18-200mm lenses

[TomPokNY]

Sigma had an 18-125 that was popularly recommended on these boards for my XT about 18 months ago. I looked at the Sigma site today and see that it's no longer being offered. Hmmm..I really like the lens, I'll see how much it costs to fix

Looks like Sigma just announced an 18-125 OS!

 

[PoohJen]

Woo Hoo!!!! Thanks Tom!

 

[alan]

I've been out trying my new Sigma 18-200mm (it's been the first time that I had any decent light). Summary is, it seems to be doing a grand job and I rather think it will prove to be a good friend

#1 Cross near Stirling Castle

#2 Statue of kilted soldier near Stirling Castle

#3 Curious pyramid near Stirling Castle (this one definitely warrants further investigation - reminds me of the Masonic symbol on the US$1 note)

Anyway, bottom line is that this seems to be producing nice sharp shots throughout the focal range! Hooray!

regards,
/alan

 

[Golf4food]

From one Alan to another - nice photos. What camera were you using?

(I now have the movie Braveheart playing in my head, along with the soundtrack... )

 

[PoohJen]

Very nice! Congrats on your lens; I'm glad you like it. I'm waiting - impatiently - for the Sigma 18-125 OS to be released commercially; that'll be my next walk around lens.

 

[alan]

Thank you - after the problems I had with the old Sigma I was very nervous, but this one seems to be working well. The 18-125 does seem to be very intriguing - should be lighter than the 18-200, and the motor should be much quieter (mine sounds pretty iffy, I have to say)

Alan - one of the shots I did take on that trip was of the Wallace Monument, to William Wallace of "Braveheart" fame! I'll try to remember to post it when I get home. This was a Canon 350D (Rebel XT), with the Sigma 18-200mm OS. I guess you like golf? DS6 and DD8 are desperately trying to get me to play golf with them. I blame by brother-in-law, myself!

regards,
/alan

 

[t1gger1968]

Hi, I have been lurking on these boards forever and am very impress by all your pictures! Anyway, I have a Canon Xti- my first DSLR camera and I bought it with just the 18-55mm kit lens. I just bought the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens from Amazon this week and waiting for it to arrive and I would like to get another lens and I think I have it narrowed down to either the Canon 28-135mm and the Sigma 18-200mm OS...I am thinking of this lens to be my walk-around lens. WHile the 18-55mm is great for most of my needs, but I really would like a little bit more reach/zoom... so which one would you recommend? The Sigma or the Canon? I have about $500 to spend...so I can't get those high end Canon L lenses. I am also just a beginner when it comes to the DSLR and still learning....

Or is there another lens that you would recommend other than those two above in my price range? I take pictures of my kids, and also at event like my kids recital, ice skating events, school events...and of course, pictures at WDW on rides, and in the parks...

Thanks

 

[Master Mason]

Hi, I have been lurking on these boards forever and am very impress by all your pictures! Anyway, I have a Canon Xti- my first DSLR camera and I bought it with just the 18-55mm kit lens. I just bought the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens from Amazon this week and waiting for it to arrive and I would like to get another lens and I think I have it narrowed down to either the Canon 28-135mm and the Sigma 18-200mm OS...I am thinking of this lens to be my walk-around lens. WHile the 18-55mm is great for most of my needs, but I really would like a little bit more reach/zoom... so which one would you recommend? The Sigma or the Canon? I have about $500 to spend...so I can't get those high end Canon L lenses. I am also just a beginner when it comes to the DSLR and still learning....

Or is there another lens that you would recommend other than those two above in my price range? I take pictures of my kids, and also at event like my kids recital, ice skating events, school events...and of course, pictures at WDW on rides, and in the parks...

Thanks

I don't think your going to be happy with either of the lenses listed for the uses listed. Those are mostly low (er) light situations, with people moving, so your going to need a wider apeture than your going to be able to get out of either of those lenses, especially at the long end of the zoom.

