Sigma 18-200 OS, a review with sample shots.

[mars c]

<a href="http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdc.watch.impress.co.jp%

2Fcda%2Flens_review%2F2007%2F06%2F22%2F6493.html&langpair=ja%

7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8" >18-200 OS review link.</a> <p>

 

That is a translated version, so the english is bad.<p>

 

I wonder , Does anyone here own the lens, HOw does the image quality compare to

your existing canon lens?

[buck_rogers1]

Is this supposed to be a fisheye at the wide end or is that really the barrel distortion you get from such a zoom?

[michaelschrag]

That is some serious distortion.

[mars c]

The distortion is obvious in the brick wall shots for sure , But it's not noticeable in the real world 18mm shots. And I wonder if the canon 17-85 is any better , regarding distortion.

[ralph_jensen]

The translation may be "bad," but it's also pretty entertaining ("a little sweet situation"):

 

"Description is a resolution impression entirely, also contrast is high. When both the wide angular edge and the telephoto edge, the contraction about the 2/3~1 step is squeezed from opening, in order for the resolution impression to increase rather, you were moved. However, when it squeezes in the telephoto edge and makes open, it can discover a little sweet situation. But when it is the majority, by the fact that it squeezes above F8 it becomes sharp. It is the description to which also color tone is good, has the transparent impression. Complicated optical system comparatively, as for the flare and the ghost it is difficult to come out."

 

And I agree with whoever said the 18mm distortion is substantial; I can't believe that be apparent in normal shots.

[ralph_jensen]

Oops. "That be apparent" was a result of my post, originally composed in Russian, undergoing an unfortunate automated translation into English....

 

Should be "I can't believe that WOULDN'T be apparent..."

[mars c]

What I meant was , the distortion isnt noticeable in the 18mm shots amongst the sample pix on that page, of course if you shoot buildings and pillars, then that would be a concern, like what was said on the review.

 

"On the other hand, because of high powered zoom the distortion in the wide angular edge is conspicuous. When taking the wall and the pillar etc, perhaps it becomes matter of concern."

 

 

But I havent seen any super zoom that doesnt distort badly on the wides, even the canon 17-85 have bad distortion in it's widest setting, so I consider that as "normal", for now.

 

What's really my main concern this time is, How that lens perform compard to a canon lens within that range, well I guess there is nobody yet here, own that lens, and I dont wanna bocome a guinea pig.

[marcus_erne]

Here is a good review on the Sigma 18-200 mm OS.

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_18200_3563os/index.htm

 

However, the real life samples (spread all over the www) seem to differ from sample to sample, as many users report that the negative effect at 35mm isn't as bad as shown in the review:

[marcus_erne]

I tried one and sent it back after 4 serious days of shooting!

 

The looks, feel and the OS are really great.

I loved especially the zoom range, that allows for tight detail shots. No need for another lens when on (business) travel and for family trips when too much gear is in the way.

 

But IQ of my sample was unacceptably soft, especially in the corners. In general it was not up to my 28-135mm IS as standard, not even close to the kit lens, too.

Tight shots in the close range, stopped down to f8 or 11 and, >100mm were almost OK.

 

I have returned it and bought a 17-85mm IS instead and will shortly add the 55-250mm IS to it as lightweight & travel setup.