Does anyone know about the Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC?

[TMR Design]

I am looking for a good, general purpose replacement for the kit lens when I buy my XTi. I see that many people speak highly of Sigma and the pictures I have seen from other lenses are really great. This lens would get me through just about anything and it is compact too.

Please keep in mind when critiquing and reviewing lenses that I am by no means a professional and my eye does not see half of what some of you guys see when you look at pictures.

I would love to get a lens like this as my first lens and then add specialty lenses for things like super macro shots.

Any opinions or first hand experience with this lens?

http://www.berger-bros.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=SIG777&Category_Code=SIGMA_LENSES&Product_Count=3

[vjack]

The Sigma 18-200 and 18-125 are widely reported to have auto-focus problems. In your situation, I'd go with the Sigma 17-70 instead.

[jcw122]

I own this lense and have had it for about a year now (I've owned my entire setup for a year).

I really enjoy the lense, it has a nice sturdy build, a huge focal range (real wide, to pretty good tele), and has pretty good IQ too (but I can't really compare it to anything else IQ wise, I only have a 50mm otherwise).

The only things I do not care for are the small-ish aperatures, but that's not a big deal.

*One minor problem, is that it's not always a true 200mm lense when you have it set to 200mm, if you focus closer, it will move down to ~150mm or so, but that's only optically, you need to be looking through the lense to see this effect* To me it's not really a big deal, cause it's pretty good zoom for me...and for the price it's no problem at all, and hasen't been a problem thus far.

I'm pretty sure it would make a great replacement compared to the kit lense, and also open up the telephoto range to you also. I myself LOVE having it for walking around nearly anywhere, because of it's wide to telephoto range.


BTW, never heard of AF problems, I did pretty good research before buying this lense. I'll also add that the Tamron is not as good as the Sigma, the Tamron version has bad CA and other issues.

[Southswede]

The Sigma 18-200 and 18-125 are widely reported to have auto-focus problems. In your situation, I'd go with the Sigma 17-70 instead.


I guess I am the owner of the ONLY 18-200 Sigma that has NO focus problems and sharp lens results, because I love this lens.....no wait: a good friend of mine also has this lens and LOVES it too! That would be BOth lenses that are free of focus problems......no wait: there is a guy over on FM, that readily compares his 18-200 with his L glass....My wife is a crime scene cop and she is issued a S 2 Pro and the 18-125, as are the five other cops in her unit. They all report great results and produce great images.

Most people who poo poo the Sigma, don't own and have never used it.


http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=1542f00681da147/shopdata/0020_Lenses/0010_Zoom/0010_Digital+Zoom/product_details.shopscript?article=0490_Sigma%2BZo om%2BWide%2BAngle-Telephoto%2B18-200mm%2Bf%3D26slash%3D3B3%3D252E5-6%3D252E3%2BDC%2BAutofocus%2BLens%2Bfor%2BCanon%2B Digital%2BEOS%2B%3D28SG18200F35CA%3D29


Here is where I got mine....

[TMR Design]

Thanks for the input. It's always good to hear what the general buzz is but it really helps when those that own and use the product chime in. I am really glad to hear that you love the lens. Do you find it to be good general purpose and a good replacement for the kit lens. I just know that if I have the kit lens I am going to be swapping lenses a lot because I shoot many things and never know what will come my way. This lens would give me what I need, at least to get started because I am currently used to my A620 which has an effective range of 35-140mm. So if I have something that has a wider angle and on the other end has greater telephoto capability I would be very happy.

Can I see some pictures you've taken with this lens?

[TMR Design]

I guess that while we are having this discussion, if anyone knows of other lenses that have that kind of range and are good quality I would love to hear about them. Obvioulsy I am looking at pricing. I don't want to completely sacrifice quality for price but I also know I do not need high end lenses that cost thousands to make me a happy photographer.

[Nick_C]

Now I cant comment on this one as I dont own it & have never used one, but from everything I have seen & read online you are getting too much for your money, 18-200 has to have some compromises somewhere.

Here are some reviews incase you havent seen these:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_18200_3563/index.htm

Photos here:
http://www.rtfract.com/d70sigma.htm

http://www.pixagogo.com/0280105208

Nick :-)

[deniska]

I am now intrigued. I own the 17-70, and really like it, but often wish for a longer lens. I've been contemplating buying a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 to complement my 17-70. I might still do that at some point... but a decent 18-200 in a $300 range? That would be nice (read: unbelievable). Here's a good review: http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=365

Proves that a) this is a decent lens for the money, and 2) you get what you pay for.

