Canon EF-S 18-55 vs. Sigma 18-125

I checked the archives. There are comparisons to Nikkor lenses, but

I did not see a thread comparing this Sigma to the Canon kit lens.

 

Here's the situation: I have just ordered a 30D with 18-55 from Dell

at a great price ($1214 USD, look for their periodic coupons). I am

upgrading from the original Digital Rebel (300D). I am keeping the

Rebel for three purposes: a backup body, a camera for my 12-year old

twins to use (my son shows the most interest), and a small camera

kit to carry along when I want 'snapshots' rather than 'photographs'.

 

I would have bought the 30D w/o the lens if possible, but Dell did

not offer it that way. I have a good quality range of lenses for

taking 'photographs'. In addition to the new 18-55, I have the 28-

135 IS lens, which I loved on a film camera, but is not wide enough

on a cropped digital. I have the range of the 28-135 covered with

other lenses. When I used film, I never considered a 'super zoom',

preferring quality lenses.

 

The 18-55 lens effectively cost me about $90 including tax (I can

probably sell it for about $75). The 28-135 is worth about $325, I

think. Should I sell these two lenses and replace them with the

Sigma 18-125? Like I said, I am only interested in this lenses as a

low-end, general purpose lens, perhaps mostly for use by my son (or

me when I go to New Jersey this summer on business--Bob Atkins, if

you read this, how far are you from Newark? I will be at NJIT.).

 

Photozone basically says that the Sigma is much better all around

than the 18-55 (it cost three times as much). Their main problem

with the Sigma was poor AF under about 50mm. That may have been only

early copies and may have been improved, but I doubt it.

 

I particularly like the compact size of the Sigma (much smaller than

the 28-135 and not that much bigger than the 18-55). The filter size

is only 62 mm. Considering that the lens would have had to be

designed for a Nikon's 1.5x crop, has anybody tested the Sigma 18-

125 with a 62mm-58mm step-down ring, to make it compatible with my

prime lens range?

 

So, has anyone compared these two (three) lenses enough to make me a

recommendation? Should I sell th 18-55 while it's brand new along

with the 28-135 and get the 18-125 as a knockabout lens for my son

and me?

The EF 28-135 IS USM was my fav travel zoom on film, followed by the EF 70-210 3.5-4.5

USM. When I bought a 10D I thought at first the EF 28-135 IS USM wouldn't be wide

enough. However I soon realized it acted more like a 50-200 and was an ideal range for

my style of shooting. So I wouldn't let go of it, especially for a Sigma.

 

It's been a while since I owned a Sigma, but I owned 6 of them (all at once!), the newest

being a 1999 50 2.8 EX. None of them had AF that was remotely as fast or sure-footed as

the EF 28-135 IS USM. However what ended my Sigma lovefest was the ROM upgrade

hassle every time I bought a new Canon body. Of the 6, only one was current enough to

have an available ROM replacement. None of them worked with my Elan 7 or EOS 3 save

the 50 2.8 EX, and it needed a ROM replacement. So I had to sell 5 mid-90s vintage

Sigmas on ebay for almost nothing. Now that was 6 years ago. Maybe they're improved

their operating ROM...

 

Of course only you can decide what works for you.

As you already have a good quality range of lenses for taking 'photographs' (BTW, apart from the 28-135, which are they?) then I'd suggest to get the kit, sell it and buy the 10-22 USM in order to solve the camera's major handicap: Wide angles. 10-22 is too wide and you have no need for such a wide lens? Get the 17-40/4 instead.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I use a 28-135IS and a Tokina 12-24 with my 350D. Those two lenses cover everything I need, although they're not exactly compact and I have to change lenses more often than I'd like.

 

My original intent was to get a Sigma 18-125 to go with the Tokina, as it would be more convenient. But I couldn't find any store in metropolitan Los Angeles that stocked the Sigma. I could have easily ordered it from B&H or Adorama, but I was to mail-order it. I had read too many complaints about quality control problems, and my own experience with Sigma lenses made those complaints very plausible.

