Canon EF 24-105mm v Sigma 18-200mm [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

View Full Version : Canon EF 24-105mm v Sigma 18-200mm

i robot

25th of February 2007 (Sun), 14:22

Hi all, I am new to the digital SLR photography game so please excuse my novice questions. After my recent purchase of a Canon 400D I am already completed addicted but alas discovered very quickly that my kit lens has its limitations. I am now researching the net to see what might be the best lens for me.

And there's where my problem begins. Obviously, price is a factor but I would rather spend money if it means better quality. On the other hand, if there are value lens out there I would be grateful if anyone could recommend one.

My final issue is that I would perfer a lens that has quite a good range, and although I know prime lenses are favoured, I would prefer a lens that doesn't have to be changed too often.

Two lenses that keep coming up in my searches are the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM and the cheaper Sigma 18-200mm /3.5-6.3 DG C/AF

RikWriter

25th of February 2007 (Sun), 14:26

I would definitely reccomend the 24-105 over the Sigma 18-200. But if you want a good walkaround for a crop body, I would suggest the Sigma 17-70. 24 might not be wide enough at the wide end for you.

KevC

25th of February 2007 (Sun), 14:28

24mm is far too narrow on a crop body. Look into the Sigma 17-70. It should be sharper than the 18-200.

The 24-105L is a great lens, but wont be good for an "all-in-one" solution IMHO.

tom1s

25th of February 2007 (Sun), 16:44

I agree that the 24-105 might not be wide enough for you on a crop body, but it’s one heck of a lens.

Tony-S

25th of February 2007 (Sun), 19:21

Two lenses that keep coming up in my searches are the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM and the cheaper Sigma 18-200mm /3.5-6.3 DG C/AF

Well, optically, the Canon is the better lens. But the Sigma is respectable for its range. 24mm is really not wide enough for a crop camera if you want to do landscapes or other such imaging. The 18-200, like all super zooms, suffers from a bit of pincusioning and barrelling (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_18200_3563/index.htm) at the ends. You can see a few images from it here (http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/18-200_35-63_dc). A modified version of this lens is due in the US market at the end of March, which has built-in optical stabilization.

liza

25th of February 2007 (Sun), 19:44

For a beginner, the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-70 would be good replacements for the kit lens. Don't buy a hyperzoom, like the Sigma you listed. They tend to have rather poor image quality.

JohnJ80

25th of February 2007 (Sun), 22:06

For a beginner, the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-70 would be good replacements for the kit lens. Don't buy a hyperzoom, like the Sigma you listed. They tend to have rather poor image quality.

In general, this is true. However, I have the 24-105, the sigma 18-200 and a sigma 18-50.

The sigma 18-200 is an amazing little performer and, certainly my copy, does not qualify as "rather poor image quality" and quite the contrary. For what it does - outdoors (or in with a flash) and without USM - it is an amazing little performer. When I want to go fast and light, this is the lens that goes on my XT. It also makes a great substitue for the kit lens.

The 24-105 is excellent on my 5D and they make an amazing combination. It is *ok* on the XT, not for its IQ (which is excellent) but because it isn't wide enough but ok on the long end. I always wish I had a 17mm long end. At 24mm, it seems not wide enough on my crop body.

I'd also go with the recommendation of the 17-70 or the tam 17-50. I would caution that if you are shooting fast moving kids, you will find that these lenses lack the speed of Canon's USM focusing and you will have a harder time tracking fast moving subjects.

J.

darktiger

25th of February 2007 (Sun), 22:12

I have the 24-105 and the Sigma 18-200. Big difference in the lens(but big price difference too). I love my 24-105 and would not go back.

aloha03gs

25th of February 2007 (Sun), 22:14

24-105L! lol but i am a lil bias :lol:

mcminty

26th of February 2007 (Mon), 01:46

I too have some bias. But then again, I did my research and look what happened.

In making the 10x+ zoom for the sigma lens, there would be a hell of a compromise in some aspect of the lens (eg. image quality, af, etc). For a quality point of view, I would go with the 24-105. Also, some people have mentioned 17-70, 17-50 lenses. You could have a look at the canon 17-55 2.8 IS. I hear that is awesome.

What do you intend to use the long end of the sigma for? At that end of the zoom range, the aperture is F6.3!!!

Now, all canon DSLRs (bar 1-series) can't autofocus [using teleconverters] if the working aperture is above F5.6. This begs the question, will it autofocus properly on the 400D at the 200mm end (ie.F6.3)?

Another thing to possibly get is a 'nifty fifty'. It is the 50mm f1.8. While it's a prime lens, it can let in so much more light [f1.8] compared to your other lenses [f4+]. It'll also mean a more shallow Depth of Field (DoF). You can use this to create some more 'creative shots. Here (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=186207) is the thread containing 40+ pages of nifty fifty example shots. Or, if you want, you can spend more and get a Canon 50mm 1.4 (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=139085).