[Jon]

In gen eral, lenses with long zoom ranges just don't have the IQ of lenses with shorter ranges. Correcting a lens for all aberrations is very difficult een for primes; for zooms it' worse, and when the zoom's a 11x, it's really tough. Look at the price of Canon's 28-300 L.

[Southswede]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=107722&d=1157494774

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=106439&d=1157053411

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=82184&d=1148776033

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=58536&d=1140576019

[tiziano]

I have the direct competitor of that lens: the Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3, and I am very happy with it.
Of course, it's not comparable, for IQ, with the L lens I own, but it is much better of the Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 I own.
And, when you are travelling, and walking all day, having only one lens that can do everything is a good help. Not only for the weight, but for not having to spend time changing lens.

[deniska]

Something to consider: Sigma 28-200 f/3.5-5.6
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=461

[TMR Design]

To my eye and from what I am reading, I am not sure that the 'problems' cited will be an issue at all for me. I would still like to see other lenses with this range and would consider spending a little more if I felt it was worth it.

But for me, this lens looks like it might be the ticket for most of my shooting needs.

[TMR Design]

I just took a look at the Tamron and some reviews for it and it also looks like an excellent lens for my purposes.

I do have a thought on this though. Even though the kit lens is not the best lens either (I only put it this way because of the way so many people feel about the lens. From what I have seen it will also give me excellent results.) I am thinking that if I do work indoors or do portrait work of any kind I might want to use the kit lens and not the 18-200mm.
Does this make sense? Perhaps I should get the XTi with the kit lens and then I can still take pictures and work with the camera as I figure out which general purpose lens I can get. Most or all of the pictures I would be taking with the 18-200mm will be outdoors and moderate to high level light.

[tiziano]

Yes, the kit lens will be better for portrait, and at that price, they are worth.

[TMR Design]

To also put things into perspective....I have now read many many reviews of this lens and there are some pimitiations and shortcomings pointed out....however, I am coming from an A620 compact that has been taking clear, crisp pictures with vibrant color, great depth of field and just all around beautiful pictures and covering the lenses range of 35-140. I simply love it.

So with that in mind, if I were to make the jump to an XTi with the Sigma 18-200mm I have a feeling I am going to love it and be quite ecstatic and by the time I get to the point where I find I am needing more (or better) then I am sure I will have gotten my ~$300 worth and will feel fine about moving on to something better (and more costly).

I just can't see myself unhappy with this setup.
Does anyone really disagree with me on this?

[Coco-Puffs]

I have a Tamron 28-200 that I use for my film EOS but I like it.
it just has way too much zoom that I sometimes cant decide how I want to compose things.

[Steve1096]

I have the Sigma 18-200 and am very happy with it in that it is one lens and covers such a wide range. It is very nice to carry around just the camera with one lens and do it all.

However, I am currently in the process of moving to a two lens set up...the Canon 17-85 IS and the Canon 70-300 IS ( if i can ever find one :lol: )

I have gotten some absolutely wonderful shots with my Sigma and get alot of compliments on my photos. However, I often think that they might be better... That is why I am going to try to move to this set up. Sometimes I find I can have a hard time holding steady enough at 200mm and often want some more reach, that is why I am wanting the 70-300 IS over the 70-200 f4L.

I just got the 17-85 IS and have not had the chance to go do a real good comparison of it vs the 18-200 yet. Hopefully I will get a chance next week and see if I can notice any significant difference.

Looking Glass Waterfalls at Pisgah National Forest in Brevard, NC.

[TMR Design]

Very nice picture Steve and thank you for sharing your thoughts. I know that there is every potential to outgrow gear and find its limitations but I also wonder how long it would take for those things to happen to me. As I have stated, I am not new to photography and have had digital cameras for years, the A620 being my current camera, but this will be my first DSLR (probably getting the XTi) and first lens or lenses. Even if I outgrow a camera or lens I can't imagine that happening too quickly. It took me almost a year with my A620 to feel I need to upgrade and if that were to happen again I wonder whether a year with a good general purpose lens is better and more beneficial to me than spending a lot more and not knowing where I am going or what I really need. I should also say that I am not upgrading because of any disappointment in image quality on the A620. It is outstanding but things like having a viewfinder that sees what the lens sees, a hot shoe, interchangeable lenses and some other features have become important to me.

