 優秀的鏡頭... |
| 審查日期: 可能 11, 2009 |
| 審稿: Ghassan Bedaywi, 科威特 |
其實我的審查，有點像以前的審查糯. 庫珀. 在, 像他這樣的, 沒有找到多少資源這個鏡頭, 但騰龍之間的混淆和尼康遠程鏡頭, 我是去與尼康18 - 200毫米，因為我認為，騰龍18 -二七零毫米鏡頭並沒有真正得到很好的評價，我不喜歡這樣的事實，這是緩慢的重點. 我和孩子很高興，我等待這一個. 我想我賭 (作為一個早期採用者) 和它的工作.
它的確是偉大的鏡頭周圍，這也正是我一直在尋找 (我討厭改變鏡頭). 最好的事情是，它的確非常快，集中在250毫米, 甚至比我快Ḏ90 套頭尼康18 - 105. 這真的是一個配備HSM鏡頭, 我看見幾個線程在論壇上對脂肪酶辯論這一事實, 所以放心它有一個電動機. 該操作系統是工作，因為它應該在最大縮放以及使這裡沒有問題. 我一直在使用它的一對夫婦只天是公平的, 但我感到非常興奮和對圖像質量了，我至今. 我服用了一個完整的測試，在未來數天, 如果我覺得事情並不完美，我會更新這個檢討. 我沒有看到一個鏡頭蠕變 (然而!), 但在任何情況下有一個鎖定開關的鏡頭, 此開關只能工作的時候，鏡頭是18毫米. 我注意到，當你試圖拍攝特寫在250毫米, 焦點鏡頭wont正確如果你太接近主題, 手動對焦，但仍然可以工作，你可以清晰銳利圖片. 品牌和身體鏡頭的感覺很好，持久，以及, 它不覺得便宜，.
最後我不得不說這嬰兒會擊敗騰龍18 -二百七十〇毫米鏡頭下的手, 並肯定尼康 18-200 如果你想有一個更大的變焦. 而價格肯定是值得的和可以接受的.
更新: 我想我是錯的關於近距離焦點, 它仍然集中相當不錯，快速近距離而在最大縮放.
更新 2: I have uploaded some pics in Picasa, plz看到評論的鏈接. 這些圖像不看好亞馬遜上傳後.
更新 3: I have to confirm again my initial statement that sometimes it fails to auto focus at close range (根據我的測試), 我將不得不使用手動對焦. 讓我們再回到它會自動對焦，然後工作, 看來，我們需要進行復位不時!
更新 4: It weighs around 650g or 1.43 英鎊. |
各地得主的全方位鏡頭.
|
| 審查日期: 可能 28, 2009 |
| 審稿: Ḏ. P. 默里, 資深大律師 |
我最近買了這個鏡頭，主要是它的光學防抖技術.
我過去的適馬鏡頭 28-300 是一個偉大的鏡頭周圍，但沒有穩定的形象，這個鏡頭不. 這個鏡頭與範圍 18-250 實際工作更好地為各地鏡頭. 我有點懷疑操作系統 (是佳能) 技術，但在使用了一個佳能 70-200 2.8 是. 我不能回到我的西格馬 28-300 沒有操作系統. 我指的差異，很值得的額外費用. 本人放大的方式在所有的操作系統，沒有操作系統上的生鏽郵箱. 顯示所有的操作系統的防銹粒子, 非操作系統顯示模糊粒子. 這使我確信這是值得的. 額外的明快的與眾不同之處. 也, 這個價格是傑出的鏡頭相比，最近的競爭. 我真的不希望騰龍, 和我不是支付 2,300 為佳能 28-300 是 3.5-5.6 這是堅果. 接近 1,000 我可能. 但是，這鏡頭，據我可以告訴同樣好作為佳能便宜很多. 我從來沒有，我從來沒有重複的問題與我以前的適馬鏡頭. 我有 28-300 約 3 年以上. 而圖像質量總是對的，可以與我的佳能鏡頭. 我與一 24-70 2.8升和 70-200 2.8升是, 也有 16-35 2.8升, 我西格馬照片質量跟上，如果不等於他們. 雖然L系列是建立非常沉重的責任，是真正偉大的鏡頭四周. The image quality is not all that superior if any. 隨著這一新的操作系統上鏡頭的唯一好處的L系列佳能將是更好地建設和更好的灰塵和耐候性. 但是，利用一切手段，六西格瑪 18-250 周圍是一個勝利者，任何人想要一個全方位鏡頭.
|
so far, so good!
|
| 審查日期: 9月 4, 2009 |
| 審稿: 字母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. 騰龍 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. 在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.) 總之, 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, 西格瑪, 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. |
完美的東西，應當
|
| 審查日期: 10月 25, 2009 |
| 審稿: Ḏ. 勞倫斯, 紐黑文, 的CT |
因此，沒有超買變焦你將是一樣好任何類似的定焦鏡頭. 這是考慮到, 我拿這個鏡頭，尼克爾18 - 200mm. 一些審查將在網絡上比較一個鏡頭50mm青春，適馬的50毫米設置...當然，西格瑪將失去 (任何東西就會失去, 在我看來).
這個問題成了我: 沒有圖像質量之間的尼克爾和西格瑪證明成本差距. 我買了兩個，並比較了拍攝並排, 和我得說，六西格瑪容納得很好. 當然, 在尼克爾得到一點點亮麗色彩的東西，如果你放大到 200 或300％, 但這個問題? This lens is for walking around and taking nice pictures. You're not going to do studio work with it...of course.