Sorry for any spelling mistakes...

Andrew.

JohnJ80

26th of February 2007 (Mon), 08:28

LIke I said, I have both lenses. While the 18-200 is not as good as the 24-105, it is a surprisingly good lens.

Here is a gallery of some test shots I took when I got it:
http://www.pbase.com/johnj80/sigma_18200
These are full size, so be prepared for some large downloads. These shots were all handheld, no post processing.

Here are some shots I took about a year ago on a business trip. I took just my XT and the 18-200 (traveling light).

http://www.pbase.com/johnj80/golden_gate_bridge

Like I said, I'm sure the 24-105 on my 5D would have done better, but we are starting to split hairs at that point.

For the 18-200, used in good light, one can achieve surprisingly good results without going to great lengths.

For a starting lens, this is better than the kit lens by quite a bit with a lot more range to boot. One can use this and have then a good idea of the range that one likes to shoot. For a first lens on a new DSLR, this is hard to beat. Additionally, on the smaller DSLRs (XT, XTI) this lens makes a great alternative to a P&S or for a rig that is easy to carry and use. The results are surprisingly good and the lens is a good and solid performer with not a lot of idiosyncrasies to overcome.

J.

i robot

27th of February 2007 (Tue), 07:14

Sorry I haven't been back in to check my responses sooner. Thanks so much for your advice, albeit I am still a little confused. My shots to date consist of mostly portraiture and lanscapes and I like to shot a little macro.

I just dont know and I am even tempted to by the suggestion of a good prime lens and as one of the other posts I read said 'let my feet do the zoom work'.

My kit lens has produced what I think are some alright shots but It's the number of shots I have to take to get 'the one'. Maybe its my level of ability. I am attaching a few shots and would love some feedback! Even if it hurts.

JohnJ80

27th of February 2007 (Tue), 08:42

You clearly are doing well with your camera.

You will not find one lens that does 'everything' - that is the role of the P&S camera.

I'd advocate acquiring glass slowly so that you can (a) learn how each lens works and its idiosyncracies and (b) to avoid making expensive missteps.

You can get a very decent DSLR setup with 2-3 lenses that can keep you happy for many hours. My favorite setup is the Canon 17-40 f/4L and the 70-200 f/4. These are two lenses that produce excellent results and are at excellent price points. You can substitute for each of them but you would be hard pressed to do better than this in terms of image quality, build and utility. You could get these for a bit more than the 24-105.

While I think the 18-200 is an excellent lens, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it, it is a compromise over these two. This lens is best used as an all purpose/travel light lens. Another good use for it is if you are not sure what focal range you want to use. This lens covers a lot of ground and you can experiment with it. What it will not do is be as rapid at focusing (and it looks like you want to take lots of pictures of fast moving cute kids) and you will miss some opportunities because of that. I, personally, will not buy any lens anymore that doesn't have USM (or equivalent) focusing capability (speed).

There are alternatives to the 17-40 such as the tamron 17-50, the canon 17-55, the sigma 17-70 anf 18-50. You can look at each of these in turn and decide, but for now, you have that range covered with your kit lens (which will do in the short term). The 17-40 won't disapoint and has been a solid performer for many years. It will also work on a FF camera which the others won't. It is one of my favorite lenses on my 5D.

The two lens set that I advocate will do you very well for landscapes and should be ok for portraits (but I'm not into portraits that much so others may be better able to comment). If you are into landscape you should probably consider getting a good tripod probably after you get your next lens. It is a critical component in taking sharp landscapes. Many of the best landscape shooters take a minuscule number of shots without a tripod. Probably a big help in portraiture as well.

Anyhow, FWIW, hope that helps.

J.

i robot

27th of February 2007 (Tue), 14:28

Once again thanks for the advice. I am still not sure what lens to go for but I will continue to search and save. Please keep posting advice. Great forum!!!!!

Pete-eos

27th of February 2007 (Tue), 14:41

Once again thanks for the advice. I am still not sure what lens to go for but I will continue to search and save. Please keep posting advice. Great forum!!!!!

Edit: I'd consider a 2 lens setup, the 24mm is not wide enough on a crop body.

I'd consider:

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Sigma 17-70

If you need more zoom, strap on a Canon 70-200 F4L or 70-300 IS

Then buy the 50mm f/1.8 for the fun of it! :cool:

eosslr

27th of February 2007 (Tue), 15:06

Pete-eos,
you probably mean 24mm is not too wide on a crop. With 1.6x crop it becomes something like 38mm. Wide, but not super-wide. For an ultra-wide fl, go with 17mm and below.