Unless a lens like this just outright sucks then from what I have seen in reviews and what others say about it I think I would be happy, even if I were to outgrow it over time. The focus concerns me a bit but when I see owners posting they really minimize this problem and some say they don't even experience any pfoblems. Something like soft edges could be a problem but I also always shoot at the highest res because I almost always crop. I would never make excuses for buying a bad product but from what I see the pros will never like lenses like this for obvious reasons and semi-pros and hobbyists seem to find it to be a really good lens, especially for general purpose work.

I always have to consider my own skill level and needs.

[MillCreek]

Let's see now, I have a Sigma 18-200, 10-22, 17-70, 28-80, 70-300, 70-200 2.8 and I have my eye on the Tokina 80-400. Do I get better pictures with the 17-70 and 70-200? Yes, I do, but that can require a bit of pixel peeping. I am happy with my 18-200, and think it represents a fine value for the money, especially as a replacement for the kit lens.

[Steve1096]

I am still what I would consider a complete novice. I have gone from the Fuji s3000 (bought used from a friend)....which got me started in this stuff :D , to the Fuji s5100 (which I still own and my girlfriend is using, and is an awesome little camera), to the Rebel XT....in a year and a half or so.

I ordered the XT with the kit lens, basically not knowing any better, so that when I upgraded, I would have a lens to go with the camera, and the Tokina 24-200 lens. Never used the kit lens, and still havent, other than to check it out to see how it did. Do not like the extreme short zoom range. (I am still basically in to tourist mode shooting where go from wide to tele every other shot). The 24-200 I liked alot, but found it not to be wide enough on occasion.

So, I got the Sigma 18-200. Quality wise, I am not a pixel peeper and can not tell any sigificant difference betwee the kit lens, Tokina 24-200, and the Sigma 18-200. Then, I was to shoot my sister's wedding. So I screwed up and bought the Canon 50mm 1.8 mkII to use for the portraits. I did notice an increase in "niceness" of the portraits with the 50mm vs. all other shots with the 18-200. But then again, candids walking around outside during the ceremony, and then inside in a very low light area having to use the Sigma flash with a stofen omnibounce on it, versus some take your time formal portraits and using fill flash.

Everyone said I did a great job and were very happy with the photos. Out of about 400 pictures taken....I only had about 4 or 5 that were very out of focus to the point of deletion, and I feel that those were just flat out operator error, not the lens.

But now seeing the difference between the Sigma 18-200 and the Canon 50mm 1.8 mkII, and wanting some more zoom, and hopefully some IS to help take those long shots (do NOT want to carry a tripod or monopod with me :p ), I am going to try the 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS combo.

My sister's wedding. First photo from the Sigma 18-200. Second photo from the 50mm. Both pictures only cropped and resized to post on here... other than that, straight out of the camera.

[Steve1096]

Well, I finally got out and got to take some pics with my new Canon 17-85 IS. I must say, I think I like it better than the Sigma 18-200... but not by much.

First pic is taken with the Sigma 18-200 back in May this year.
1/80s, f/8, iso 100, awb, at 72mm.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n278/Steve1096/IMG_6629.jpg


Second pic was taken today with the Canon 17-85 IS.
1/125s,f/8, iso 100, awb, at 72mm.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n278/Steve1096/IMG_8370.jpg


Probably not the best for comparisons, but the closest to same shots I got right now.

[eljustino]

I've researched this a lot and I own "better" lenses.

But "better" tele lenses are ALL going to be much larger/heavier. That's what made me choose the 18-200 in the end.

The main compromises with this lens:
- f5.6 is not as nice as f2.8, but that's the price you pay for a compact superzoom
- sharpness at full zoom is not as good as my 80-200L but that's a small price to pay for avoiding backache from carrying such a monstrosity!
- AF is a bit slow
- focus seems to change at different zoom lengths (need to refocus when you zoom)

The upside?
- Great colour
- Quality at 18mm is superb and you get f3.5
- Very lightweight

I am very pleased - I have effectively "traded down" because I want a full range of focal lengths without carrying extra weight (eg a large high quality tele) or having to change lenses.

