Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC

Can anybody comment who has used or uses this on a Canon DSLR?
Is it good on the low end? Distortion etcetera?
I assume it is not compatible on a Canon 35mm film format camera.

Can't comment on the lens, although it will obviously not be superb at that range and price.
Most of these 'super zooms' tend to be ok in the middle of the range but poor at the extreme ends.

And no, it will not be compatibe with a 35mm film SLR. I think it might physically fit (but I stand to be corrected on this) but will vignette badly because it is designed for a smaller sensor.

Hi

I'm using this lens. Though it ia good lens but a bit slow in shooting and sometimes it takes extra time to focus.

You can see some of the shots taken by me at http://www.flickr.com/​photos/rkgupta_blr

Regards

Rakesh

Check out this thread on the subject.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=213449

Hope this helps.

I really like the Sigma 18-200. Just trying to see if all the comments on here and other forums are true...and that I will notice an actual difference between the Sigma 18-200 vs the Canon 17-85 IS and Canon 70-300 IS combo.

Just shooting today, I think I will like the 17-85 better....but I guess I will really find out when hopefully my 70-300 comes in and I got to start switching between two lenses.

I have 3 very good f2.8 lenses (Sigma 18-50, Tamron 28-75 which is just amazing for sharpness, and Canon 80-200L which was a used bargain).

The Sigma 18-50 is great but I think it doesn't always focus perfectly
The Tamron 28-75 is just killer, but neither wide nor tele enough for me, so I only use it when "quality is job one"
The Canon 80-200L is of course awesome but far too heavy and HUGE

So where does my new Sigma 18-200 fit in?

It has the lovely Sigma colour rendition (warm and vivid) which I like
At 18mm it's nearly as good as the 18-50 f2.8 (which is better than the kit lens)
At f9.5 it's damn sharp at mid zoom
It is slow to focus, but I find it also focuses very accurately
At full zoom it suffers a little, but unless you want A3 prints at 200mm zoom you probably don't care.
The zoom range gives you all the options you want if you are a "zoom person".

I can now live without my f2.8 18-50 (the 18-200 is f3.5 at 18mm)
The Tamron will stay just for quality portraits
The Canon 80-200L... not sure if I'll keep it.

I'm very impressed with the 18-200!!!!

Not sure if the poster of this thread saw it but I posted a similar question and that thread has gotten a lot of response.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=213449

I liked my Sigma 18-200 on my RebelXT. But it was not fast enough in dark environments. Outside it was great, but inside it was okay. I replaced it with the Tamron 17-35 and Canon 24-105L IS.

I always thought this was a bad lens - I guess its not all bad

Although I'm going to back up my 70-300 with a 17-70 for a faster, longer and I believe higher IQ combo.

I just bought this lens last month, and I honestly have quite mixed feelings about it. First of all, it is an extremely convenient lens to shoot with, and I hardly ever find any need to switch to the other lenses in my kit when I'm using it. This combined with it's light weight makes it a godsend when you are travelling (as I am) particularly through very dusty countries such as Afghanistan, and you don't want to have to lug around your whole kit or be switching lenses every 5 minutes and getting dust on your sensor.
So that's the good side of it.
On the bad side...
Well, first, there is some noticable distortion at both ends, but lets not worry about that too much since that can be easily remedied in photoshop.
Worse is the chromatic abberation, which is noticable particularly in bright contrasty shots. This is harder to deal with, and is a pain in the ass.
To me, the worst thing about this lense is that in order to have the background nicely thrown out of focus (bokeh,) you have to shoot wide open. And wide open gives you pretty soft images. I don't mean pixel-peeping soft, but noticably soft to the naked eye. (more so than any other lens in my kit, I daresay.) This can be remedied by stopping down a couple stops, but this has 2 problems: first, stoping down 2 stops could easily put you at f11 or higher, which makes this lens quite slow and only useful for shooting in bright daylight conditions (see my complaint about CA in very bright conditions,) and second, at f11 or higher, the DOF is too high, and the bokeh is sh!t, making it hard to isolate your subject.
So overall, this lens has its ups and down, which I guess is to be expected. The lazy photographer in me loves this lens cuz it is so easy--you hardly ever need another lens. The perfectionist in me absolutely detests this lens, it is slow, very soft while still having crappy bokeh, not to mention the distortion and the CA.
I am considering selling my copy when I return home from my trip, so if anyone is interested, PM me!