New Sigma Lens... Is it worth it?

[S230]

I would like to upgrade my Kit lens for my Drebel and not sure is it worth getting Sigma's new lens..
They are:
Sigma - 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC
or
Sigma - 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC

I had thought about Canon's L lens but they are extremely expensive so I will stick wtih Sigma route for now. Any suggestion, best price and as to what I should get other than Sigma.

[Andy_T]

S230 ...

why do you want to upgrade your kit lens?

If you want to do it because you need more reach with a single lens, then the two lenses sure look like logical alternatives.

If you are not happy with image quality and speed of the lens, then you maybe wait for some hands-on reviews for those lenses to determine if they are really much better than your kit lens.

Best regards,
Andy

[MrChad]

I have the Sigma 18-125mm

This lens is definately slightly sharper then the kit lens, about on par with Canon's 28-105mm II USM lens. build quality is top notch vs. the kit lens, about on par with a Canon USM non-L EF. The lens fully extended is made of metal and the shell is a tough plastic. Lens mount is metal. Included hood is also a nice thick plastic unit. Zoom ring is a nice grippy rubber material. It is a very solid lens for the money.

The AF motor is a bit noisy, but not too bad for me--it's definately louder then any Canon current EF lens.

The lens barral is stationary (non rotating during focus), IF focusing, makes cir. polarizers a nice choice. And the manual focus ring is well damped, but it does turn during normal AF use, watch your fingers.

I purchased this lens instead of the EF-S kit lens. I personally love my copy and for a general use lens I find it perfect. The price wasn't bad either for the performance. I purchased this lens as a companion for my EF 75-300mm IS on my Drebel. I see it as the perfect "kit" lens. It's sole purpose is to be a great lens to use as a hold over until I get a some L glass. I also use it for travel when I only want to bring one lens. I like the lens enough I plan to keep it as for the 18-24mm range even once I get the L glass.

this lens solves all issues for me I had with the kit lens. Which was all I wanted a $260 lens to do. If you want better, reach and build quality this is the lens. Do you want improved sharpness? Start saving you'll need the L glass IMO. Else maybe you should look toward the Tamron 28-75 XR Di lens many love.

[Andy_T]

MrChad ... good info, thanks a lot!

Best regards,
Andy

[S230]

Thanks MrChad. I agree that the rach is one of my primary purpose. As to quality, I also suspected it's better than the kit lens. Thanks for the info.. I'll check it out and see it myself if I can get hold of one. I currently cannot afford any L lens yet but need something better than the current kit lens. Unless it's just mine but I think the images I take with it is awful.

[stoneylonesome]

This is good to know, seeing as my Sigma 18-125 3.5 is arriving TODAY :lol: :lol:

Here is a review from fredmeranda.com

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=257&sort=7&cat=37&page=2

[S230]

This is good to know, seeing as my Sigma 18-125 3.5 is arriving TODAY :lol: :lol:

Here is a review from fredmeranda.com

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=257&sort=7&cat=37&page=2
Thanks for the link. Seems like a good investment to make... Now the question is where can I get a good deal on this>....

Also, someone mentioned to me that Vivitar had came out with a similar lens if not better. does anyone have any insight?

[MrChad]

I forgot to mention the weight of the lens, for me it's a wonderful balance on the Drebel body. The lens is very beefy and firm for the price. This is a wonderful starter lens or fill in lens for the wide end of the crop factor normal zooms. The build quality of this lens begs to be used vs. the 18-55mm EFS IMO. It's a joy to carry around, I love this lens. And then you realize it cost less then $300 bucks with a polarizer filter and you love it that much more.

[stoneylonesome]

Thanks for the link. Seems like a good investment to make... Now the question is where can I get a good deal on this>....

Also, someone mentioned to me that Vivitar had came out with a similar lens if not better. does anyone have any insight?

I bought mine here in the States at B&H photo video out of New York very reliable
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=23&shs=&ci=8454&ac=&Submit.x=3&Submit.y=12

I don't know if Henry's photo in Canada carries it or not, Sorry I know nothing of the Vivitar lens. I've heard that sigma and tamron are a little better.

[MrChad]

Tamron has a new 18-200mm coming out soon.