I have the 28-135 but have never had it on my camera (it came with my 40D body, and I just dont' seam to be able to sell lenses even ones I don't use) it is supposed to be a pretty decent lens barring Jann's difficulty with here copy. The 18-200 is going to suffer in quality at the long and short ends as all super zooms do.

Personally I would save my money for a while longer and get a lens that will help you to get the shots your looking to get ie a fast zoom. You don't have to spend the money to get a canon, Sigma makes a very nice 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 that can be had for half the price of the canon version.

 

[t1gger1968]

Thank you so much for the quick response. I just look on Amazon and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 lens is $405, so that is definitely within my budget. I may just get that lens first, and then save up for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (which is about $759 on Amazon). Would the Sigma 24-70 lens be a good walk around lens to replace my current kit lens?

 

[Master Mason]

Thank you so much for the quick response. I just look on Amazon and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 lens is $405, so that is definitely within my budget. I may just get that lens first, and then save up for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (which is about $759 on Amazon). Would the Sigma 24-70 lens be a good walk around lens to replace my current kit lens?

Yes I believe it would be, it is a fairly heavy lens in the interest of full disclosure. I use the canon 24-70 f/2.8 as my walk around, and there has only been 1 or 2 times in a year that I wished I had something wider, and to be honest, I don't think that 18 would have even been wide enough for those.

Deleted Penguin on this site uses the sigma 24-70 as his walk around, and I have seen many impressive shots of his.

 

[Nikel]

I have the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 as my walk around lens, and I really like it.

I also have the 28-105mm, and it's a pretty good lens, but it's only 3.5-4.5 ap, and I've gotten spoiled by fast fixed ap lenses.

 

[pjacobi]

I would not recommend the 28-135 lens for two reasons:

1) It is an old film camera lens. It is a great range for film cameras and full frame, but a poor range on 1.6 crop cameras.

2) The 28-135 is kitted with the 30D/40D because it is the cheapest IS lens, to counter dSLR with in-body IS. It is used simply as a marketing device.

For a 1.6 crop camera, the EF-S 17-85 USM IS covers the exact same range as the 28-135 on a film camera.

The 17-85 USM IS is not a perfect lens, but it's flexibility far out weighs any small flaws.

Compared to the 18-55, the 17-85 USM IS is large and heavy lens. It balances perfectly against the heavier body 30D and 40D, but seem a little awkward on the Rebel line. Be sure you are comfortable with this extra weight. This is one of the reasons why I choose the 30D over the XTi.


-Paul

 

[alan]

When I first bought my dSLR, I bought an 18-200mm Sigma lens and hated it. Fast forward two years and I bought the OS version. I was pleasantly surprised. Here are a few examples

28mm:

100% crop of small area of above:

200mm:

100% crop of small area of above:

And with a touch of sharpening:

Out and about in Stirling with the same lens:

regards,
/alan

 

[mabas9395]

I feel like I need to stand up and defend the 28-135. Its not as bad as most people say. It may be a little long for some people, but I guess it depends on how you like to shoot. I used it almost exclusively at Disneyland for 4 days and can't remember a time I wished it was wider. The IS is not the latest generation, but I have gotten some great low light shots with it. It may be part of the new "kit" but that is just because it is affordable. And you can probably get one cheap off the web from people who upgraded their body and got the this lens as part of their kit but don't really need it (like Master Mason above).

When all I had was my 18-55 kit and nifty fifty, I thought this lens was heaven. But in the interest of full discloser, after I got my 85 f/1.8 and first "L" and experienced some "real glass" I fell out of love with it a little.

But for someone in your situation who wants more reach than the standard kit, and could use the IS, but doesn't want the cost of an "L" (and hasn't experienced one yet), this is a great lens for the price.

I haven't ever used the Sigma, but in general, the more extreme they try to make the zoom (11.1x for the sigma vs. 4.8x for the canon), the less quality you can get out of the lens.

