PDA

View Full Version : Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS


superdiver
2nd of August 2007 (Thu), 10:08
Lets see the shots of your 18-200 OS lens. Also include the basic exif data if you can...

Tony-S
2nd of August 2007 (Thu), 10:19
Here's one shot wide open at 115mm, 1/250". Full frame and crop. (Note the damned hot pixel! :evil: )

Exif Properties

Aperture Value 5.310699
Color Space 65535
Custom Rendered 0
Date Time Digitized 2007:07:28 09:28:16
Date Time Original 2007:07:28 09:28:16
Exif Version 2.2.1
Exposure Bias Value 0
Exposure Mode 0
Exposure Program 3
Exposure Time 0.004
Flash 16
FlashPix Version 1.0
FNumber 6.3
Focal Length 115
Focal Plane Resolution Unit 2
Focal Plane X Resolution 3959.322
Focal Plane Y Resolution 3959.322
ISO Speed Ratings 400
Metering Mode 5
Pixel X Dimension 533
Pixel Y Dimension 800
Scene Capture Type 0
Shutter Speed Value 7.965789
White Balance 0

Tony-S
2nd of August 2007 (Thu), 10:21
And another, this one relying upon the OS. Shot at 200mm, 1/80", f/11.

Exif Properties

Aperture Value 6.918869
Color Space 65535
Custom Rendered 0
Date Time Digitized 2007:07:28 09:49:15
Date Time Original 2007:07:28 09:49:15
Exif Version 2.2.1
Exposure Bias Value 0
Exposure Mode 0
Exposure Program 3
Exposure Time 0.0125
Flash 16
FlashPix Version 1.0
FNumber 11
Focal Length 200
Focal Plane Resolution Unit 2
Focal Plane X Resolution 3959.322
Focal Plane Y Resolution 3959.322
ISO Speed Ratings 400
Metering Mode 5
Pixel X Dimension 800
Pixel Y Dimension 532
Scene Capture Type 0
Shutter Speed Value 6.32193
White Balance 0

cicopo
2nd of August 2007 (Thu), 10:39
I had already put this in another 18-200 OS message, but besides those samples there are links to a few crops too, just read the previous page to find any other messages with attachments.
If anyone wants a couple of full file as shot samples plus a comparison shot from my 17-40L I uploaded them to the 20D forum at Imaging Resource where we are allowed to use full file shots. You can download & save them to your computer to examine & compare at whatever resolution you want just as though you took it yourself, and the EXIF should be intact. They are attached to messages on this page, & include a brief explination of the shot set up. (messages 1164, 1170, & 1171 are full file as shot)
http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?7@6...@.ee9ad5e/1181

LightRules
2nd of August 2007 (Thu), 11:59
Lets see the shots of your 18-200 OS lens. Also include the basic exif data if you can...

I was going to start this "image archive" for this lens, but it looks like you beat me to it ;) Anywho, I'm heading up to SF/NorCal for a week at the end of this month and will be taking this lens along. So I'll post back here thereafter (probably early to mid Sept) a bunch of pics to contribute. That will be my first "real outing" with the lens apart from street signs and peeping. :lol: It's a nice lens.

superdiver
2nd of August 2007 (Thu), 12:14
Great, I will look forward to them!

tony-S, what are your overall impression of this lens...These pictures look pretty good for less the $600! And a nice wide range with OS to boot. Is the Sigma OS very good?

In2Photos
2nd of August 2007 (Thu), 12:39
Tony-S sent me the link so I put it in the archive. Thanks guys.

Tony-S
2nd of August 2007 (Thu), 12:44
ony-S, what are your overall impression of this lens...These pictures look pretty good for less the $600! And a nice wide range with OS to boot. Is the Sigma OS very good?

I'm very happy with it so far. The OS is really good. I've not owned an IS lens, but here's a handheld example of the Siggy; 200mm at 1/10" with and without the OS.

LightRules
2nd of August 2007 (Thu), 12:51
tony-S, what are your overall impression of this lens...These pictures look pretty good for less the $600! And a nice wide range with OS to boot. Is the Sigma OS very good?

My review is here http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/sigma18200os

And my recent 1785IS and 18200OS test http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/1785isv18200os

As for the OS unit, comparing it to the 1785IS and 1755IS, the OS lens upon initial start up (when you first press the shutter half way), it is more "jumpy" and sometimes can harshly "pop" the VF image, but it quickly settles down and in practice, the stabilization is as good or better than the IS units. But initial "smoothness" goes to the IS units.

cicopo
2nd of August 2007 (Thu), 13:06
Samples of the OS on or off at 200 mm, the text on the poster is 5/16" high in real life, and these are 100% crops at 800 X 600 pixels F6.3, 1/25 second
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/a6a0ew2KR4m87R-iWsKkwcE01Cq7T5MKO6BL_l.jpg
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/a6a0ew2KR4m87R-iWsKkwcE01L4pg7UDAwS1_l.jpg
these are at F8, 1/13 sec
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/a6a0ew2KR4m87R-iWsKkwcE01LMxLvd*LQlj_l.jpg
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/a6a0ew2KR4m87R-iWsKkwcE01Jr91r-TdaZS_l.jpg

jsfpa
15th of August 2007 (Wed), 18:21
I bought the 18-200 OS because I thought it might be a nice walk around lens. It came the other day but have not had much of a chance to play with it. I took it with me when I went out to get a cup of coffee tonight and took this quick shot. This is at 200 mm F 6.3 @ 1/100 sec.

jsfpa
15th of August 2007 (Wed), 19:04
Here's another.

134mm f 5.6 @ 1/50 sec

cicopo
15th of August 2007 (Wed), 21:01
Very nice shots. Too bad some purist will condemn then because they aren't as good as those from a lens that costs 10 times as much mounted on a tripod. I really want to see what those type of people drive, they must all own Rolls Royces and have private jets standing by. The most important thing I have learned about how good most lenses are when reading the negative remarks is that they come from people who READ it was bad, or own cheapest body it can fit and haven't mastered how to use either properly.

superdiver
15th of August 2007 (Wed), 23:30
Well, I dont think we have reached that level of negativity here yet. In fact I would say that everyone so far has had positive things to say about it...

dawei213
16th of August 2007 (Thu), 06:52
Most of these shots are at the telephoto end. How about at the wide angle 18mm end? Good color reproduction and sharp?

