which I should get?

[justin_ngo]

I would like to know how the pictures' sharpness in comparation between the

Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 HSM and Nikon 18-200mm VR in the same range and setting. I

know this is a not right comparation but I am in hard decision of keeping the

couple Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 + 55-200VR OR the only one lens 18-200mm VR. ( I

can not aford for the Nikon 18-55 2.8). (I already have 50mm f1.8, which is now

AF with my upcomming D80)

 

I ever owned Nikon 18-55mm non VR before and not very impressive about it. I

don;t know if the 18-200 VR is better in the same range and settings.

 

Thanks a lot!

[phototransformations]

My experience of the 18-200VR has not been that positive. When I first got it, it vignetted seriously, was not very sharp, and had terrible zoom creep. I sent it back to Nikon, they kept it for six weeks and replaced "major parts." When they returned it, it was slightly sharper, still vignetted, still creeped. When I use it, I inwardly cringe when I get what is more than a snapshot, since I know it will not be as sharp as it would if I'd taken the shot with a lens with better IQ. I've already replaced the wide end with a Tokina 12-24 and the midrange with a Tamron 28-75. When I replace the long end, it will be relegated to a travel lens.

 

On the other hand, some people have gotten excellent copies of this lens and are very satisfied. Just be sure you test it thoroughly before you send in the warranty card, as Nikon Service won't turn a bad copy into a good one.

[mike_earussi1]

Same thing with the Sigma, when it's constructed correctly it's excellent, but Sigma's QC is not the greatest so you really need to check it over real well first. I bought a copy and it was badly decentered so I returned it.

[larrybc]

Wide open, the 18-200VR seems to be sharper at room-distance shots. Maybe this suggests that it has a flatter field (my test shots consisted of resolution targets taped to a wall) and/or is due to the f/3.5 max aperture. Overall, the Sigma has more contrast. And at wide wide, wide open, it exhibits CA at the edges of the frame.

 

IMO both are good lenses. Sigma compares well to my 17-55/2.8 as far as sharpness is concerned. In fact, it seems a bit sharper in the center.

 

18-200VR has more barrel distortion at wide angle and is slightly less contrasty than the Sigma.

 

 

larsbc

[eric_arnold]

i'd go with the sigma and 55+200 VR combo. the only thing you lose is convenience, which should be more than made up for by the better IQ of the sigma at wider angles and the constant 2.8 aperture. optically, the 55-200 can't be any worse than the 18-200 -- really a glorified snapshot lens, good for travel but too much of a jack of all trades for more specialized shooting purposes -- and you still get VR at the long end.

 

fyi, i had a chance to compare my friend's 18-200+d300 combo angainst my tokina 12=24 +70-300 ED + d300. optically both the 12-24 and the 70-300 were way sharper than the 18-200. my friend was able to go from wide to tele with a twist of the zoom ring, whereas i had to change lenses, but it was obvious that the 18-200 wasnt in the same league as the tokina. in fact, my friend is now planning to get one after seeing how much wider it is. the thing about the tokina is, it's terrific for really wide shots but even better at 18-24 too, much sharper than any nikon kit lens.

[justin_ngo]

Thanks a lot!

[xenophon_beake1]

Justin.

I did a field test that was published in the January 2007 issue of Rangefinder Magazine. It was with the 18-200 VR lens. Make your own conclusions after reading the article. Do a Google search using Xenophon A. Beake and type in the above informarion. BTY. It's agreat lens.

Should nean any more information you may concat me @ xenobeake@charter.net.

You may want to check out my site @ www.xenophonabeake.com