Sigma 18-200mm or, turn your DSLR into a junk P&S

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jan 24, 2009.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jan 24, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    SMS Guest

    SMS, Jan 24, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Guest Guest

    yes they have. most recently, they reviewed the sony 18-70 and didn't
    give it a rating *at all*.
    no, they simply don't review crappy products. the ratings are what
    they are. the cameras that would get below average are not reviewed.
     
    Guest, Jan 24, 2009
    #3
  4. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : RichA wrote:
    : > What a piece of rubbish.
    : >
    : > http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-200_3p5-6p3_os_n15/page3.asp
    :
    : Has dpreview _ever_ published a review where the conclusion is "not
    : recommended?" The worst I've ever seen is "above average." I guess the
    : key metric is if they say "highly recommended" then the product is at
    : least above average.

    They were pretty blunt in this case. I didn't even notice what they gave it
    for an overall rating, but their elaboration of its faults was pretty
    convincing. But what also showed through rather plainly in the article is that
    any superzoom requires significant design compromises and that you'd better
    understand and accept that before you buy one.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 24, 2009
    #4
  5. RichA

    TheRealSteve Guest

    Actually, it is worse but not by much. If you do the side by side
    comparison, they are very very close in just about every respect (one
    slightly better in some areas, the other slightly better in others)
    except for a strange phenomenon with the Sigma, where it drops way off
    in sharpness around 80mm. Although the Nikon also drops off at 135,
    it's not as pronounced as the Sigma at 80. Also, the Nikon seems more
    consistent across the frame from center to edge while the Sigma does
    better in the center in some cases, but much worse at the edges in
    more cases.

    Overall though, they do seem pretty close and if I haven't had the
    Nikon 18-200 for the past year, I'd consider the Sigma only because
    it's around $100-$200 cheaper.

    Steve
     
    TheRealSteve, Jan 24, 2009
    #5
  6. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : : > What a piece of rubbish.
    :
    : No worse than the Nikon 18-200, FWIW

    Maybe, but the reviewers made that point in a much more nuanced manner. They
    said it was better than its competitors in some ways, worse in others. When
    you're designing a superzoom, you have to make a lot of compromises, but you
    get to decide, within limits, what those compromises are. What the reviewers
    considered odd about this lens is that its sharpness at both ends of its zoom
    range was better than it was in the middle. What the reviewers didn't go on to
    say, but may be what the designers were thinking, is that one buys a superzoom
    mainly for its performance at the extremes of its range; otherwise a lens with
    shorter range would suffice. Deciding whether that's true or not is an
    exercise left to the purchaser.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 24, 2009
    #6
  7. RichA

    SteveG Guest

    You get what you pay for and considering the price difference between
    the Sigma and the Nikon alternative it's hard to see why the Nikkor is
    so much more expensive. They gave the Sigma an overall score of 38.5 -
    compared with 39.0 for the Nikkor and Tamron equivalents.

    Your assessment may be a tad harsh :)
     
    SteveG, Jan 24, 2009
    #7
  8. RichA

    Wally Guest

    Which is to say that maybe you DON'T get what you pay for.

    Wally
     
    Wally, Jan 24, 2009
    #8
  9. RichA

    SteveG Guest

    Yeah, I kinda phrased that wrong :)
     
    SteveG, Jan 25, 2009
    #9
  10. RichA

    JC Dill Guest

    This is because no matter how long/wide the zoom range, there will be
    images you want to shoot that are outside the range of the zoom. When
    I'm shooting with my 70-200, there are many images I would shoot at 210,
    250, 300, etc. that I shoot at 200 because that's as far as the lens
    goes. And on the other side, there are images I would shoot at 50, 40,
    25 if I had a wider zoom. I step back as far as I can (given the
    circumstance) and shoot at 70. Even when I have a 1.4 teleconverter and
    24-70 in my bag, I don't just change lenses much of the time when I
    would "like" a wider shot or longer shot, as I don't want to needlessly
    introduce dust into the sensor chamber. I only change if I think the
    wider view would be really spectacular, or if I plan to shoot in the
    wider view (or with the teleconverter) for many shots.

    jc
     
    JC Dill, Jan 25, 2009
    #10
  11. RichA

    JC Dill Guest

    This is because no matter how long/wide the zoom range, there will be
    images you want to shoot that are outside the range of the zoom. When
    I'm shooting with my 70-200, there are many images I would shoot at 210,
    250, 300, etc. that I shoot at 200 because that's as far as the lens
    goes. And on the other side, there are images I would shoot at 50, 40,
    25 if I had a wider zoom. I step back as far as I can (given the
    circumstance) and shoot at 70. Even when I have a 1.4 teleconverter and
    24-70 in my bag, I don't just change lenses much of the time when I
    would "like" a wider shot or longer shot, as I don't want to needlessly
    introduce dust into the sensor chamber. I only change if I think the
    wider view would be really spectacular, or if I plan to shoot in the
    wider view (or with the teleconverter) for many shots.

    jc
     
    JC Dill, Jan 25, 2009
    #11
  12. RichA

    M-M Guest


    I'm as much as a pixel peeper as anyone but for the price you get at
    least as much as you pay for.

    Sure there is distortion at the wide end if you are shooting distant
    landscape scenes. And many seem a bit overexposed (not sure if I can
    blame the lens on that one). But the lens like any other tool has it's
    limitations. So zoom in and stitch a panorama.

    Go look at the samples page and tell me what is so horrible except for
    what I mentioned. It's a $400 lens.

    And you are not turning your DSLR into a P&S. You still have the larger
    sensor and the lack of shutter lag.
     
    M-M, Jan 26, 2009
    #12
  13. RichA

    bmoag Guest

    I've been gone for a few weeks.
    Glad to see the usual battles of the ignorant against the uninformed rage
    on: never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.
    I can only write, since I own both the Sigma non-image stabilized lens and
    the Nikon 18-200 image stabilized lens, and have the pictures to prove it,
    that there is not any significant difference in optical performance between
    the particular samples I am looking at on my desk. I have photgraphed
    umpteen parallel lines and checkerboards.
    I have also used the image stabilized Sigma 18-200: my impression is that
    the OS-Sigma is slightly better than either the non-OS Sigma and the more
    expensive Nikon in terms of distortion at the wide end. Given the choice it
    is foolish to tithe Nikon the difference in cost if considering one of these
    long zooms.
    Life is full of choices.
    It is utterly naïve to think that the cherry picked early production lenses
    given to favored reviewers are representative of the production quality of
    the average lens you are going to get off a store shelf unless you are
    purchasing hand crafted lenses, Leica and Zeiss come to mind, and paying
    commensurately for that degree of quality control. A lens is not like an
    electronic device where it is very likely that most production samples will
    function similarly. It is far more likely that a camera randomly bought off
    a store shelf will behave like a review model than any mass-manufactured
    lens.
     
    bmoag, Jan 28, 2009
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.