Katzer1
17th of August 2007 (Fri), 10:20
http://www.pbase.com/katzer/sigma18200os

Cheers,
Erez

ggw2000
17th of August 2007 (Fri), 12:18
http://www.pbase.com/katzer/sigma18200os

Cheers,
Erez

I almost called and ordered this lens this morning. Have been researching it for the past few days. Most of the pictures that I have seen taken with it are reasonably sharp to date.
But now i'm not to sure after looking at the above link. Most of the pictures appear to be very soft as compared to others I have seen.
Could you post your internal camera settings for these pictures as far as contrast/sharpness?
Thanks, Gerry

cicopo
17th of August 2007 (Fri), 14:18
Re the request for a sample at the wide end I shot this today. There is a light breeze but I don't think it was a problem when I took the shot. This is as shot, no corrections of any kind. The full frame is resized to fit the 800 max width requirement, the crops should be 100% on screen. Shot settings are ISO 400, 1/160 sec, F 3.5, at 18 mm and hand held.
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/ab00jGmBk*5FAB115hGhcJQKsxHtGPQ1hyp*_l.jpg
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/ab00jGmBk*5FAB115hGhcJQKs-6Wmttn8GbX_l.jpg
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/ab00jGmBk*5FAB115hGhcJQKs912sZavdTse_l.jpg
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/ab00jGmBk*5FAB115hGhcJQKs0lgsmdgeL*h_l.jpg
Not sure why but the images aren't loading here so hopefully you can link to them or copy & paste to see them.
Parameters
Tone Curve : -
Sharpness level : -
Pattern Sharpness : -
Contrast : 2
Sharpness : 2
Color saturation : 2
Color tone : 0
Highlight tone priority : -

tol1l1yboy
3rd of September 2007 (Mon), 00:59
Hmm I was pretty excited about this but the last two posted images look pretty soft and at the wide end seem to suffer from some terrible CA.

Have either of you tested your lens to make sure you got a sharp copy?

Anyone else really happy with their copy?

Niraj
3rd of September 2007 (Mon), 06:26
would love to see what the wide angle photo's are like... i'm currently using the Sigma 24-70 but recently used the Canon 70-200 IS (pricey) and found it to be extremely intuitive to use. If wide angles are any good, might just trade in mine and upgrade to the OS.

edit: just seen the last couple of posts, and within a few moments, i've become quite put off by the lens... anybody have more images?

evandavies
5th of September 2007 (Wed), 16:07
I almost called and ordered this lens this morning. Have been researching it for the past few days. Most of the pictures that I have seen taken with it are reasonably sharp to date.
But now i'm not to sure after looking at the above link. Most of the pictures appear to be very soft as compared to others I have seen.
Could you post your internal camera settings for these pictures as far as contrast/sharpness?
Thanks, Gerry

Actually the parts that are in focus are very sharp. Its just that these photos have very narrow DoF. Need to shoot at f/9.5 or even f/13.

The Sunflower is very nice.

Lovely Bokeh too.

If only it was a bit faster...

Tony-S
8th of September 2007 (Sat), 23:34
Really diggin' this lens - it's extremely handy when changing lenses is not a great option. Good saturation and quick to focus in good light. This shot at 200mm, f/8, 1/500", ISO100. Full-frame and 100% crop.

Tony-S
8th of September 2007 (Sat), 23:35
And another. 1/800 sec, f/8, ISO 100, 173mm with a 100% crop.

LightRules
11th of September 2007 (Tue), 16:30
heading up to SF/NorCal for a week at the end of this month and will be taking this lens along. So I'll post back here thereafter (probably early to mid Sept)

Well here are a few to contribute...all shot wide open (and processed in CS2 + Nik Color Efex Pro):

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/85450540/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/85450545/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/85450543/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/85450551/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/85450553/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/85450565/original.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/85450581/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/85450583/original.jpg

tol1l1yboy
11th of September 2007 (Tue), 18:59
Interesting...these look a better than some of the others. It seems like the lens has a little bit more difficulty with highlights...alot of the shots look overexposed slightly. I have seen that in many different people's photos they have posted. Not hard to work around but something to consider I guess.

cicopo
11th of September 2007 (Tue), 21:42
Can't speak for anyone else but I personally overexpose a tiny amount, just a personal thing based on how I like a scene to look, and I keep it in a range I can easily tone down. I do however watch for & correct blown areas with the needed EC setting & another photo.

Tony-S
15th of September 2007 (Sat), 20:39
This fellow had his dinner outside my window this afternoon. Full frame and 100% crop. 200mm at f/8, ISO 400. OS was not used on this shot.

Exif Properties

Aperture Value 6
Color Space 65535
Custom Rendered 0
Date Time Digitized 2007:09:15 16:29:49
Date Time Original 2007:09:15 16:29:49
Exif Version 2.2.1
Exposure Bias Value 0
Exposure Mode 0
Exposure Program 3
Exposure Time 0.005
Flash 16
FlashPix Version 1.0
FNumber 8
Focal Length 200
Focal Plane Resolution Unit 2
Focal Plane X Resolution 3959.322
Focal Plane Y Resolution 3959.322
ISO Speed Ratings 400
Metering Mode 3
Pixel X Dimension 3504
Pixel Y Dimension 2332
Scene Capture Type 0
Shutter Speed Value 7.64386
White Balance 0

Photon Phil
20th of September 2007 (Thu), 11:20
I am finding that mine is a bit sopft in very odd places. Any ideas. Here's the situation. Portrait oriented shot, 35mm, 100 ISO f4.5. Two people 3/4 legnth portrait. >>>The buttons on the suit are sharp, the stones on the wall behind are sharp, the faces are blurry and soft. I believe ****ter was 1/60th with OS stabilizer on. No smudge on the lens. I'm perplexed. I happens less in landscape orientation. Do I have a bad moving OS lens group? Can people holding a pose still move enough to blur faces at 35mm? What's up here? Can't post the image now, tech issues for now.

jsfpa
22nd of September 2007 (Sat), 12:32
I took the Sigma to the zoo yesterday.

emnmandasmom
22nd of September 2007 (Sat), 21:31
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1313/1367136197_71a1275fc5_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1092/1368033836_0b3db1cf99_b.jpg

dawei213
8th of October 2007 (Mon), 17:49
Although not the sharpest lens, it's great when you can go from this perspective:
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c288/dawei213/POTN/psu.jpg
Focal: 18mm
TV (Shutter): 1/320
AV (Aperture): 8
ISO: 100

To this:
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c288/dawei213/POTN/psu1.jpg
Focal: 154mm
TV (Shutter): 1/200
AV (Aperture): 8
ISO: 100

...in a matter of seconds. And without changing a lens.

freebird
8th of October 2007 (Mon), 17:54
Nice pics. My Hawkeyes are hurting this year bigtime. Penn State has great fans for sure, some of the very best in the country.

angryhampster
9th of October 2007 (Tue), 15:47
Nice pics. My Hawkeyes are hurting this year bigtime. Penn State has great fans for sure, some of the very best in the country.



