 Excellent Lens... |
| Review Date: May 11, 2009 |
| Reviewer: Ghassan Bedaywi, Kuwait |
Actually my review is somewhat similar to the previous review by W. Cooper. I, like him, didn't find much resources about this lens, but was confused between the Tamron & the Nikon long range lenses, I was about to go with the Nikon 18-200mm because I felt that the Tamron 18-270mm lens didn't really get good reviews and I didn't like the fact that it was slow in focusing. And boy am I glad that I waited for this one. I think I gambled (being an early adopter) and it worked.
Its really a great all around lens which is exactly what I was looking for (I hate changing lenses). The best thing about it is that its really pretty fast in focusing at 250mm, maybe even faster than my D90 kit lens the Nikon 18-105mm. It really is a HSM equipped lens, I saw a few threads in forums about ppl debating this fact, so rest assured it has a motor. The OS is working as it should at maximum zoom as well so no issues here. I have been using it for a couple of days only to be fair, but I'm very excited about it and about the quality of the images I have took so far. I'm taking it out for a full test in the next few days, if I feel that things weren't perfect I will update this review. I didn't notice a lens creep (yet!), but in any case there is a lock switch on the lens, this switch will only work when the lens is at 18mm. I noticed that when you are trying to shoot close-ups at 250mm, the lens wont focus properly if you are too close to the subject, manual focus will still work though and you can take a clear sharp picture. The make and the body of the lens feels nice and durable as well, it doesn't feel cheap at all.
In the end I have to say that this baby will beat the Tamron 18-270mm lens hands down, and surely the Nikon 18-200 if you want a bigger zoom. And the price is surely worth it and acceptable.
Update: I think I was wrong about close-up focus, it still focus pretty well and fast at close range while at maximum zoom.
Update 2: I have uploaded some pics in Picasa, plz see comments for link. The images don't look good after uploading to Amazon.
Update 3: I have to confirm again my initial statement that sometimes it fails to auto focus at close range (according to my tests), I would have to use manual focus. Going back to auto focus it would then work, it seems it needs a reset from time to time!
Update 4: It weighs around 650g or 1.43 pounds. |
All around winner for an all around lens.
|
| Review Date: May 28, 2009 |
| Reviewer: D. P. Murray, SC |
I just recently bought this lens primarily for its Optical Stabilization technology.
My past lens the Sigma 28-300 was a great all around lens but it didn't have the image stabilization that this lens does. This lens with the range of 18-250 actually works better for an all around lens. I was a bit skeptical about the OS (IS Canon) technology but after using a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS. I couldn't go back to my sigma 28-300 without OS. I mean the difference was and is well worth the extra cost. I zoomed in all the way with the OS and without the OS on a rusted mailbox. The OS showed all the rust particles, the Non-OS showed blurred particles. That convinced me it was worth it. That extra crispness makes all the difference. Also, the price for this lens was outstanding when compared to the closest competition. I didn't really want the Tamron, and I wasn't about to pay 2,300 for the Canon 28-300 IS 3.5-5.6 that's nuts. Closer to 1,000 I might have. But this lens as far as I can tell is just as good as the Canon for a lot less expensive. I have NEVER and I repeat never had a problem with my previous Sigma lens. I had the 28-300 for about 3 or more years. And the image quality was always right up there with my Canon lens. I work with a 24-70 2.8L and a 70-200 2.8L IS, as well has 16-35 2.8L, my sigma photo quality kept up with if not is equal to them. Though the L series are built very heavy duty and are really great lens all around. The image quality is not all that superior if any. With the OS on this new lens the only advantage to a L series Canon would be the better build and better dust and weather resistance. But by all means the Sigma 18-250 is a all around winner for anyone wanted an all around lens.
