikkor18200mm/page4.shtml

    I can't speak for the Sigma, as I've not tried it. I do have the Nikkor and I've gotta say, I really do like it and tend to use it more than my other lenses.

    Good luck with your decision...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 17, 2008
  10. Bradwb

    Bradwb Guest

    I've been wondering this myself as I have the 18-135 Nikon and would like more telephoto and VR as a replacement. When talking to the Camera Store rep where I live they said they use the Nikon but the only reason why is cause the VR gets you up to 4 stops whereas with the Sigma they find only 2 stops advantage. The other Nikon advantage is a 5.6 instead of 6.3 aperture.

    Other than that though they said the Sigma is almost $200 cheaper, better built and doesn't have the zoom creep program and is sharper than the Nikon especially on the tele end. I also read in Popular Photography that the Sigma is sharper than the Nikon.

    Hope to shoot with both someday down the road and see which I prefer. But if the above info is true I'd definitely be leaning towards the Sigma.

    Nikon has 5 year warranty, not sure what Sigma is though?
     
  11. I'd admit, I harbor illegitimate children!

    Honestly if I had a choice right now, I'd swap the Tamron 90 with a 105 VR and the Sigma 500 for a 500 VR. Both superior lenses by all counts. Is it worth my wallet though? Not really because those are my least used lenses!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 17, 2008
  12. Can't speak for the Sigma, but I love my Nikon 18-200VR lens, as it allows for low shutter speeds even hand held, I went to a gig a few weeks ago and got these shots hand held with no monopod.

    2771003005_dca02ea13d_o.
    This was shot at 1/20 sec and 200mm hand held

    2760232091_1b414d14e0_o.
    This is to show how far back I was when I took the close up shot.
     
  13. MikeG76

    MikeG76

    950
    Jun 11, 2008
    Middletown, NY
    Very true, this is a huge deciding factor, I believe some Sigmas only have a 1 year warranty while others have a 1 year + 3 year, similar to Nikon's deal. Plus, I'm pretty happy with Nikon service in Melville, NY so far.

    I'm still on the fense between these two. Reading up on the reviews and then probably decide in a week or so.

    Thanks guys!

    Impressive shots by the way for the conditions you had. Its good to see shots with the lens on a D200, since I may pick that up first.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 17, 2008
  14. Cope

    Cope

    Apr 5, 2007
    Houston, Texas
    I don't consider the 18-200 Nikon "the real deal Nikon", nor do I consider the Sigma 18-200 OS a ******* product.
     
  15. I own the Nikkor, and that's precisely why I recommend the Sigma instead. The Nikkor is a good lens optically, very useful. It's also got the worst build of any NIkkor I know of other than perhaps the 28-80. Mine's been damaged twice, once to the point of separating into two pieces - this is not an exaggeration, see below - and if it comes to having to send it to Melville again, I won't do it. I'll replace it with a Sigma. I have owned close to thirty lenses, including a bunch of Sigmas and Tamrons, and I'm pretty comfortable saying that none of the others would have had a problem in this circumstance. The problem is that the front of the lens is held to the rear with three plastic lugs, and one of them is only 3mm thick. The others are 5mm and 11mm. Unfortunately only two have to break for the lens to come apart. Once you see the inside of this thing you get a better appreciation of where its values are - and aren't.

    And the zoom creep is ridiculous. It's not an issue while actually shooting, just when you're carrying the lens on the camera - which of course, is precisely what this lens is (otherwise) good at. It does not creep ALL the time if it's zoomed back to 18mm, but there have been many times when I'm carrying it around and all of a sudden I realize that it's zoomed out. And due to the build issues cited above, that's precisely when it's a problem. It would be one thing if a zoom lock were something that cost a fortune, but it doesn't - the Sigma has one and costs $200 less, so one would think that Nikon could work out how to do the same.

    When it's working, it works very well. On the other hand, I don't care much if the Sigma is sharper. The Nikkor is good enough for pretty much any non-professional work, and if the Sigma is better, so be it. I've made 11x14s from the 18-200 and they stand up just fine against similar sized prints from much more respected lenses (albeit not of the same subject).

    DSC_0360-crashed-vr.
     
  16. I had the Sigma lens when I shot with an Sigma DSLR and now have the Nikon version. Overall I'd have to give the thumbs up to the Nikon however my Sigma copy may have been slightly out of calibration. The OS on the Sigma works at least as well as Nikon's VR but my experience has been that the Nikon is slightly sharper (read caveat above). Of course the Nikon is several hundreds of dollars more expensive so if money were an object I'd have no problem trying another Sigma.

    You can see examples of both lenses in my pbase galleries. Most of my shots have the lens noted under the picture so they aren't too hard to find. Just about all of my later Sigma shots were done with the 18-200. On the Nikon side my Disneyland gallery was shot entirely with the 18-200.

    http://www.pbase.com/miketuthill
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.