I'm trying to sell my student tickets right now :lol:

puckcoach3
9th of October 2007 (Tue), 23:41
Some Colorado Fall Colors w/my Siggy 18-200 OS :)

Canon XTi
1/800
Aperture:f/5
Focal Length:63 mm
ISO Speed:200
Exposure Bias:1/3 EV

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1469514630&size=l


Exposure:(1/50)
Aperture:f/22
Focal Length:96 mm
ISO Speed:200
Exposure Bias:1/3 EV

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1469527550&size=l

tufftybloke
2nd of November 2007 (Fri), 17:03
I've read that the OS on this makes it a good indoor lens. Does anyone have any pics for that? I am considering this for a walkabout and something I can use to take pics of my kids when they do their school plays and the like.

Ta

<tuffty/>

lookingforaname
23rd of January 2008 (Wed), 12:53
bumping this thread up in hopes that someone who owns this will post more pictures here! i'm also interested in kid indoor shots with this. . .

Andrew Pratt
23rd of January 2008 (Wed), 16:07
Here's a few from my trip to Mexico earlier this month. (there's more here (http://www.pbase.com/apratt))

http://www.pbase.com/apratt/image/92041459.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/apratt/image/91663644.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/apratt/image/92041764.jpg

LightRules
26th of January 2008 (Sat), 00:44
Spent 6 days up in Nor-Cal this past week and here are a few shots from the 18-200 OS on a 40D, all wide open (except for the park ride and the coastline pictures):

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/92124890/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/92124892/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/92124893/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/92124895/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/92124896/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/92124898/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/92124899/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/92124902/original.jpg

mypoppy31
3rd of February 2008 (Sun), 18:19
I've just had this lens about three weeks now, and I was going to return it, but first I had to really try it out. So, a few days after I bought it at B&H in NYC, I went to NYC's Town Hall where my daughter was receiving an Award and shot a ton of pictures.

I had the worst seat in the theater. Three rows from the back of the theater. But, it was on the aisle. I much too far from the stage to get any good clear shots with this lens.
I guess about a bit over a hundred feet or so... I put it on continuous burst mode with a ISO of 1600 and zoomed as far as I could ,with this lens all the way to 200mm.

When I got home I cropped, lightned and sharpened them a bit and was really surprised to find that they were'nt too bad. Yes there was "noise" and also not that sharp, but I did mangage to capture the moment. So, I made a slideshow out of all the shots and added some Broadway music, and all was not a total loss.

I decided to keep the lense since it's a better walk around lens than the one that came with my Rebel XT. Whats also interesting with this lense is its abilithy to go "Wide" or "Zoom" very quickly. I"m not a Pro, but I do like the lense for my purposes. I'd say that its a very Versatile lens..

I'd really like to know what any of you think of these shots.
Thanks,

TeamSpeed
3rd of February 2008 (Sun), 19:35
I hope you don't mind, I tried a bit of post processing on that last pic. Be sure to shoot in raw when you are in tough situations like this, and then use Noiseware Community or some other great noise removal tools, then sharpen a bit, etc.

mypoppy31
3rd of February 2008 (Sun), 20:16
I hope you don't mind, I tried a bit of post processing on that last pic. Be sure to shoot in raw when you are in tough situations like this, and then use Noiseware Community or some other great noise removal tools, then sharpen a bit, etc.
Teamspeed...

Good Grief!.....What an amazing transformation, and for the better indeed!...
You've found a solution to my "low light" dilemma, but the only problem is that I don't
know a blessed thing about shooting "raw"....is it much work? Do I need software?
Since I do much much of my shooting with most similar results like above...I should
look into your blessed suggestion!.. what gift!...and, must I use only "raw" to achieve your results? Can't I use my regular shooting mode? Please advise. And thanks again!..

TeamSpeed
3rd of February 2008 (Sun), 20:52
If you shoot raw instead of jpg, you have many options available in altering white balance, exposure, etc. You would just use the raw converter that comes on the canon cd with your camera. Then after you save to a jpg format, you can use Noiseware Community (free from www.imagenomic.com), and then after noise reduction, you can use photoshop or any other photo software to sharpen, change contrast/brightness, etc. I just removed noise and sharpened a bit, the only problem is removing noise will make for a more plastic complexion on people.

SoundsGood
3rd of February 2008 (Sun), 21:58
Impressive shots. Can't wait to see how the new 18-150 OS does.

Badger49456
3rd of February 2008 (Sun), 22:51
...

Maison
5th of February 2008 (Tue), 19:17
I just got this lens. Anyway, did you guys noticed the image jerked or shifted slightly? Could this be the OS activating or kicking in? Thanks!

LightRules
5th of February 2008 (Tue), 19:20
I just got this lens. Anyway, did you guys noticed the image jerked or shifted slightly? Could this be the OS activating or kicking in? Thanks!

Yes, my copy "jumps" upon initial press of the shutter halfway. It's like a rough "kick" and then stabilizes really well. It's only for a very brief moment though.

Maison
5th of February 2008 (Tue), 19:26
Exactly, just wanted to confirm. BTW LightRules, it's your fault w/the review and pictures you posted that I ended up with this lens;):D. Thanks!!

LightRules
5th of February 2008 (Tue), 19:28
Exactly, just wanted to confirm. BTW LightRules, it's your fault w/the review and pictures you posted that I ended up with this lens;):D. Thanks!!

Great, and still no commission from Sigma :evil: :cry: :(

FWIW, a few more pics from the lens http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/norcalpics

supergoat
6th of February 2008 (Wed), 21:13
Taken today with the 18-200 OS

I was standing on a slant...didn't notice until I got home and downloaded the pics to the computer. :D

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2107/2246877545_02c0d241d4_b.jpg

SoundsGood
6th of February 2008 (Wed), 21:37
Looking forward to seeing results from the new 18-125 OS.

mypoppy31
7th of February 2008 (Thu), 11:02
I would guess that shooting with the Sigma 18-200 OS in very low light would be almost impossible, but I love shooting in low light, and I never use the flash. So, why did I buy this lens?....

I went down to B&H in NYC about a month ago and talked to the lens clerk about what I wanted to do, and what lens would he suggest?... He showed me the Sigma, but, when I saw that it was only f3.5, I told him, it was too slow for my needs.

