What are your thoughts on the Sigma 18-50 2.8 Macro?

[yuri_kim1]

Since Christmas is coming up, I think I'm going to get a new lens for my XTi.

Specifically, I'm looking to replace my kit lens with something wider.

 

I am really considering the Sigma 18-50 2.8 Macro because of this price, wide

aperture and the fact that it has a small minimum focus length.

 

What are your opinions on the lens? Do you think it'll make a good replacement

for my kit lens or am I overlooking a better, similarly priced lens?

 

I've read reviews on Fred Miranda, but they jumbled up the older version of this

lens with the new macro version.

 

Also, I've read Photozone's review of the lens and they suggest the Tamron 17-50

2.8 but what's really pushing me towards the sigma is the "macro" feature.

 

Am I putting too much weight on that?

 

Thanks in advance!

[rainer_t]

-- "what's really pushing me towards the sigma is the "macro" feature."

 

-- "Am I putting too much weight on that?"

 

Yes, you do. ... If you really like macro, you'll end up with a dedicated macro lens anyway.

[zigzag]

The kit lens is normally 18-55mm, you want to replace it with an 18-50mm, I think you mean 'faster', not wider - i.e. you want the f/2.8. A macro you could look at would be the Canon 50mm f/2.5 - but that's a prime and you may want a zoom. You can read some opinions on the lens you mention <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=232&sort=7&cat=37&page=1">here</a>, the <a href=http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=308&sort=7&cat=43&page=1">Tamron</a> rates a little better but is not macro (close focusing).

[mike_earussi1]

The Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a very good lens that's sharp in the center wide open at all focal lengths and in the corners by f5.6. It is far superior to your kit lens. I'm not familiar with the Tamron but there's nothing stopping you from buying both, testing them and returning the one you don't want.

[danield]

Well, the Sigma achieves 1:3 magnification and the Tamron achieves 1:4.5. That means that the smallest object you can fill the frame with is 7.5cm wide for the Sigma and 11.2cm for the Tamron, which, magnification-wise, is quite similar to the kit lens you have now. It's not that big a difference, and certainly quite far from the performance of a true macro lens (which can fill the frame with a 2.5cm wide object).

 

Hope this helps you making a decision :-)

[bob_osullivan]

The Tamron get's higher marks in this review.

 

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm

 

They also review the Sigma here.

[brucecyr]

Enough of knocking on the macro point! Lots of folks just want something to do a decent job on the odd flower or other small object of interest -- they don't necessarily want to blow up a nit's ovipositor :-)

 

(mea culpas to anyone with a modicum of biology for a possible faux pas -- I just made up that image out of imaginary whole cloth:-)

 

A lens with this kind of close-up capability is an excellent way to sample the edges of possibility in macro photography. Maybe the bug will bite and so will the OP, or maybe it won't and the OP will save that money for some other kind of lens.

 

BTW, Sigma lenses apparently have slightly higher rates of initial defects than Tamrons according to this self-reported survey's results:

 

http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_defect_results.php

 

but that difference may not make up for the slightly higher magnification ratio of the Sigma vs. the Tamron.

[awindsor]

Have you looked at the new Canon kit lens? Not much money, not great build quality, but IS and very good optical performance by all accounts.

[thomas_hardy1]

Look at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as Bob said above. It's been receiving good reviews.

[wayne_campbell]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NQN2

[mike_broderick]

The new Canon kit lens with IS got a very favorable review on photozone. Whether they were just lucky and got a superb copy, or whether that represents the standard for the new lens, I don't know.

 

I agonized over a similar decision to yours recently, but also seriously considered the Sigma 17-70 which has even better closeup capability and (for me) a more attractive range, at the cost of some speed at longer focal length.

 

Problems with all these lenses appeared to me to be that the AF rings rotated during focusing (which would drive me crazy) and there were persistent claims of focusing error all over the internet, notably in Castleman's review here:

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-85compare/index.htm

[mike_broderick]

One more thought--You mention replacing your kit lens with something wider--If you mean the 18-55 kit lens, the lenses you mentioned in your review aren't appreciably wider than the kit lens!

 

Wider lens possibilities include the Sigma 10-20 and some others.