I'm fairly certain it's been since (60-70's -- 80-200mm) that Vivitar made a lens worth owning?

[Raj]

I forgot to mention the weight of the lens, for me it's a wonderful balance on the Drebel body. The lens is very beefy and firm for the price. This is a wonderful starter lens or fill in lens for the wide end of the crop factor normal zooms. The build quality of this lens begs to be used vs. the 18-55mm EFS IMO. It's a joy to carry around, I love this lens. And then you realize it cost less then $300 bucks with a polarizer filter and you love it that much more.

I second this !
I am also using sigma 18-125 with my 20D & choose it over kit lens + tameron 24-300. Its quite sharp, fast to focus & lightweight. Carrying it around is no issue at all.
Its excellent value for its cost.

If you can wait then look for reviews on 18-200. It was announced recently so will take some time to reach market & get reviewed, however will give you extra reach if the quality is as good as current 18-125...

Regards

[MrChad]

I would caution, the Sigma 18-125mm is very useable at 125mm hand held with the f5.6 wide open. But the (2) 18-200mm coming to market are 200mm and f6.3 on the wide end, this may require a tripod and will likely be soft wide open. I would imagine the 200mm is more for if you have to use then want to do it. I need my IS lens for this range personally.

But the positive is, it would give you a do all lens allowing you to save up for future glass down the road in the focal lengths you really like to use.

I've had a blast using a Tamron 28-300mm on my film body so the 18-200mm should be a blast on a digital body. I know many on this sight are "L" or nothing, but I really enjoy a hyper zoom. And they just keep getting better and better all the time. I think they make great starter lenses, they really can save you some cash starting out. If the Sigma or Tamron can hit the market for $299 they should be a bargain.

[Raj]

Chad (hope you dont mind calling like this :-))
How do you rate Tamron 28-300 ?. Stores in Japan are trying to push it with 20D/300D/D70 instead of kit lens..

[S230]

I personally think that CDS should add this lens as a suggestion to the Starter Lens list.

I will also see if I can pick one up to play with and see if it's any good.

[Paul_O]

As a replacement for the kit lens I'd be interested to know the aperture is at the equivalent of 55mm. The Canon kit lens is F5.6 at 55mm whilst the Sigma 18-125 is F5.6 @ 125mm, could be an interesting upgrade, hmmmm.

Paul

[MrChad]

Raj, I've never done any tests agaist other glass with the Tamron's but I did enjoy the lens when I used it on the film body. I like it better then the 18-55 kit lens, but I don't think it has the color or contrast of my 28-105 at least not on film. I think the Tamron would make a good kit lens, but I prefer the Tamron 24-135mm much better then the 28-300mm. On the digital body the 28mm is just to narrow for me at 44.8mm FOV.
Check out the 24-135 Tamron, it has some awesome build for a Tamron IMO.


Paul_O apertures of my 18-125mm Sigma (wide open of course)
18mm f3.5
24mm f4.0
35mm f4.5
50mm f5.0
70mm+ f5.6

Not the fastest glass but a tad faster then the kit lens for the money.

[Hellashot]

Check out the 24-135 Tamron, it has some awesome build for a Tamron IMO.

Note that the Tamron is twice the list price of the SIgma 24-135

[pfuller88]

I bought my Sigma 18-125 from Henry's in Toronto several months back for $449 Can$. Great lens, no problems, very pleased - used with 20D.

[Raj]

Raj, I've never done any tests agaist other glass with the Tamron's but I did enjoy the lens when I used it on the film body. I like it better then the 18-55 kit lens, but I don't think it has the color or contrast of my 28-105 at least not on film. I think the Tamron would make a good kit lens, but I prefer the Tamron 24-135mm much better then the 28-300mm. On the digital body the 28mm is just to narrow for me at 44.8mm FOV.
Check out the 24-135 Tamron, it has some awesome build for a Tamron IMO.

.

Thank for feedback MrChad.
I will look at Tamron, however I am more interested in getting better telephoto reach. Does anyone know if Tamron or Sigma make any zoom lenses with IS ? canon's L lenses with IS are simply too expensive :-(

[Raj]

I personally think that CDS should add this lens as a suggestion to the Starter Lens list.