He said it was an "Optical Stabilization" lens, and would be okay for me. What I did really like about this lens was its capability to shoot from "Wide" to "Zoom", which made me think that this would also be a great "Walk around lens". I really was hoping he would suggest a f1.2 lens, but he knew that I already had a Canon 50mm 1.4 lens which is superb.

A few days later, I went down to NYC to see my daughter perform in her show, and started clicking away. I was about 20 feet or so from the stage.

I set the ISO at 1600 and at Shutter Priority. Shutter speed was 1/20 which was too slow. Aperture was 6.3 and 5.6. I zoomed pretty close from 115mm to 173mm which sort of excited me when I saw the results I got. So, yes, there's some noise, and yes they're not as sharp as I would have liked, but all in all shooting in VERY low light with a f3.5 lens did tell me that I wasn't going to return this lens.

Of course for my "Low Light" shooting passion I should get a much much faster lens for this, but its much to expensive, and my other Canon 50mm l.4 lens which I find simply superb can also do very well. Actually the 50mm 1.4 might have done better for these shots, except it will not ZOOM, so there's the difference with these two lenses.

Okay, so take a look at these shots and tell me what you think, and please keep in mind that I'm simply a low life amateur...

Tony-S
7th of February 2008 (Thu), 11:20
Tough situation to be in. For moving objects, you'd really need faster shutter speeds - which mean faster aperture in such conditions. But those lenses are generally very expensive.

SoundsGood
7th of February 2008 (Thu), 11:58
Hey, I just thought of something... Could a 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8 be used with a 1.4x TC?

Pete-eos
7th of February 2008 (Thu), 12:05
Hey, I just thought of something... Could a 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8 be used with a 1.4x TC?

I've used my 85 and 50 with a Kenko Pro 1.4TC.. not sure if they fit the Canon ones..

SoundsGood
7th of February 2008 (Thu), 12:12
I've used my 85 and 50 with a Kenko Pro 1.4TC.. not sure if they fit the Canon ones..
How'd it work? I too have a Kenko. How sharp did they remain with the TC?

Tony-S
7th of February 2008 (Thu), 13:10
Hey, I just thought of something... Could a 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8 be used with a 1.4x TC?

Yes, Kenko; no, Canon or Sigma.

But more importantly, why ask on this thread?

SoundsGood
7th of February 2008 (Thu), 14:07
But more importantly, why ask on this thread?
Because "mypoppy31" said that he/she needed a low-light solution to shoot their daughter perform in her show. They said they've got a 50mm f/1.4 lens, but mentioned that it didn't ZOOM. That made me think about adding a 1.4x TC to either it or possibly an 85mm f/1.8.

Still not a zoom, but might work better for them than the Sigma 18-200 at f/5.6 or 6.3.

See? ;)

Tony-S
7th of February 2008 (Thu), 16:01
OK, gotcha. Perhaps next time you can quote the relevant sections - might save both of us a bit of bandwidth.

mypoppy31
15th of February 2008 (Fri), 17:03
Don't know if I wrote this previously, but, I'm pretty happy with the Sigma 18-200 3.5 OS.
Didn't think I would be, but after testing it out in the theater last week, I decided to keep this lense.

I took these shots sitting in the very rear of the theater, so I just knew I'd be having a hard time getting good shots. And, this lens is only a 3.5, so its not fast at all, but I still thought that if after this particular night, if my shots came out bad, that I'd return the lens.

There was very very little light on the stage, but I just kept shooting away and hoping for the best. At home, I liked quite a few of the many shots that I took although I had to "zoom" into about 200mm in order to get something decent....

What saved the day here was that this Sigma is an OS Optical Stabilized lens. Even though it a 3.5....So, I'll keep this lens because its also a very good "walk around" lens compared to the kit lens that came with my Canon Rebel XT.

What I also like about this lens is that I can go from "Wide" to "Telephote" pretty quick.
From 18mm to 200mm. So, why should I return it!.. Yes, I'm an amateur, but I've found
that if one can afford to buy an occasional good lens, that it makes me look better than I really am. I've no problem with that!..

I know that they're not too sharp and there some noise, but I'm pretty happy with this lense, because I was sitting so damn far from the stage and I feel that this lens did
more that I had expected it to do.

Please let me know what you think. As a matter of fact, I just posted all the shots I took of this night into a photo slideshow, and put it on youtube. If you'd care to see it, email me with your email address, and I'll send the link. Its about a 3 minute slideshow.

Thanks
mypoppy31

mypoppy31
17th of March 2008 (Mon), 20:52
This might look like its the wrong lens to shoot this photo that I'm showing here, but
I simply had to try it out even though it was a slow 3.5 lens. I put the ISO at 1600, shutter at 1/100, aperture at 5.6, and I shot it from quite a long distance from the stage, so the lens was at 134mm.

I'd guess that I was around 100 feet from the stage, and sitting at an angle.
No flash of course, and I had to zoom almost all the way to get this shot.

I'd love to discuss shooting in very low light, without ever using a flash. So, please
let me know what you think of this shot, and also let me know if any of you have tried
shooting in very very low light without the flash.

JamieMcCoyPhotography
29th of March 2008 (Sat), 11:59
Yeah I'd like to see it at every length.
Esp at 18, 35, 50, 75, and 100

SSquared2000
29th of March 2008 (Sat), 12:15
There is currently a thread specific to 35mm: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=475900

elysium
11th of April 2008 (Fri), 15:34
Picked mine up today. Nice as a walkabout but still be keeping my Sigma 24-70 2.8.

Heres one of a swan.

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/4662/swansh1.jpg

mypoppy31
11th of April 2008 (Fri), 16:07
Yes, the Sigma 18-200 OS is a terrific Walk around Lens....why?.....simply because it goes from Wide( 18mm) to Telephoto (200mm) pretty quick. But, what I really like about it is that I can shoot inside theaters and zoom all the way to 200mm if I like and with the help of its Optical Stabilization, I can get some great shots of performers using slower shutter speeds. And, I'm also talking " no flash" used....

To show what I mean, here's two shots I took sitting about 30 feet away from these performers in the rear of the club. And, it would appear from these photos, that I was almost on the stage. But, the Sigmas zoom and Optical Stabilization really did all the work for me on these shots. Thats why I love this lens so much!.. take a look and let me know what you think. Yes, there's a bit of "noise", but again I say: "I've captured the moment",
and that really important, no?....