|
Great lens for the price
|
| Review Date: Septembre 7, 2009 |
| Reviewer: Srini P, San Jose, CA |
Bought this lens as I can not imagine myself carrying two lenses and changing lenses in dusty outdoors. I was comparing this lens with Canon 18-200 and Tamron 18-270. Bought this for these reasons:
1. Cheaper than the other two.
2. Lowest barrel distortion
3. Better build quality compared to canon
4. Has HSM. No USM on canon
5. Hood included
6. Highest number of SLD glass elements
Had it for 2 months now and used it in variety of conditions. Very happy with the result. I can only compare it with canon 18-55 kit lens. Surprisingly, sharpness of this lens is better than the kit lens. It has faster and quieter focus too (due to HSM). The OS works flawlessly. At 250mm I can see the image stabilize in the viewfinder after abt 1/2 second. Build quality and grip feel is very good. Hood is pretty solid too. Hood and filters do not rotate while focusing. Due to its weight I still use 18-55 indoors. |
so far, so good!
|
| Review Date: Septembre 4, 2009 |
| Reviewer: A. Rubin, Pennsylvania |
Just got the Sigma 18-250mm and am happy with it so far. Tried a variety of indoor/outdoor shots, and all are very sharp. See no difference in sharpness compared to my Nikon lenses. Focuses very fast, feels very solid. Was worried it would be heavy (it is heavier than the Tamron 18-270 and Nikon 18-200, according to specs), but it barely seems heavier than the 18-105 lens that came with my D90. Not much bigger, either. I tried it on my D60, and with that smaller camera, the lens made the whole camera feel unbalanced (lens-heavy). But with the D90, it feels balanced. Notice very slight zoom creep in the 80-135 range so far, but no big deal. Hope I will still be happy with it after my upcoming travels.
Decided on this lens (vs. Tamron 18-270 or Nikon 18-200) because of price, and also because the Sigma has less distortion at 18mm than the others. So far it seems like a great deal, especially given its price relative to the Nikon.
If you have a D40 or D60, besides the unbalance issue mentioned above, be aware that if you use this lens with the built-in flash with a focal length of 18 to about 22mm, the lens will cast a weird shadow in your images. The D90 -- to my surprise -- does this too, though it is not nearly as bad and could be cropped (at 22mm it is very slight). This same problem would happen with the Tamron and Nikon with the D40/60, but not sure about the D90. The Nikon is about .2 inches shorter than the Sigma, and I bet this makes a difference.) Anyway, chances are, you will not be using this lens at 18mm with the built-in flash very often. If you use an external flash, then there will be no shadow.
Do research, and you'll find that the Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron all have their strong points. For me, the distortion of the Nikon and its much higher price, as well as some negative reviews about the focusing of the Tamron, made me choose the Sigma. |
Perfect for what it should be
|
| Review Date: Octobre 25, 2009 |
| Reviewer: D. Lawrence, New Haven, CT |
So no super-zoom lens you buy is going to be as good as any comparable prime lens. With this is in mind, I compared this lens to the Nikkor 18-200mm. Some reviews on the web will compare a Nikkor 50mm prime to the Sigma's 50mm setting...of course the Sigma will lose (just about anything will lose, in my opinion).
The question became for me: does the picture quality between the Nikkor and the Sigma justify the cost differential. I bought both and compared the shots side by side, and I gotta say the Sigma holds up just fine. Sure, the Nikkor gets a little bit brighter colors if you zoom things up to 200 or 300%, but does this matter? This lens is for walking around and taking nice pictures. You're not going to do studio work with it...of course.
The extra zoom is nice. The build quality is fine. The optic stabilization is OK, but I like the stabilization in the Nikkor better (but if you're shooting in bright conditions or have a decent flash, this doesn't really matter).
The only bone I have to pick is that the zoom ring turns the opposite way that I'm used to, so sometimes I've missed the shot of my kids running around cuz I zoomed in when I meant to zoom out. This may just be due to my own mental shortcomings, but it's annoying nonetheless.
Bottom line: buy the Sigma (shoot, buy the Nikkor too -- and return it when you agree with me!) |
|
No video reviews found for this product.