 

[JR6ooo4]

I feel like I need to stand up and defend the 28-135. Its not as bad as most people say. It may be a little long for some people, but I guess it depends on how you like to shoot. I used it almost exclusively at Disneyland for 4 days and can't remember a time I wished it was wider. The IS is not the latest generation, but I have gotten some great low light shots with it. It may be part of the new "kit" but that is just because it is affordable. And you can probably get one cheap off the web from people who upgraded their body and got the this lens as part of their kit but don't really need it (like Master Mason above).

When all I had was my 18-55 kit and nifty fifty, I thought this lens was heaven. But in the interest of full discloser, after I got my 85 f/1.8 and first "L" and experienced some "real glass" I fell out of love with it a little.

But for someone in your situation who wants more reach than the standard kit, and could use the IS, but doesn't want the cost of an "L" (and hasn't experienced one yet), this is a great lens for the price.

I haven't ever used the Sigma, but in general, the more extreme they try to make the zoom (11.1x for the sigma vs. 4.8x for the canon), the less quality you can get out of the lens.

Me too. It had good reviews on many websites. Not upper end quality but a great bargain.

Mikeeee

 

[jann1033]

i agree...my first copy had tons of problems but this latest is great, sharp, very little ca, and i use it any time i can not use my 70-200. it's not l glass naturally but it doesn't claim to be..and doesn't cost what most IS l glass costs by a long shot.

it was the first (i think) ever lens with is so it's been around a while but imo it's great as a walk around...and since i doubt they are ever going to offer an l lens as a kit, i can 't really think of a better walk around alternative that they would offer.( there may be one but a kit should be kind of a multi purpose lens don't you think?) i think it's around mid to high 8 reviews which considering some of the best l's are 9+ i don't think that is that bad...certainly good enough for most beginners.

that being said, tamron has a newish 18-250 that is rated pretty good and is definitely a great range...it's about $500 but i think that would be the general $$ vicinity of the 28-135, maybe slightly more. same f as the 28-135 although i don't think it has IS so the would be more limiting.

 

[Quicklabs]

My Olympus 500 will cost about $300 to fix. I've had it less than 2 years, but not sure that it's really worth the $$. I'm pretty peeved. I need a decent camera to take to the CPE agility Nationals in less than 2 weeks. This will be a once in a lifetime event for me and my Labrador, Augusta, who has a great shot at finishing a very big title there. So I need it captured on film! This will be her last National, so you can see why I must have a camera.

My main use of a camera is taking pictures of my dogs and action agility shots.
I've looked at the D80 and the D300. The D300 is waaaaaaaaaay too much camera for me.
I'm thinking get the D40 with the Nikon 18-200 lens. The money saved can be used to buy something really hot once I've learned to use the camera itself. The lens will be a good investment for whatever camera comes after the D40.

Any thoughts on this proposed combo?

 

[handicap18]

That is an excellent combination. I'd love to have the 18-200 VR lens. The VR works great. Its the best lens in its class. Not really very fast (aperture wise), but outdoors for your situatioin it should do wonderful.

 

[Quicklabs]

Thanks handicap18! It's a little scary having to get a camera combo so quickly, but the Nationals opening is 29 May!
P.S. As a golfer, you may appreciate the names of my dogs:
Rosebud's Augusta Rae's Creek (Augusta)
Pathway's Shout in Amen Corner (Grace)
See the trend here?
My DH is an avid golfer; I was too, before I started showing dogs. My best handicap "in my prime" was also 18!

 

[YEKCIM]

I'm thinking get the D40 with the Nikon 18-200 lens. .

Any thoughts on this proposed combo?

You might also consider the D40 w/kit lens and the 70-300VR, which would give you a good bit more reach on the long end than the 18-200VR. I would guess the money would not be substantially different.

Have you, by the way, located a source for the D40 body with the 18-200VR *as* the kit lens? I've seen it with the 18-55, of course, and the 18-135 and as a two lens kit with the 18-55 and 55-200.

Just a thought.

~Y