Canon EFS 10-22 (review http://slrlensreview.com/content/view/26/58/) or Sigma DC 10-20 are both pretty good. Canon 17-40 (review http://slrlensreview.com/content/view/25/58/) is also a good lens. For more zoom, I agree either Canon 70-200 f/4 (review http://slrlensreview.com/content/view/70/60/) or Canon 70-300 IS are great.

-A

Pete-eos

27th of February 2007 (Tue), 15:15

ahh

27th of February 2007 (Tue), 17:41

Tony-S

27th of February 2007 (Tue), 17:47

Well, that fourth image is rather telling. I don't see too much barrel distortion at all. Photozone says there's a lot, but it sure doesn't seem like there is to me.

i robot

27th of February 2007 (Tue), 17:58

Ohhh! I thought I had made my mind up umtil I saw your shots. Have you any example frm the wide end? Have you had any problems with auto focusing at the narrow end?

Great shots!!!!!!

JohnJ80

27th of February 2007 (Tue), 19:29

While I can't claim to be as artistic as Ahh (really fabulous shots), here's some more 18-200 shots

Some quick snaps from a biz trip to SFO:
http://www.pbase.com/johnj80/image/55309619.jpg
and

http://www.pbase.com/johnj80/image/55309620.jpg

As well, here is a gallery of full size, handheld, no editing shots straight out of the lens (testing when I got it). They are large, so look at them at your peril. ;)

http://www.pbase.com/johnj80/sigma_18200

This lens is supposed to be offered shortly with Sigma's version of IS - which ought to be a truly interesting lens; maybe the perfect walkaround lens.

Here is what I would do - if you are not at all sure what range you thing would be attractive to you, this lens will give you a lot of decent experience in pretty much the main ranges of interest. It is certainly better than your kit lens over the kits range and it has a ton more range to boot. When you get more lenses, and you want to travel fast and light, this is the lens to reach for.

If you are more certain you know what you want, then go with the two lens kit of 17-40 f/4L (or tam 17-50, sigma 17-70, etc... pick one) and the 70-200 f/4L. Then you have some serious glass and you are set for quite a while.

J.

kram

27th of February 2007 (Tue), 20:28

I had the Tamron 28-75 as my walkaround lens after the kit lens. I know that the Tamron is not wide at all at 28mm on a 20D, but I could switch to the kit lens for the wider shots.

After some time, I replaced the kit lens with the Tokina 12-24 making it a dedicated wide angle lens.

Just recently, I replaced the Tamron 28-75 with the Canon 24-105. It give me a little more leeway on the wide end and is quite an improvement on the telephoto end.

I think you will be able to manage very well with the 24-105 as your main lens and occasionally switching to the kit lens for a wider shot.

Tee Why

27th of February 2007 (Tue), 20:58

You say you like mostly portraiture, landscapes, and a little macro on a 400D?
I'd recommend a Sigma 17-70 macro.

jpjcm1

27th of February 2007 (Tue), 21:22

The 24-105 and the 70-200 go great together, I would go for the 24-105L, It's a great lens!

mickey53usa

28th of February 2007 (Wed), 10:00

I am also looking for another lense. I rented the Sigma 18-200mm for a short vacation trip - http://www.pbase.com/mickey53usa/south_padre Reason for renting was to decide between this lens (18-200mm) and an 18-125mm also Sigma. The 18-125mm is slightly faster, but not much (5.6 vs 6.3). I found that a large number of photos I took were in excess of 125mm. Course I had the range. Decided that I will wait and get a price on the OS (Optical Stablized) version of this lens and then decide. Climb to the top of a Lighthouse and you don't want to have to carry your extra lens and the camera.

Southswede

28th of February 2007 (Wed), 10:54

I have been using the Sigma 18-200 for a while and am quite happy with the results. It is a compromise lens, but the compact size and range make it an excellent tool, specially whilst travelling.

Here are some samples:

f/5.6 1/200 106mm ISO 400
http://www.ahabib1.btinternet.co.uk/pics/portrait.jpg

f/5.6 1/30 144mm ISO 200
http://www.ahabib1.btinternet.co.uk/pics/oldman.jpg

f/8.0 1/200 88mm ISO 100
http://www.ahabib1.btinternet.co.uk/pics/lighthouse.jpg

f/8.0 1/200 200mm ISO 800
http://www.ahabib1.btinternet.co.uk/pics/tictactoe.jpg

f/5.6 1/125 88mm ISO 400
http://www.ahabib1.btinternet.co.uk/pics/girlwshades.jpg

Your results do not come as a surprise to me. I have gotten like results using the 18-200 Sigma. The people who say bad things about the 18-200 have never used one.....

The results from the 18-200 are as good as what I have gotten from the 17-85 IS and the 70-300IS Canon lenses.

Tony-S

28th of February 2007 (Wed), 11:24

Can one of you who have this lens post a 100% crop from a sharp image? Also, the shutter speed, aperture and ISO if possible.

