 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.
|
so far, so good!
|
| Review Date: September 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: October 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!) |
Sigma 18-250 OS, One of Several Very Good, All Purpose, Walkabout Lenses
|
| Review Date: January 7, 2010 |
| Reviewer: 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. Yes, 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. For example, 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. Anyway, 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. However, 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. |
|
No video reviews found for this product.
Leave a Reply