And, there's no Photoshop used here.

noobzor
11th of April 2008 (Fri), 17:34
1/125
F8
51mm
ISO100

10-Dee-Q
21st of April 2008 (Mon), 14:34
hi im newbie here,
just want to confirm before buying the Sigma
so what you guys think about the sharpness ?
compared to Canon kit 18-55mm IS lense ?

i mean in the 18-55mm range sharpness ???

if the sigma have comparable or better sharpness , i'll definatelly buy it :P

thx.

mypoppy31
21st of April 2008 (Mon), 17:08
Your question is a very specific one to which I can't really answer since I'm not a Pro.
I too have the Canon 18-55 kit lens and while its never been rated as a fantastic lens by any proportion, its still a darn good lens. But, I took it off my Canon Rebel XT because I just love the Sigma 18-200 OS, and thats the lens I keep on always...

My purpose for loving the Sigma may not be the same as your purpose. Did you see the photos above that I took without any real available light?...well, that's the thing I love about the Sigma. It simple suits my "low light" shooting. Your's is probably "sharpness".
And, for my shots, I used an ISO of 1600 which most photographers would frown on because of the fear of "noise" showing up in the photos. I'm quite happy with the results that the Sigma gave me, and thusly, will love that lens forever!...

Canon Soldier
21st of April 2008 (Mon), 18:14
none of the pics look very sharp to me at all. Not to say they are bad, but not very sharp and crisp. Nice colors but i definetly wont be getting this one.

TripleOne
4th of June 2008 (Wed), 22:31
#1 18mm, f10, 1/100s, ISO 100

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb3/TripleOnePhoto/IMG_0116.jpg

#2 200mm, f6.3, 1/200s, ISO 400 (pic was cropped a bit)

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb3/TripleOnePhoto/IMG_7045.jpg

#3 200mm, f7.1, 1/100s, ISO 200

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb3/TripleOnePhoto/IMG_5736-A.jpg

#4 63mm, f6.3, 1/250s, ISO 200

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb3/TripleOnePhoto/IMG_6805A.jpg

nostalg1a
6th of June 2008 (Fri), 19:51
63mm

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2088/2435954696_482f9d9db3.jpg

173mm

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2238/2470685957_bd83686cbe.jpg

Badger49456
6th of June 2008 (Fri), 20:43
Two with the 18-200 OS and XT. Moon is at 100% crop.

atanarus
12th of June 2008 (Thu), 10:53
Hi everyone. I just got this lens two days ago and absolutely love it. However, one thing that is bothering me is the diaphragm/aperature noise especially at small aperature settings. It seems to be quite a bit louder than my old Sigma 28-300 lens which was barely noticible. There seems to be nothing wrong with the diaphragm though and the pictures are perfectly fine. Did anyone else notice this? Is this due to the OS feature?

i77ac_10
21st of June 2008 (Sat), 23:19
My first post =) This camera stuff is so addicting...

I just read LightRules' lens roundup including this lens (http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/zoomzoom). I loved the review. It confirmed that a Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 might be in my future, but also confirmed that my Sigma 18-200mm OS is a solid walk around lens.

I was pretty happy with this shot from this lens. I took it hand held. The OS works great! The picture came out sharp and the water had a nice blur effect. Turned up the colors a bit in photoshop to give a little more punch. Hope you like it. I'll try to find some shot from this lens to share.

Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT (http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_digital_rebel_xt/) Exposure: 0.125 sec
Aperture: f/8
Focal Length: 18 mm
ISO Speed: 100

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2086/2391495546_e5dbeee744_o.jpg

i77ac_10
21st of June 2008 (Sat), 23:49
Here are some examples of the extreme focal lengths. Not the greatest shots, but you can get a feel for the focal range.

Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT (http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_digital_rebel_xt/) Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60) Aperture: f/6.3 Focal Length: 200 mm

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/2599801014_269bd3c8c8_o.jpg

Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT (http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_digital_rebel_xt/) Exposure: 0.02 sec (1/50) Aperture: f/4 Focal Length: 18 mm ISO Speed: 1600
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3237/2599801068_905604355b_o.jpg

gstaylor
24th of June 2008 (Tue), 01:58
200mm, f/7.1, 1/125, ISO 200, 10D, OS on
Shot in dark woods- quick grab shot.

loanrangie
24th of June 2008 (Tue), 06:19
Nice colours on some of the landscape and wildlife shots, has anyone compared this lens with a sigma 17-70 2.8/4 ? I'm still undecided between 18-200 OS, 17-70 2.8/4 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8 may also consider the Tokina 16-50 2.8 .

Tony-S
28th of June 2008 (Sat), 20:59
An orchid in Malaysia. This lens was on my camera quite a bit for my trips to Asia and Africa this summer.

Fabrian
1st of July 2008 (Tue), 22:11
Just got mine along with an XTi bleh.. er-hum, I mean YaaaaYYY!! Long story..

Anyway, Not much outside time today, but I think things look pretty good on the nearby subject front.
Only resized, no PP just from the camera jpg.

http://www.thefabhouse.com/temp_sample_images/potn/IMG_0113.jpg

http://www.thefabhouse.com/temp_sample_images/potn/IMG_0113c.jpg

psykon99
2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 15:58
Here's a few examples:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2073/2232261592_2e20e474fa.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/psykon99/2232261592/)


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2219/2188864332_0b9a7f6d87.jpg (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/%3Ca%20href=)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2214/2279262056_c7c83c54ec.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2135/2270871812_04defa417d.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2334/2450204741_bfa9162d93.jpg

austinEOS
8th of July 2008 (Tue), 13:55
Couple of images with the Sigma 18-200 OS on a recent trip to Hawaii. I do have a CP filter on the lens, as you might guess with one of the pics. Awesome lens, Im very pleased.

amscher
30th of July 2008 (Wed), 18:25
Lovely lens
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3267/2705436915_7b856d0eb7_b.jpg
200mm f7.1 1/250 iso 400
100%crop
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3289/2718342804_9e955a3f5d_o.jpg


Shot from a VERY bouncy boat ride

sm2s
15th of September 2008 (Mon), 00:25
hi all..
i'm a novice photographer and im thinking about getting this lens for its convenience. what i plan to be shooting is mostly people.. days at the park, zoo, or parties at home. i have read some not-so-good things about this lens on here and was wondering what the general consensus was. low budget college student here. would the new canon 18-200 be worth waiting & shelling out the extra 200 for? thanks for any advice.

amadain
15th of September 2008 (Mon), 06:47
I'd say wait for the canon 18-200. Image quality will most definitely beat sigma, and it's one third a stop faster too.