Thanks,

Tony

JohnJ80

28th of February 2007 (Wed), 14:29

Go to this gallery:

http://www.pbase.com/johnj80/sigma_18200

There are three 100% images. EXIF is included. Select "Original" under the picture - that will get you to the 100% images.

These are almost all landscapes so they were shot at around f/8-f/11. However, they were all handheld too.

J.

Tony-S

28th of February 2007 (Wed), 16:33

John - those look very nice. I've done a bit more digging and a common complaint seems to be that the lens really doesn't get to 200mm; more like 160 to 170. Can you confirm/deny this?

Thanks

Southswede

28th of February 2007 (Wed), 17:01

John - those look very nice. I've done a bit more digging and a common complaint seems to be that the lens really doesn't get to 200mm; more like 160 to 170. Can you confirm/deny this?

Thanks

I can. Mine only seems to go around 180mm.

JohnJ80

28th of February 2007 (Wed), 18:30

I guess I haven't really looked. To tell the truth, I'm not sure I care. ;) There are really no other lenses that I know of that cover this wide of a range.

If it isn't to 200mm, it is pretty close. Let me put it this way, it is considerably longer than you would really like to handhold if you could avoid it.

J.

mickey53usa

2nd of March 2007 (Fri), 11:31

Well, I need to amend my post of a couple days ago. Specifically; "I found that a large number of photos I took were in excess of 125mm." I have reviewed all of the 300 photos that I took and found: 46% were in the 18-24mm focal length range. 34% were in the 25-75mm focal length range. 10% were in the 76-125mm focal length range and the remaining 10% were in the 126-200mm focal length range. This just tells me that if I have the 126-200mm range I will use it to some extent. Both B&H and Sigma4Less stated that they will not have the Sigma 18-200mm with OS in until later in the month. Will wait to see what the price comparison is before I decide which lens to purchase.

JohnJ80

2nd of March 2007 (Fri), 13:35

Both B&H and Sigma4Less stated that they will not have the Sigma 18-200mm with OS in until later in the month. Will wait to see what the price comparison is before I decide which lens to purchase.

The OS is a big deal, in my book. If you don't need the lens before the OS is available, I'd wait for that. I am, of course, presuming they are optically similar but with OS bolted on.

With OS, I think this is the optimal walk around lens.

Now if it only had HSM (Sigma's version of USM).

J.

LL01773

2nd of March 2007 (Fri), 14:34

i robot

4th of March 2007 (Sun), 06:36

I can. Mine only seems to go around 180mm.

Excuse my newbie status, but what do you mean by max out at 160-180mm. Is this that it often isn't used at 180-200 in everyday use or that you cant use it at 160-200mm?????

I am thiking of whating on the OS version

condyk

4th of March 2007 (Sun), 07:56

In general, this is true. However, I have the 24-105, the sigma 18-200 and a sigma 18-50. The sigma 18-200 is an amazing little performer and, certainly my copy, does not qualify as "rather poor image quality" and quite the contrary.

Always good to hear from someone who actually has experience of the gear they talk about. I have also used this lens and thought that it did a good job when used well. Many lenses are perfectly decent performers and better than a good number of the people who actually use them :lol: :lol:

You say you like mostly portraiture, landscapes, and a little macro on a 400D? I'd recommend a Sigma 17-70 macro.

That is good advice.

Your results do not come as a surprise to me. I have gotten like results using the 18-200 Sigma. The people who say bad things about the 18-200 have never used one ...

Same could be said for many lenses ... we get this all the time here.

gleytch

4th of March 2007 (Sun), 09:05

Both B&H and Sigma4Less stated that they will not have the Sigma 18-200mm with OS in until later in the month. Will wait to see what the price comparison is before I decide which lens to purchase.

There are a couple of prices starting to show up on the web now for the Sigma 18-200 OS:

$599.95 http://www.precision-camera.com/product/888101

$654.95 http://www.mobileplanet.com/p.aspx?i=141773&partner=froogle

The latter shows a due date of April 4th for the lens.

Neither from a "big name" retailer like B&H, but it should give some indication about where the price range will be.

Greg

Southswede

4th of March 2007 (Sun), 10:36

Excuse my newbie status, but what do you mean by max out at 160-180mm. Is this that it often isn't used at 180-200 in everyday use or that you cant use it at 160-200mm?????

I am thiking of whating on the OS version

When comparing images from different lenses, the Sigma "200", looks like 180 from another lens, with both images being taken at what the lens is "calling" 200mm.

i robot

5th of March 2007 (Mon), 03:33

When comparing images from different lenses, the Sigma "200", looks like 180 from another lens, with both images being taken at what the lens is "calling" 200mm.

Thanks for explaining that Southswede!!!!!