額外的變焦很不錯. 構建質量優良. 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!) |
西格瑪 18-250 操作系統, One of Several Very Good, All Purpose, Walkabout Lenses
|
| 審查日期: 一月 7, 2010 |
| 審稿: Tiffany Ann, Black Diamond Bay |
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and so, I think, is one's opinion of a camera lens. I've learned over the years that lens reviews are helpful, but they are just opinions. 是, for sure, you generally get better optics with more expensive lenses, but it's certainly not a guarantee. And for reasons one can only wonder about, oftentimes two copies of the same lens will produce very different results. 例如, my friend Sara, who is as nuts about buying (we're like compulsive buyers) and using Canon lenses as I am about buying and using Nikon ones, has a Canon EF-S 18-55 kit lens that produces images so tack sharp through its whole range that would make you cry.
And so it goes with super zooms, these wonderful lenses that go from pretty wide to very long. If you look at the reviews of any of them, some people claim horrible results, while others scratch their heads, because they're just loving them to death.
My first superzoom was a Sigma 18-200 which I got about five years ago and I was blown away with what I could do with just one lens. Plus my shots were pretty darn sharp. The lens was more expensive then, than it is now. It's still a good lens, it weighs a couple ounces less than a pound and if I only could have been satisfied, I'd have saved a bundle of money. Ah well. 總之, I had an opportunity to try out the Tamron 18-200 as well back then, but I decided on the Sigma. It was a coin toss. At the time I thought both lenses would be good general, all purpose, walkabout lenses. They wouldn't be as sharp or fast as primes and wouldn't be as light as shorter zooms, but heck, one lens which went all the way from 18 to 200mm (okay 27 to 350mm in the real world), such a deal.
Both lenses were five star lenses as far as I was concerned, both still are, because they are what they are, a very good compromise. If you're expecting a lens that will reach out across a dark night and grab a shot of lovers making out by the beach, then you don't want these lenses, but if you're looking for a good general walkabout lens, both will suit you and they won't break your bank.
But they don't have image stabilization and when Sigma came out with it, I had to have it. So I shelved the Sigma zoom I had, (thankfully I didn't sell it) and bought the Sigma 18-200 OS and Sigma's Optical Stabilizer worked great. I got sharper handheld shots in lower light, but they came at a price, almost half a pound. It doesn't sound like much, eight ounces (7.6 to be exact), but try carrying it around on your shoulder all day long. I really noticed the difference, especially when I was shooting.
I probably wouldn't have gone to that auction site with my fairly new lens, if it hadn't been for Tamron. They came out with their Tamron 18-250 and I had to have it. A bigger reach, the heck with image stabilization. Not only could I go all the way from 27 to 375mm in the real world, but I got back a bit over six ounces, the lens was lighter. So now I had two super zooms, which was good, because I go out people shooting with my sister a lot.
So one would think I'd be satisfied, but when the Nikon 18-200 came out, well Nikon optics in a superzoom. I had to have it, so the Tamron went up for auction (because I just loved the Sigma, even though it didn't reach as far). The Nikon lens focused faster, but not that much faster then the other two, had image stabilization and was faster at the long end and it took great shots, but it weighed more than the other lenses, coming in at a whopping 20 ounces and it was creepy, creepy, creepy and with no zoom lock. The other lenses had almost no zoom creep and they had a zoom lock, which I never used. Very annoying the zoom creep was, still, great shots from a great lens.
Satisfied, well for awhile, then came 2008 and the Tamron 18-270 with their VC version of image stabilization and up for auction went my expensive Nikkor lens. Yeah, I still hung on the my first super zoom, the Sigma. For sure the Nikkor was a five star lens, but a girl can't justify more than two super zooms at any one time.
The Tamron lens actually weighed a fraction less than the Nikkor it replaced. It was a bit slower on the long end, was a bit stiff in the zooming, but easy to get used to and almost no, sometimes no, zoom creep and it has a lock. It's just simply one heck of a lens. Sometimes it's a bit slow to autofocus in lowlight, but still I think it finds its focus faster than I would, but not as fast as the Nikkor.
I should add here that Nikon has upgraded their 18-200 adding a zoom lock. I've played with one and not only have they added that zoom lock, but it doesn't seem to creep nearly as much, but that could just be the copy I used. I should also mention that Sigma has come out with their Sigma 18-250 OS which I was lucky enough to use for a month. That is just one super fine lens. It focuses fast and I think it finds its focus better in low light than the Tamron 18-270. Also this new Sigma has a super quiet motor, though I've never really been bothered by the sound of a focusing lens.
By reading other reviews of these lenses, I've learned that they are all subject to zoom creep, so I suppose in the main, I've been lucky. All of these lenses are very good, at least all of the copies I've used. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend any of them. 但是, if you go with Nikon, you're going to be paying an awful lot more. You get a slightly faster lens on the long end and you get Nikon quality, but Sigma and Tamron give quality as well and Tamron warranties their lenses for six years, so they're pretty confident that they're building a great product (and now they're part of Sony).
So through my whole super zoom experience, which one do I wind up using the most? You guessed it, that Sigma I bought five years ago. Like the proverbial Timax, "It takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'." If the day is bright and I'm going people shooting it's the one I put on my camera, because it's light and it's images are true. |
|
沒有視頻審查發現該產品.