AlexinS.A.
15th of September 2008 (Mon), 09:23
I'd say wait for the canon 18-200. Image quality will most definitely beat sigma, and it's one stop faster too.
It looks like price of the Canon is going to be 50% more than the Sigma. At least that is what the dealer where I live is telling me. For that extra money, the IQ had better be MUCH better than the Sigma. Sitting on the fence on this one till I see the reviews, mind you, look at the sample shots from the Sigma on this page of the thread, not too shabby!

Vascilli
19th of September 2008 (Fri), 23:32
I'd say wait for the canon 18-200. Image quality will most definitely beat sigma, and it's one stop faster too.
But at the very least the Sigma would drop in price. :D

LightRules
19th of September 2008 (Fri), 23:44
I'd say wait for the canon 18-200. Image quality will most definitely beat sigma, and it's one stop faster too.

Huh? :rolleyes:

Fabrian
25th of September 2008 (Thu), 16:25
LOL.

Full stops:
f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32

The Canon is 1/3 faster ftr.

LightRules
25th of September 2008 (Thu), 16:34
LOL.

Full stops:
f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32

The Canon is 1/3 faster ftr.

Oh, so I was right! Thanks Brian for the helpful clarification! :lol:

Vascilli
25th of September 2008 (Thu), 23:06
I'll put up samples soon, but first I'll say this is a very useful lens.. I'd consider it a good contender for the position of "Ultimate Travel Lens for Crop Bodies." I've taken it to China, Washington, Italy, and I've done a little bit of studio work with it. This lens does things some lenses just can't do.

bob_r
26th of September 2008 (Fri), 08:32
Oh, so I was right! Thanks Brian for the helpful clarification! :lol:

That could have been "flat out embarrassing".:lol:

ahh
29th of September 2008 (Mon), 06:03
I've had this lens now for almost a year. It replaced my non OS version, which I thought was actually optically better. Having said that, this lens has been sitting in the closet for a while. I will give it another go before deciding to keep it or not.

ahh
29th of September 2008 (Mon), 06:59
That is a very tempting thought. I have been thinking about the very thing. The other option is to send the lens back to Sigma for recalibration. My copy is really bad on the lower left corner. Visibly so without having to pixel peep.

In2Photos
30th of September 2008 (Tue), 15:01
Uh hmmmm!

That will be enough thank you. For those of you new to POTN you will soon find out that we will not tolerate that sort of behavior. There is no need for insults. If you can not find a polite way to discuss the merits of a lens or photo then don't discuss it period!

The Archive threads are for sharing of photos and helpful discussion of the lens. Let's keep it that way!

Vascilli
8th of October 2008 (Wed), 00:45
White-tailed jackrabbit in my front yard. His name is Vascilli. (Which is where my username came from)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3101/2890323307_687364e418.jpg?v=0

ahh
8th of October 2008 (Wed), 04:18
That's a really nice shot Vascilli. Shows the lens's capabilities. What were your settings?

Vanthel
8th of October 2008 (Wed), 08:07
A recent trip to the zoo yielded:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3032/2903375994_59235e4499.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/2903375832_893026006c.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3078/2902531791_012c3dc993.jpg

These and others in my flickr photostream are done with this lens or the sigma10-20mm, the tags mention the lens used
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30026747@N08

amyandmark3
6th of November 2008 (Thu), 19:46
Here are some real world snap shots from a recent cruise to the Caribbean. All taken with the 18-200 OS and Canon XTI.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3195/2883013849_c24622c8f3_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3065/2883011109_a8a9f67301_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3293/2883819268_f490aedb9d_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2883813868_c411b5aac2_b.jpg

katodog
8th of November 2008 (Sat), 12:48
I just got this lens in yesterday, and have some shots of the birds at the inlaws house. I like this lens a lot, and it produces some very nice pictures.

Both of these are full-frame crops with no processing.


Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 10D
Date/Time: 2008:11:08 11:04:29
Resolution: 925 x 671
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 200.0mm
CCD Width: 6.82mm
Exposure Time: 0.0080 s (1/125)
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO Equiv.: 400
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure Mode: Manual
Exposure Mode: Auto bracketing

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Birds/Nov08116.jpg


Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 10D
Date/Time: 2008:11:08 11:04:29
Resolution: 925 x 671
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 200.0mm
CCD Width: 6.82mm
Exposure Time: 0.0080 s (1/125)
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO Equiv.: 400
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure Mode: Manual
Exposure Mode: Auto bracketing

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Birds/IMG_7484.jpg



I'm no pro, but when I can get pictures like this through a double-paned window, I'm satisfied. These were through the kitchen window and the feeders are about 6 feet from the window. Feel fee to critique my shots, and any helpful info is always appreciated.

tamashi523
12th of November 2008 (Wed), 19:28
after seeing this thread I think this lens has a lot of potential! I'm probably gonna buy it since this lens seems a lot better then the canon 28-135mm is f/3.5 lens I was gonna buy

katodog
12th of November 2008 (Wed), 19:39
I think the lens has tons of potential, not only in the right hands, but the right settings. I was shooting through a window, on a day that had intermittent rain and snow, and my shots came out pretty respectable. Quite frankly, for the everyday shooter, or someone who only dabbles in pro photography, the lens is an excellent choice AFAIC.

I have noticed that the macro distances come out better than longer shots sometimes, but so far I've had great results no matter what the distance was.

efoo
30th of November 2008 (Sun), 03:58
Sorry about these late photos (by nearly one year) as I only learnt how to post today. They were from the New Years Eve firework 2007 at Sydney Harbour Bridge.

First shot was earlier that evening before firework started.

Second shot was the finale of the firework, when the bridge was on fire ;)

katodog
1st of December 2008 (Mon), 16:42
Here's a macro shot from the Sig...


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Tamron%2018-270mm%20VC/Sigfullcrop.jpg


The full shot, reduced...


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Tamron%2018-270mm%20VC/Sigfull.jpg

katodog
11th of December 2008 (Thu), 16:21
Squirrel eating a Fig Newton. Yummy. I love those things.


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/IMG_8650.jpg

Froggeh
22nd of December 2008 (Mon), 04:05
http://www.identity.net.au/africa/content/bin/images/large/IMG_7136.jpg

Active Volcano in Tanzania - 1/250sec @ f9 (Taken through plane window)

Badger49456
31st of December 2008 (Wed), 17:10
1. ISO 100, 1/320, f10, 18mm
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3284/3154109567_85b4d3f046.jpg

2. ISO 200, 1/400, f11, 18mm
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/3154108901_be42ce9c77.jpg

3. ISO 200, 1/1000, f7.1, 200mm
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3252/3154944818_a68d2eaa7d.jpg

4. ISO 100, 1/200, f6.3, 200mm
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/3154159173_4eea125c5a.jpg

sunbeast
7th of February 2009 (Sat), 15:16
Just bought this lens off B&S board with the intention of letting my wife try it against her current superzoom. Hmmm......while it's not the best solution in the world, it's nowhere near as bad as I was anticipating......think I'll keep it for myself :p.....what she don't know won't hurt her.

