Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC. Any good?

<p>Hi Folks</p>

<p>This thread is a sequel to: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00To29">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00To29</a></p>

<p>Regarding the Nikkor 70-300G lense: I sold that + my 18-55 VR and my old 35mm prime, so I could afford an Sigma 18-200 DC. I also have to sell my new Sigma 28-200 in order to afford it. The reason I bought the lense was because it was affordable (150 EUR incl. shipping, SECOND HAND) and I wasen't so happy about the Sigma 28-200 (which I just received today). But for low as 150 EUR, I will still have some money left for other things, maybe another lens...who knows.</p>

<p>So, I just wanted to ask if I did a good deal? And how is the lens really? Good enough for outdoor Travel Photography?</p>

<p>Thank you in advance :)</p>

<p>NB: I know propably there is a lot of you that doesn't undestand why I didn't just go for the OS version (And yes, I know it's a better lens) but I simply can't afford it.</p>

<p>Ben,</p>

<p>I used the 18-200 DC for long time, and the compromise price-quality to my point of view is great!!<br /> I did a lot of really great pics (always my point of view)...<br /> I found also an interesting lens as all around and for trekking due to his low weight!!<br>

I used it with a Nikon D50<br>

BR<br /> timothy</p>

<p>Some cameras won't AF well or at all (especially in dim light) at the long end of a lens that slow.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for your answers.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Some cameras won't AF well or at all (especially in dim light) at the long end of a lens that slow.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, I heard that. But I hope it will work just fine with my Nikon D80.</p>

<p>I got one when I got my D50 three years ago. I was very happy with it. It's sharp enough to make very good 8x10s and 11x14's. It's also compact and light weight. I later upgraded to the Nikon 18-200 VR more for the VR than because of any problem with the Sigma.</p>

<p>Some people don't like superzooms because they are not as sharp as two good lower ratio zooms. I think that they miss the point of a superzoom. A superzoom is great for traveling light because it can do a lot of things very well. I don't see my 18-200 VR as a replacement for shorter ratio zooms. I see it as a suppliment to them. I use it when I want to travel light and when I have to be able to switch between wideangle and telephoto quickly like when I shoot on the street, in the park, and on the boardwalk. Yes I give up a little sharpness at the long end, but it's still sharp enough for very good prints up to 11x14.</p>

<p>Oh, and I never had a problem with the lens focusing in reasonably low light. It's not going to focus on a black cat in a coal bin, but not many lenses will.</p>

<p>As stated in the other thread, I still recommend the 18-105VR. It's lighter, it is cheaper, it's sharper than any of the 18-200s.</p>

<p>I owned a Tamron 18-200, and yes, it was very convenient and not too heavy. And it was not terribly sharp, needed stopping down to F/8 (which is VERY limiting, given light is not always plenty) for reasonable performance, had pretty horrible bokeh and above 150mm it was not really sharp under any condition. AF performance was "mwah" at best, and under low light it would hunt and hunt (so practically, no AF). When I upgraded from a D50 to a D80, all the optical issues became much more visible. So I do not agree with the statement they can do a lot of things very well. They can do a lot of things, and none of them really good.<br>

Maybe the Sigma is better than the Tamron, but tests in those days (when I was buying) suggested it was a wash between these 2 lenses. Superzooms sacrifice a lot in exchange for convenience. And the "just shorter" Nikon lenses (18-105VR and 18-135) turn out to be much nicer performers, and better priced.</p>

<p>So, Nikon 18-105 VR. New around €200,-.</p>

<p>I just received the Sigma 18-200 DC today.</p>

<p>I was chocked when I saw it. First time you hold it really feels like crap. I attached it to my camera and it was so horrible to look at. The lens was increadible leightweight, small and compact. It feld like a holding a mini-lense and it's not very nice looking.</p>

<p>I paid 150 euro for this lens used (without original package and lens cap but the condition is absolutly mint, like new.) It also make a little noise when turning the focal lenght wheel from 18-24mm. I may be able to return it, but I would loose a lot of money in the shipping cost.</p>

<p>My current Sigma 28-200 is a lot better in both look and feel. It looks very big and professional and suits perfectly with my Nikon D80 with Battery Grib. It also feels very solid and nice to hold. The 18-200 DC is simply too fragile for my big hands.</p>

<p>Don't know about Picture Quality yet. I think, I will go outside tomorrow and make a test. I will take a tripod and make a side-by-side comparison between the Sigma 18-200 DC and the Sigma 28-200. I hope there isisn't much difference because the 28-200 is simply much better in both looks and build quality.</p>