Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC

[Tony-S]

I bought this lens as a result of seeing images posted on the forum as a travel lens. I had a chance to try it out over the weekend on a drive through the San Jaun mountains of southwest Colorado. It needs to be stopped down to at least f/5.6 to 8 and at the long end it needs f/11 or more. I avoid using it past 180mm as it becomes unacceptably soft for me. It's really an outdoor lens (or flash), but does provide very nice images if used within these limits.

Here's a shot from Durango, CO and a 100% crop at 33mm and f/8. (Compression for the forum is causing some pixelation issues.)

[Tony-S]

A couple more. First at f/8, 160mm, second at f/8, 21mm.

[AginKajun]

Great lens for what it is. Mine is just a tad soft at 200MM but from 175 down it is real sharp.

Heres one for the macro crowd. Shot at 1/320 F 6.3 at 105MM

[AginKajun]

Another for the landscape crowd. 18 MM f6.3 1/320

[DerekI]

This one at least focuses better than my EF50F1.8 and it is ok for what it is designed to do .

I shot some flowers with it several days back and I like it more than I thought I would.

[DerekI]

Oh link to my stupid shots here.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/izumiflowers/422518518/

[Tony-S]

OK, I've changed my opinion about its softness at 200mm. I think the softness in previous shots was because it was slightly out of focus. It appears my copy of this lens has a bit of trouble locking on focus at 200mm, perhaps because of the f/6.3 aperture. By focussing and then refocussing, it does a much better job of locking on the target. Of course, this means it's not going to be much good as a sports lens (or even for chasing kids around), but it does make it suitable as a travel lens, which is why I bought the thing in the first place.

I'm off to Chile Saturday for a week; I feel a lot better about taking this and leaving the 17-70 at home.

Here's a full-frame shot at f/8 and a 100% crop.

[gorby]

JEEZ that's looking good to me!


See I'm keen on this lens, but then all the 'bad press' scares me off, and then great pics like the ones in this thread bring me right back!

It's going to be between this or the sigma 70-300 DG APO

[darktiger]

I like the lens, but I grew out if it real fast. For the money it is great. Then I went to the 24-105 and cannot believe the different....

[ahh]

I bought this lens about a year and a half ago to replace my kit lens. I have been reasonably happy with the results. When used correctly, this lens can really produce.

Here are some pictures of St. Basil's Cathedral in the Red Square in Moscow.

None of the images have been processed other than being resized. They are straight out of the camera.

48mm f/9.0 1/250 ISO 200
http://www.ahabib1.btinternet.co.uk/pics/Cathedral1.jpg

106mm f/9.0 1/250 ISO 200
http://www.ahabib1.btinternet.co.uk/pics/Cathedral2.jpg

200mm f/11.0 1/125 ISO 200
http://www.ahabib1.btinternet.co.uk/pics/Cathedral3.jpg


And one of a man blowing his own trumpet! :D

200mm f/16 1/100 ISO 200
http://www.ahabib1.btinternet.co.uk/pics/TrumpetMan.jpg

[gorby]

Goodness, really great pics man!


Ok, it is between this and the sigma 55-200 for me. Of course the 18-200 has that killer range--- but is it worth it to pay twice as much for it!!?

[rooeey]

What to buy???
I have a 11-18 tamron a 90mm 1:1 Tamron macro a 75-300 canon and nifty fifty canon but i feel i lack a good walk around lens with indoor capabilities...
Am i looking for the 18-200 f3.5-6.3 or the 17-70 f2.8 ?

[unix04]

the 1770 is not a constant 2.8. i believe it is 2.8~4.5.
i think the 1770 will give you better images, but cant beat the convenience of the 18-200.
what is it that you really need?

[rooeey]

Well thats my dilemma...
I don't know i must research more but i think i will go the 17-70.

[cdifoto]

Looks good to me. I'm considering the OS version because I moronically lugged everything I owned around at Disney (2 XTs & Grips, Bigma, Kit lens, 24-70L, 2 flashes, etc) just to "get everything" when I coulda done just fine with an all in one lens. Nothing was printed bigger than 4x6 anyway. :rolleyes:

Sometimes a simple 10D + 18-200 OS kit would be a lovely thing. :)

[Rudy M.]

I bet you sure looked important and very cool lugging all that stuff! I have been eyeing the OS version of this lens myself as a great walk about lens. I took some sample shots in the store with it and I sure wish I had bought it as my kit lens two years ago!

[cicopo]

I have this one plus the OS version on order to replace it when they become available here in Canada. In my case I use it regularily, and mine seems rather sharp in most of the images I shoot with it. No it's not an L but on a cost vs quality of image it delivers more bang per $ than most of the lenses I own, and in my case I have shot well over 5000 images through my 18-200.

[Tony-S]

Thanks to JoJo's comment on the 18-200 OS, I tested the non-OS version to see if it really is 200mm. I had thought it was short, but those observations were based on focusing closer than infinity. As you can see, at less than infinity, the lens appears shorter than 200mm. First image is the Sigma 18-200 at 200mm focused to about 20 feet, and the second is with my EF 200mm f/2.8L from the same spot. It gives the appearance that the Canon is longer.

[Tony-S]

However, focused to infinity the lenses appear to be nearly the same; perhaps the Canon is a bit longer. Again, the Sigma first, Canon second. I hope someone can offer an explanation for this phenomenon, as I'm very interested in the principle behind it.

[Tony-S]

Here's another with 100% crop.

[ito4u]

This was my first lens and it served me quite well.