Check the photozone.de review. They had problems focusing the 18-125 & 18-200 at the wide end. The 17-70 however, is getting very good reviews.

 

As for worrying about future proofing, don't. Any Sigma made since 2000 is software upgradeable, not requiring a chip replacement, so this problem of not being able to use a lense with new bodies is a thing of the past.

 

Of course, people tend to ignore the fact that when the 20D & 5D came out, they had the most problems with _Canon_ lenses, but the Sigma's were fine.

"As for worrying about future proofing, don't. Any Sigma made since 2000 is software

upgradeable, not requiring a chip replacement, so this problem of not being able to use a

lense with new bodies is a thing of the past."

 

Is this really true? I might rethink Sigma in that case. I wonder how long they'll support

flash ROM updates? If it's only during production of the lens, you could be high 'n dry in a

few short years.

 

Incidentally, I have a 5D and have tried it with 19 Canon lenses so far without any

problems, including a vintage 1988 EF 50 1.8.

what about getting the Canon 17-85 IS EF-S lens for walk-about lens (if the 300D will take it)? Not as long as the Sigma but it has a decent IS (should be good for children with shakey hands).

>> I wonder how long they'll support flash ROM updates? If it's only during production of the lens, you could be high 'n dry in a few short years.

 

It is indeed so. Just imagine what would happen when they start making OS versions to current lenses :-(

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I have both lenses. The kit lens is very good for the price. I was going to replace it with a higher quality lens on my 20D but kept it because I was happy with the quality and liked the low weight.

 

I use the Sigma 18-125 on my 10D. Sharpness is good throughout the range, there is a little more vignetting than the kit lens at 18mm and the focus is a lot slower, but accurate, even below 50mm. It would make a good knockabout lens unless you want to shoot fast moving subjects.

David Hay, yours is the opinion I was looking for. I respect Puppy Face and Yakim, etc., but someone who has used both lenses is priceless.

 

To answer Yakim's question, I have slowly upgraded and modified my lens line-up to match the 1.6x crop cameras. I have suffered through the DigiRebel until now, which in many ways was a downgrade from my Elan IIe. (Why can't Canon give us a digital camera with ECF? Please!)

 

I have 24/2.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 primes. (I actually need to sell a 28/2.8 and a 50/1.8 Mk I if anyone is interested.) I also have a Nikkor 55/2.8 Micro and a Vivitar 90/2.5 Series 1 Macro that I adapt to get macro coverage (great, cheap lenses!). Finally, I have the 10-22, 28-70/2.8, 70-200 IS and Sigma 120-300/2.8 lenses.

 

BTW, I've been a contributor to photo.net since 1998. I never would have listed what I own before Mary Ball on the wedding forum changed my signature to eliminate my last name (not that that's foolproof.). Thanks, Mary! So, I really have way too many lenses, but I really use all of them despite limited time dedicated to photography.

 

So, as David Hay said, I just need a cheap, small knockabout lens. The 28-135 is potential surplus, as could be the 18-55. So, should I just stick with the 18-55, or give myself and my son a more versatile zoom for vacations, etc.? (The Sigma is $229 from Sigma4Less.com. Even if it is obsoleted in 3-5 years, that's OK.) I am tempted to sell the 28-135 and just live with the 18-55 for a while (the 18-55 won't exactly lose a lot of value slightly used from value new). What do you all think?

 

Finally, David or any other actual users of the 18-125: Have you tried using a 62-58mm step-down ring on Canon 1.6x cameras? Does it vignette at the 18mm point? Oh, yeah, one last thing: My 12 year old son's hands are probably steadier than mine, so losing IS is more important to me than to him.

"Is this really true? I might rethink Sigma in that case. I wonder how long they'll support flash ROM updates? If it's only during production of the lens, you could be high 'n dry in a few short years."

 

I had a Sigma 70-300DL updated while I waited, and I got it used. Sigma Canada/GenTec told me anything built since 2000 is "upgradeable" (their terminology).

 

In the meantime, I have 6 different Sigma's working just fine on 5 different EOS bodies (3 digital, 2 film).