Sigma 18-300mm or 18-250mm?

Does anyone have experience of these two lenses to recommend one over the other?

I want something I can carry in a tankbag when out riding just to have something with me, so I fully accept all the compromises that come with a superzoom. But it is a situation for a single, small, multi-purpose lens or nothing, and for me nothing is the more annoying.

Extra reach does mean more compromise, but as the 18-300mm seems to be the direct replacement for the 18-250mm, and so being a more recent lens, I am hoping it at least offers comparable quality, as well as better OS and focussing. Plus it has the added benefit of the Sigma docking system.

Incidentally, I have sadly ruled out the Tamron 16-300mm. The extra width sounds nice, and by all accounts it is a much better lens to use (VC, focus, FTM) despite being just a tad softer. But for something that will mostly sit in a bag unused it is just too expensive (£433 vs £362 for the Sigma equivalent).

I am already pushing things by considering the newer Sigma when the 18-250mm is only £259. But with the slow aperture of these lenses better OS and focussing are worth paying more for, as well as the added reach. But if there is not much of an improvement over the older model I would be okay with the range of the 18-250mm, and especially the price.

Thanks.

I owned the 18-250 for a while and it was a very nice supezoom. I have not tried the 18-300 but from what I've seen (reviews and samples) it is a good step above the 18-250. If I were to get another superzoom I would go with the 18-300 over the 18-250. But I say that without ever trying the 18-300 so take that with a grain of salt.

Another lens you may want to consider is the tamron 18-270.

From the reviews I read the quality of Sigma 18-250mm was better than the Tamron 18-270mm which is why I had ruled that one out.

Between the 18-300mm being relatively new yet not a type of lens usually used by those on photography forums there is so little out there that even hearsay helps. So thanks. Having not seen anything particularly negative beyond the usual warnings about superzooms in general I guess it cannot be all that bad. You will probably not get too much praise for something which aims for adequacy, but there surely would have been complaints if it failed. So I think that makes my mind up there.

But one new wrinkle is that apparently Digital Rev has the Tamron 16-300mm for just £359 shipped, which I think also includes tax. If so then I will go back to check the sample images from a comparative review I read to see whether the difference in quality really is that insignificant and go for that, else will order the new Sigma.

I've actually been looking into the Tamron 16-300 and sigma 18-300 as options for kayaking, backpacking, and bike touring (the 18-35 and 50-150OS is a big heavy combo for those things). So heres the quick and ugly that I've come up with these two lenses

Tamron 16-300mm

Pros:
FTM focus (nice to have)
16mm (not a huge difference to me)
Distance scale window (I never use this so a non-pro)
Weather gasket on the mount (ok that is super nice to have)

Sigma 18-300mm

Pros:
Slightly sharper (who doesn't like a sharper lens? but really not night and day sharper)
Can be used with the usb dock (nice for update or to tun to your camera...love the dock with my 18-35)
Less expensive (more monty in my pocket means more trips)


So for me it comes down to 16mm and a gasket seal at the mount (tamron) or a little more sharpness and money in my pocket (sigma). Personally if I had to get one right now I think I'd go with the sigma. If the sigma and tamron were the same price I think I might go with the tamron instead......but now you have me thinking about the 18-250 again and here in the US its super cheap right now.....damn you

I was right about Digital Rev paying taxes, so I have placed the order for the Tamron.

I did almost change my mind again as the original review between the two I saw said the Sigma had worse chromatic aberration, but seeking out others seemed to show the opposite to be true. But it can be fixed in post, and is a problem for the Sigma too as with all consumer lenses trying to do so much so would need that anyway.

The reviews were also interesting in how the Tamron seemed crazily sharper at some lengths than others seemingly at random. Ultimately though these sort of lenses are never going to be super sharp, and whilst the difference between the two was noticable at 100% it did not seem so great and they are not really lenses for making large prints anyway. I think if the Tamron performance is unsatisfactory at normal viewing sizes or distances then I doubt I would have been happy with the Sigma.

But for lenses with such a small aperture (and in a country that is often overcast!) focus is going to be difficult so for those reasons the usability benefits of the Tamron ended up being most important.

All reviews said it the AF was better in general.
Watching YouTube review the stabilization did look significantly better.
And I can see myself making use of FTM to fine tune it when AF can only get close enough.

Although I am unlikely to use them in low light situations, they are better stopped down to f/11 and I would rather not have to ramp the ISO up too much (I mainly plan on using it with my old 30D) so the VC counts a lot there so I can use slower shutter speeds.

I have never used the distance scales either, if I ever want to get close to the hyperfocal distance I just focus on something a third of the way into a scene. I am not even sure knowing how many feet I should be looking would make that any easier either! Although another thing noted in reviews was that the travel on the Sigma focus ring is quite short, so as well as lacking FTM it would need a bit more care to get the focus right manually.

The sealing does sound nice, although I am not sure how useful it would be in practice if the lens itself is not actually weatherproof. Definitely better than nothing though and may make a difference if unexpectedly caught out I suppose.

I am not sure whether I would uses 16mm where I would be using this lens, but I do like wide angle lenses so it is nice to have. I also, possibly wrongly, feel that using 18-250mm of a 16-300mm lens should be better than one dedicated to that range because you are not using the extreme ends where you would expect it to be weakest.

The lens should arrive next week so I will let you know how I get on with it. It will also be my first Tamron lens having only used Canon and Sigma so far, so that should be interesting too.

Old thread but I am looking at a 18-250 as a walk around and bike tour lens for my SL1 instead of my 17-55 and 50-150. Your review (yeah 3 years later) helped me snag a 18-250 cheap

ian_socool wrote in post #18685836
Old thread but I am looking at a 18-250 as a walk around and bike tour lens for my SL1 instead of my 17-55 and 50-150. Your review (yeah 3 years later) helped me snag a 18-250 cheap

Ι would recommend to consider the Canon 18-200 IS. Much better performance on the long side than either of the Sigmas

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=6​&APIComp=0