[jev]

If my opinion if you are looking to replace a kit lens, definately buy it
(i can even sell you one with a good discount as i don;t use it anymore)

However in my experience if you take a lots of photos you will very quickly outgrow it, so I would recomend something faster like f/2.8 lenses from sigma or L glass which is expensive
As you take more pictures you start notice differences in colors and sharpness comparing to other lenses

[TMR Design]

Thats great to hear eljustino. I am still on the fence about it and probably won't really know what is going to work for me until I get the camera and work with the lens.

[Southswede]

I've researched this a lot and I own "better" lenses.

But "better" tele lenses are ALL going to be much larger/heavier. That's what made me choose the 18-200 in the end.

The main compromises with this lens:
- f5.6 is not as nice as f2.8, but that's the price you pay for a compact superzoom
- sharpness at full zoom is not as good as my 80-200L but that's a small price to pay for avoiding backache from carrying such a monstrosity!
- AF is a bit slow
- focus seems to change at different zoom lengths (need to refocus when you zoom)

The upside?
- Great colour
- Quality at 18mm is superb and you get f3.5
- Very lightweight

I am very pleased - I have effectively "traded down" because I want a full range of focal lengths without carrying extra weight (eg a large high quality tele) or having to change lenses.


Well said.

[Michel Souris]

Have the Sigma 18-125, and it's great - quick focussing, accurate, with good range. "Replaced" it with a Canon 17-85IS (couldn't resist the hype), and I don't think the Canon is better, except for the IS of course. Considering selling the Canon and going back to the Sigma as my walk-around.

[kenwchan]

I had the Sigma 18-200 and thought it was a competent lens but for some reason the skin colours sometimes come out a bit more "warm" or "red" or slightly overexposed in bright light. I haven't used it a while b/c I got a 70-200 f4 and then just ended up selling it. But it was a pretty good lens. I am just a hobbyist - my feeling about this lens is that it's good value - but it may not satisfy your craving for sharp pictures and you may end up selling it later. Depends if you're that kind of purchaser (i know i am).

Before that, I had a Sigma 28-200 that worked fine on my EOS film camera but it just would not focus properly on my 350D when I went digital, so i sold it. Maybe i just never noticed problems with it on the film camera as I was just developing 4x6? Who knows.

Hope that helps a bit
Ken

[razyl]

My two cents: I got the sigma 18-200mm lens when i bought my 350D about 18mths ago. I find it outstanding for zoom range: you simply cant beat being able to go from wide 28mm to long 320mm!! For a walk-around lens i doubt it can be beaten for range.....but for this wide zoom range i think you do lose image quality, focusing etc.

I used it a lot on a recent trip overseas and the versatility is amazing and saved me changing lens which was great when you dont want to open your camera bag for all the world to see /steal! I even got some reasonable macro shots by using the zoom on flowers etc but you do need a steady hand.

Picture quality wise I havent had any major issues but if you're doing professional stuff, weddings or whatever i would go for a lens with less range and better aperture.

Overall: cheap lens and VERY versatile.

Darryn

[DDA]

UPDATE: Sigma just released an OS version of this lens:

NEW PRODUCT INFORMATION - 18 - 200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS

* Equipped with Sigma’s own unique technology OS (Optical Stabilizer) function.
* Two SLD (Special Low Dispersion) glass elements and two aspherical lenses provide excellent correction for all types of optical aberrations.

The Sigma Corporation is please to announce the new 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS lens.

[buze]

I'm still quite fond of my 18-200 too; despite my 60 or so lens shelf with some mighty things on it, I took it last week-end to act as a "polaroid" for my large format photos, and to grab snaps too. As it turns out it still gave me excellent results, even with the polarizer I had mounted most of the time.
The 18-200 is hard to beat on a sunny day for versatility. Yes I could use less barrel distortion at 18mm, but otherwise I was always happy with it.

The new "OS" look interesting, since the lens is slow at the long end sometime I have to bump the ISO if a shot is in the shadows; that a pitfall I fell in early on...

I added a bunch of shots to this page I did this week-end with that lens: http://galleries.oomz.net/pub/060920/

http://galleries.oomz.net/pub/060920/S/IMG_0737.jpg