Tested at the extreme focal lengths...18 and 200....good enough for government work and vacation shooting!

340592

340593

Supersignet
21st of March 2009 (Sat), 04:05
I bought this lens to help ease the wife into photography. She wanted something with a long zoom and this lens fit the bill nicely. And I must say as a day to day walk around lens it is really tough to beat. Great price and good results, well atlest results that please me...

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_UbXK8W9A-Es/SGdl6RFJNsI/AAAAAAAAAoE/R6jsLFPjNZE/s512/DSC_1881.jpg

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_UbXK8W9A-Es/SbJ_mkt8ONI/AAAAAAAAEGA/L6BqzVjYl5U/s720/DSC_0449.jpg

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_UbXK8W9A-Es/SGdmNlaWtiI/AAAAAAAAAo8/Op7UadzVWiE/s800/DSC_1910.jpg

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_UbXK8W9A-Es/SGdl3tfPf1I/AAAAAAAAAn0/hih8UT-PeFw/s720/DSC_1873.jpg

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_UbXK8W9A-Es/SbJ_ktVTiWI/AAAAAAAAEFw/NSg7tIvlqw0/s720/DSC_0442.jpg

jdlloyd67
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 07:45
This lens seems to fit the bill as a good "vacation" lens. I am wondering if those who own it feel it's the right fit for that use? I wouldn't expect to use this for portrait work but for the family vacation shots it seems respectable.

sunbeast
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 17:43
This lens seems to fit the bill as a good "vacation" lens. I am wondering if those who own it feel it's the right fit for that use? I wouldn't expect to use this for portrait work but for the family vacation shots it seems respectable.

I certainly feel that it would fit the bill as a good vacation lens....versatile focal length, light weight, and reasonably sharp with the OS even in so-so light. I wouldn't rely on it for action shooting/sports, but for typical vacation shooting it should be more than adequate.

katodog
23rd of March 2009 (Mon), 20:58
My opinion is that it's a lot better than your typical "vacation" lens. My copy produces some pretty sharp images, and the image quality overall rates it a lot higher than "vacation" lens in my book. When I hear the term "vacation" or "all-arounder", I think more of the Tamron 18-270mm VC. Mainly because it's got a longer range, but also because it take a back seat to the image quality of the Sigma 18-200mm OS.

I'd stake the Sig against some Canon glass, and wouldn't hesitate to do so. To me it's got image quality that rates it better than your typical jump-around lens. The only thing I'd like to see is a lens of this quality at a faster aperture. Now that would be a killer lens.

bdtracey
27th of March 2009 (Fri), 08:40
Hey all, newbie here. I'm seriously looking at this lens. I haven't set up my signature as of yet but I have an XSi w/ 18-55 kit lens and a 50mm f/1.8. I was initially looking at Sigma's 24-70 f/2.8 but thought I needed something with a little more length. I got thinking about a 70-200 but a lot of my pictures are taken at the wide end of my 18-55. I also thought the 24-70 would be nice because it's fairly fast but then realized that my 50 f/1.8 is takes pretty good care of that range. This lens is just about perfect for my budget. If only it was just a touch faster....but then it'd be twice the price!

efoo
28th of March 2009 (Sat), 07:18
The only thing I'd like to see is a lens of this quality at a faster aperture. Now that would be a killer lens.

Sure, killer in terms of price, size and weight :lol:

Mind you, I like mine very much, it's so versatile.

katodog
29th of March 2009 (Sun), 17:40
Nothing spectacular here, shooting through glass with a high glare that day. I boosted the contrast a bit to fix the glare a little...


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Phillips%20Park%20Zoo/_MG_0537.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Phillips%20Park%20Zoo/_MG_0543.jpg



I had a CPL on the lens, but the direction that the sun was cutting through the filter didn't do much.

Mahones
2nd of May 2009 (Sat), 09:51
Hey Everyone! So I just purchased this lens used on ebay and so far I am really impressed with it. I was very skeptical of ordering a used lens online, but it seems to be in great shape and performs much better than the kit lens that I was using before. I love the versatility that this lens offers, it allows me to be much more creative.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3548/3489470101_92de41534e.jpg

riyazi
2nd of May 2009 (Sat), 11:35
If anyone is interested in buying one in the UK - I have one for sale here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=685889)

Bob Rodman
4th of May 2009 (Mon), 22:01
I am really glad to see these posts, I ordered this lens and should get it before the weekend. The price of the 18-200mm IS Canon lens and the reviews that I have read were a big factor in my choice. I will be using on a XTi and a 50D.
thanks for a great post.
br

liquidstone
24th of August 2009 (Mon), 18:52
Manila Moon - September 16, 2008 (22:24:47 local time)
40D + Sigma 18-200 OS + stacked standard Tamron 2x and 1.4x TCs,
560 mm, bare lens at f/9 (effective Av of combo = f/25), 1/60 sec, ISO 320
manual focus via Live View, tripod/geared head, cropped and resized to 50% of original pixels

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/103241848/original.jpg

MGW172
8th of September 2009 (Tue), 00:25
Sample at 18mm, f/8:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2193/2484302705_90633a6d32_b.jpg

WatchFan1
1st of October 2009 (Thu), 19:21
(EDIT: original post deleted)

sorry...made a mistake...I thought this was Canon 18-200.
I was viewing both back to back and made a post to the wrong thread.

WatchFan1
1st of October 2009 (Thu), 19:25
EDIT: Original post deleted.

HERE (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=578814&page=6) are my posts about Canon 18-200 IS

katodog
10th of October 2009 (Sat), 22:43
Been a while since I used this lens. Glad to see that after all this time it isn't mad at me, and still gives me great shots...


Tail rotor detail on the channel 2 News chopper...


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/CSFD%20Open%20House/_MG_8107a.jpg


Channel 2 "Eye" emblem...

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/CSFD%20Open%20House/_MG_8102a.jpg


HD Video camera on chopper...

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/CSFD%20Open%20House/_MG_8115a.jpg


HD cam and Kris Habermehl...

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/CSFD%20Open%20House/_MG_8159a.jpg


Gauges on a fire truck...


