18-200mm lenses

[TinkerKell-ey]

Thanks for the reply. I think I saw the post you mentioned, but I have researched this one for hours. There are actually several photo mag reviews and lots online saying the Sigma is actually superior. I was leaning Nikon from the getgo, but the research I did changed my mind. Apparently the Nikon suffers from "lens creep" and the Sigma results were a tad better overall. The main complaint about the Sigma was that it is noisy, and that is what the HSM supposedly corrects. Anyway, I'm going to go for it before DH changes his mind! Thanks again.

 

[Code]

If it is OS and Nikon mount, then it is HSM. Sigma never released an OS version of the 18-200mm for Nikon mount that relied on camera body focus motor.

 

[TinkerKell-ey]

Thanks Code - that would explain why I can't find more than specks of info on this. I was going off a few user comments I found that said the"new HS motor" makes it quieter. I feel better now . . . and it should arrive Wednesday!!!!

 

[handicap18]

If you have a D40/D40x/D60 then you can reference this list for lenses that will auto focus:

http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcb...&forum=152&topic_id=13319&mesg_id=13319&page=
(currently: 38 Nikkor lenses, 32 Sigma lenses and 6 Tamron lenses)

The Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS is on that list.

Here is the link for that lens from the Sigma web site:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3341&navigator=6

 

[wenrob]

I'm going to have to disagree with Anne, IMO the 18-200mmVR Nikon is not a sharp lens. I've had mine for a year and while like Anne was thrilled in the beginning, I find it lacking now. It's a nice walk around lens and puts out decent pics but my 18-105 beats it to heck and back as far as sharpness goes. Then again they may have revamped it but it doesn't sound like it from what I've seen.

edited:LOL, never mind, congrats on your new purchase!

 

[alan]

I use the Sigma lens on my Canon 350D, and am quite enamoured with it. I normally leave the camera on Aperture Priority mode, at f/8.0. The results are generally pretty good.

These taken from my set at http://www.flickr.com/photos/atp/sets/72157606204634244/

regards,
/alan

 

[PhotobearSam]

I can't decode and I was wondering if any of you have these lenses...

The 18-200 http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/st...rtmentId=10404&categoryId=11802&itemID=191518

and the 18-125

http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/st...rtmentId=10404&categoryId=11802&itemID=238916


I want a good walk around lens to bring to France. This and a nifty 50 is all I would bring.

I like doing close ups so I might have to get a dedicated macro lens as well but I really need a good walk around lens to start.

If you any feedback I would appreciate it.

 

[boBQuincy]

According to the reviews at fredmiranda.com and photozone.de both of these lenses can have focusing issues on Canon cameras.
Ymmv...

 

[alan]

I only have the 18-200mm, on a 350D (Rebel XT). So I cannot compare the two lenses. But I can tell you that I spent two weeks last summer in the South of France, and had the Siggy 18-200mm as my main lens, and it worked well.

Have a look at my pictures on Flickr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/atp/sets/72157606204634244/ - they were mostly taken with this lens. I put the camera on Av mode, and kept the lens at f/8.0

Here are a couple of examples:

regards,
/alan

 

[Nicole786]

Can you tell me what a nifty 50 is? I see the term used here all the time lol

 

[annnewjerz]

Can you tell me what a nifty 50 is? I see the term used here all the time lol

It's the 50mm f/1.8 lens. Very inexpensive, very nice prime lens...especially if you can't afford something pricier. I just picked one up a few weeks ago and even though it doesn't auto-focus with my Nikon D60 body, I love it. Very sharp and fast in low-light situations.

 

[Nicole786]

THank you just added it to my B&H shopping cart!

 

[SueInBoston]

I have the 18-200OS. It's a great travel lens. I was using it with my xt and had no issues. But when I upgraded to 40D, at times it wouldn't focus. I spoke to Sigma and they suggested that I remove the UV filter, which I have and it seems to be OK now. I'll be using this lens on a trip next week and I'll let you know if I run into any focusing issues.

 

[Golf4food]

I have the Pentax mount version of the 18-125 as a walk-around lens and like the versatility a lot but sure do sometimes wish for just a little extra reach at places like the zoo where you are limited to where you can walk, etc. - I'd go for the 18-200 unless the reviews were a lot worse on the Canon.

 

[PhotobearSam]

Thank you all...

I have been looking for reviews everywhere but some go over my head, some are really contradictory and some are so snobby....My head is spinning.

I am still looking thanks.

 

[PhotobearSam]

Alan, nice shots...Do you shoot RAW or JPeg? Really nice. Looks like you had a good time.

 

[alan]

Hi Sam,

Thanks for the comments - we did have a good time!

I think you're right in that there is a lot of snobbery when people talk about these "superzoom" lenses. But there is also a lot of truth.

As I understand it, the truth boils down to this:

• A superzoom is a compromise between image quality and convenience
• Shot for shot, you would get better pictures with a short-range zoom than a superzoom
• Shot for shoot, you'd do better with a prime lens (i.e. no zoom) than even a short-range zoom
• An SLR with a superzoom will - in good outside light - still give a better quality of picture than all but the very best of compact cameras (I'd be thinking of something like the Canon G9/G10 or the Pansaonic LX3 as "the very best" of compact cameras)
• In poor light, an SLR with a superzoom will normally give dramatically beter pictures than any compact

Now, I have a couple of Canon L series lenses. They are Canon's professional grade product, and they are lovely. If I were going somewhere that I had planned a shot, knew which focal length I wanted to use, I'd take the L lens.

But my holidays don't work like that. I'm helping DW look after the kids, seeing things for the first time as I see them, and don't have the time or opportunity to go back, change lenses, etc.

That's why I use the superzoom.

Be warned, though - it's a heavy little beast. The exact weight of the lens will be on the Sigma web site, but you know you are carrying something when you've got that over your shoulder...

regards,
/alan

PS These photos were shot RAW, and post-processed. The reason is because my camera (a 350D / Rebel XT) seems to choose a fairly cool colour balance in outdoor conditions. I shot a load of pictures at a family member's wedding recently. The out-of-camera settings made everyone look cold - a few seconds in DPP to change the colour balance to Sunny made all the skin tones much warmer. I now shoot almost exclusvely in RAW, and have bought Lightroom to convert them to JPG.

 

[Code]

The lens review sites I generally look at first are SLRgear and Photozone, and neither of them have very favorable reviews of the 18-200mm. They both note an extreme spike in border softness around 30mm and 100mm.

The new Canon 18-200mm IS looks like it may be worth the extra cost. Another option would be to wait for reviews on the new stabilized Tamron 18-270mm.

 

[PhotobearSam]

Thanks Code...I needed more choices...LOL

 

[TinkerKell-ey]

Thanks everybody. I ordered from Amazon and received my lens today It has the HSM and it's pretty heavy (compared to the 28-70 I'm used too). I also ordered myself a new op-tech strap, and it does make a difference. Can't wait to get there . . .

Thanks Alan for sharing your great pictures. The boy's (your son?) picture looks just like one I took of my son up north this summer. I did a double take!