.

I second this :-) a whole bunch of people seem to be satisfied with this lens.

[MrChad]

Thank for feedback MrChad.
I will look at Tamron, however I am more interested in getting better telephoto reach. Does anyone know if Tamron or Sigma make any zoom lenses with IS ? canon's L lenses with IS are simply too expensive :-(

Sigma makes 1, the OS lens = IS copied from Canon. The 80-400mm, but it's not much cheaper then the Canon 100-400L IS.

If you buy a fast enough lens f2.8 you may not need IS. (70-200 f2.8 $1000ish))
I have the Canon 75-300 IS lens, awesome IS lens for $400 bucks. Think that over for a minute is it soft on the long end and slow, yes....but it has an awesome IS system that I love for the money. Anyone else have an IS lens for the same money--nope. Makes a great match with the Sigma 18-125mm IMO. These 2 lenses in my bag make me plenty happy with my gear for the money spent.

[mdude85]

I hear good things about the Sigma 18-125 ...no idea about the 18-200 but f5.6 is pretty slow.

I'm still waiting for the Canon 12-300 f/1.4L...

[S230]

I hear good things about the Sigma 18-125 ...no idea about the 18-200 but f5.6 is pretty slow.

I'm still waiting for the Canon 12-300 f/1.4L...
if the Canon 12-300 f/1.4 ever does come out, it will really put a dent into the market because it's going to replace many existing lens. The only problem is that it will probably cost many armS and legS.

[S230]

Just discovered that some stores are now selling the new Tamron AF18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO. Now I need to think more on what to get.

[MrChad]

Just discovered that some stores are now selling the new Tamron AF18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO. Now I need to think more on what to get.

Is the Tamron selling anywhere near the $260 Sigma 18-125mm price, plus you need to remember this lens is a 28-200mm field of view, exactly how much reach do you need from one lens :D I personally think the 200mm setting of the Tamron and Sigma 18-200mm's at f6.3 would be almost useless handheld unless it was a bright sunny day.

I use my Canon 75-300 IS for anything much past the reach of the Sigma 18-125mm.

[S230]

thanks.. That's great to know... :)

[griff2]

I'm going to upgrade the kit lens too, I use wide angle a lot, but am now spoiled by the image quality of the 50mm f/1.8 and the 70-200 f/4L, which makes the kit lens look way too soft. My next purchase - when I can afford it - will have to be a significant upgrade and therefore has got to be the 17-40 f/4L.

[MrChad]

I'm going to upgrade the kit lens too, I use wide angle a lot, but am now spoiled by the image quality of the 50mm f/1.8 and the 70-200 f/4L, which makes the kit lens look way too soft. My next purchase - when I can afford it - will have to be a significant upgrade and therefore has got to be the 17-40 f/4L.

The 17-40L was on my list of lenses to purchase with the Drebel but I ruled it our for a few reasons. None of which was image quality.

First, size I wanted a lens that could be used with the pop up flash, I wasn't sure the 17-40L would clear the flash.

Second, I have plenty of F4-5.6 lenses and even F4 is too slow for me, it seamed like $600ish was a lot to spend for that glass, when I knew I would want the f2.8 at some point.

And finally, somewhat related to above--I wasn't sure the focal length range beyond 24-28mm in terms of wide angle would be of much use to me if and when DSLR's go full frame. Personally I view lenses like the 24-70L and 70-200L as real keepers. My Sigma glass (18-125mm) is meant to be a hold over until and in use with this glass for as long as I have the Drebel or a 1.6x Canon DSLR.

[nwoods]

THe new EF-S 10-22 is a very nice lens, IMHO. I have used it quite a bit. There is some distortion in the corners, but it's slight, and I am more satisfied with this lens than the 16-40 L that I rented (I think that's the size, it was something close anyway, and very expensive with a HUGE curved lens on the front)

Sample photos of the EF-S 10-22 (most, but not all of the following):
- http://www.soaringusa.com/images/sailplanes/baudis/salto/index.htm
- http://www.soaringusa.com/images/sailplanes/ccm/bigmach/index.htm
-