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/CSFD%20Open%20House/_MG_8215a.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/CSFD%20Open%20House/_MG_8220a.jpg

enrigonz
18th of January 2010 (Mon), 08:42
I have this lens and I've never been that happy with it, for me is just not as sharp as it should be and the colors are always a little washed, most of the time I have fix it in PP. I'm one of those beginning to think the super-zooms are good only if you don't want to carry another lens with you and don't really care about good IQ. For me IQ is really the most important thing and this lens just doesn't cut the mustard as they say. Except for a few, none of the other images posted from this lens on this thread are any good in my book and that's just my humble opinion.

Tony-S
18th of January 2010 (Mon), 10:06
I loved mine when I had a crop sensor camera. It was the first lens that went into my bag when I was traveling. It didn't perform as well as my 70-200L IS, but it was plenty sharp and contrasty for a hyperzoom, even at 35mm, the supposed "weak spot" of the lens.

uniu
29th of January 2010 (Fri), 06:43
My hdr samples, I very like this lens

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2782/4313778574_80deec2b73_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/4313042809_15913beb18_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4313042765_3f46434e60_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2637/4313042601_2c244a268b_b.jpg

enrigonz
29th of January 2010 (Fri), 07:31
My hdr samples, I very like this lens

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2782/4313778574_80deec2b73_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/4313042809_15913beb18_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4313042765_3f46434e60_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2637/4313042601_2c244a268b_b.jpg

These are amazing! very nice shots! What camera did you use?

uniu
29th of January 2010 (Fri), 08:22
I have Canon 40D

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2712/4313042971_106f1c7292_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4044/4313778134_58bfb5bb57_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4313778098_65a78eed69_b.jpg

enrigonz
29th of January 2010 (Fri), 08:50
Well the above shots really prove you have an excellent copy of this lens and that you're a great photographer!

uniu
29th of January 2010 (Fri), 09:08
thx, I sold my copy of this lens, and now I'm testing C24-105l, but I remember very well this lens

uniu
29th of January 2010 (Fri), 09:27
I like this photo from Dubrovnik

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4017/4314038428_edaf426335_b.jpg

LeeRatters
29th of January 2010 (Fri), 15:59
if anyone has any more photo's to post it would be much appreciated ;) ;)

i'm not fully decided yet but really swinging towards getting this lens for my 450d.... well, there's much more chance of me getting it than not anyway!!

retails for about 280 here in the uk, the canon is 450 with a lens hood.
that 170 difference could get me a good couple of filters!!

uniu
30th of January 2010 (Sat), 06:45
I try to find some samples from this lens, this was very good lens but have some cons like poor AF (slow and noise).

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/4315258159_de608c81bc_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2681/4315258103_1dd2263462_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2716/4315995536_a530e500b4_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2763/4315995496_44a8ff4235_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2707/4315257921_2bc8ed8eb3_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4016/4315995282_f857354393_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4030/4315995222_a08ce5849f_o.jpg

katodog
17th of February 2010 (Wed), 21:13
Some recent shots with my copy of this lens...


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/IMG_7608a.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/IMG_6627a.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/IMG_7565a.jpg

enrigonz
18th of February 2010 (Thu), 12:08
This thread made me keep my copy, glad I did because is an excellent lens!

denoir
17th of April 2010 (Sat), 19:33
Before I post any pictures I'd like to say first that I loathe this lens. I would not wish my worst enemy to suffer it. I used it and the non-OS version for years with my 350D, never realizing actually how bad it was. Only when I started getting better glass did I understand how many potentially great shots were ruined by its inadequacy.

Anyway, I'm in the process of organizing my old photos, and here are a few shots taken with the 18-200. They are not representative of the performance of the lens in general - for each of these I have hundreds of mediocre shots. When you take thousands of images you are bound to end up with a few good ones - simply by dumb luck where a number of factors serve to mask the inadequacy of the glass.

http://peltarion.eu/img/sigmold/sigmold-1.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/sigmold/sigmold-2.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/sigmold/sigmold-3.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/sigmold/sigmold-4.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/sigmold/sigmold-5.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/sigmold/sigmold-6.jpg

bishoy
6th of October 2010 (Wed), 20:20
1/160s 200m - OS is good :)
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4146/5019880059_747642e0d8_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bishoy/5019880059/)

bishoy
6th of October 2010 (Wed), 20:21
And it is good for portraits too
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5020484544_fa1ff0e5da_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bishoy/5020484544/)

katodog
6th of October 2010 (Wed), 20:33
I totally forgot all about this thread, and I've been using this lens all summer long at car shows. I've got a ton of great images out of it...


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/UG1032010079.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/UG1032010076.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/UG1032010077.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/UG1032010072.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/UG1032010066.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/UG1032010037.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/Hooters0905057.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/Hooters0905086.jpg

katodog
6th of October 2010 (Wed), 20:45
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/Hooters0905087.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/Hooters0718042.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/Augustinos0720007.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/Hooters0718071.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/Hooters0801025.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/Hooters0801070.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/Hooters0801041.jpg



Did somebody say "portraits"??


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a399/katodog/Car%20Shows/Hooters0912052.jpg

bishoy
6th of October 2010 (Wed), 21:47
Another portrait and another landscape:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4719758160_5c75c5bb17_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bishoy/4719758160/)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5013805309_d90de6d5e5_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bishoy/5013805309/)

bishoy
23rd of December 2010 (Thu), 04:53
Merry Christmas

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/5270660997_017d3ffcf8_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bishoy/5270660997/)
SANTA & santa (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bishoy/5270660997/) by Bishoy A. Botros (http://www.flickr.com/people/bishoy/), on Flickr

katodog
4th of September 2011 (Sun), 16:30
Wow, this poor thread, no posts since December?? I feel bad, like I'm neglecting the poor thing...


http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6061/6114075044_4b78dcf175_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/katodog/6114075044/)
September 04 001 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/katodog/6114075044/) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (http://www.flickr.com/people/katodog/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6144/5947705899_807eb41fbc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/katodog/5947705899/)
FCC 0716 002 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/katodog/5947705899/) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (http://www.flickr.com/people/katodog/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6144/5947708523_3f2cf6eefb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/katodog/5947708523/)
FCC 0716 006 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/katodog/5947708523/) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (http://www.flickr.com/people/katodog/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6192/6110005820_144b663a82_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/katodog/6110005820/)
September 01 076 b (http://www.flickr.com/photos/katodog/6110005820/) by Ed Durbin (Katodog) (http://www.flickr.com/people/katodog/), on Flickr