Article Comments

1. Tiffany Ann says:

   September 3, 2010 at 4:00 am

   Review by Tiffany Ann for Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 AF DC II Lens for all Nikon DSLR Cameras
   Rating:
   Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and so, I think, is one’s opinion of a camera lens. I’ve learned over the years that lens reviews are helpful, but they are just opinions. Yes, for sure, you generally get better optics with more expensive lenses, but it’s certainly not a guarantee. And for reasons one can only wonder about, oftentimes two copies of the same lens will produce very different results. For example, my friend Sara, who is as nuts about buying (we’re like compulsive buyers) and using Canon lenses as I am about buying and using Nikon ones, has a Canon EF-S 18-55 kit lens that produces images so tack sharp through its whole range that would make you cry.

   And so it goes with super zooms, these wonderful lenses that go from pretty wide to very long. If you look at the reviews of any of them, some people claim horrible results, while others scratch their heads, because they’re just loving them to death.

   My first superzoom was a Sigma 18-200 which I got about five years ago and I was blown away with what I could do with just one lens. Plus my shots were pretty darn sharp. The lens was more expensive then, than it is now. It’s still a good lens, it weighs a couple ounces less than a pound and if I only could have been satisfied, I’d have saved a bundle of money. Ah well. Anyway, I had an opportunity to try out the Tamron 18-200 as well back then, but I decided on the Sigma. It was a coin toss. At the time I thought both lenses would be good general, all purpose, walkabout lenses. They wouldn’t be as sharp or fast as primes and wouldn’t be as light as shorter zooms, but heck, one lens which went all the way from 18 to 200mm (okay 27 to 350mm in the real world), such a deal.

   Both lenses were five star lenses as far as I was concerned, both still are, because they are what they are, a very good compromise. If you’re expecting a lens that will reach out across a dark night and grab a shot of lovers making out by the beach, then you don’t want these lenses, but if you’re looking for a good general walkabout lens, both will suit you and they won’t break your bank.

   But they don’t have image stabilization and when Sigma came out with it, I had to have it. So I shelved the Sigma zoom I had, (thankfully I didn’t sell it) and bought the Sigma 18-200 OS and Sigma’s Optical Stabilizer worked great. I got sharper handheld shots in lower light, but they came at a price, almost half a pound. It doesn’t sound like much, eight ounces (7.6 to be exact), but try carrying it around on your shoulder all day long. I really noticed the difference, especially when I was shooting.

   I probably wouldn’t have gone to that auction site with my fairly new lens, if it hadn’t been for Tamron. They came out with their Tamron 18-250 and I had to have it. A bigger reach, the heck with image stabilization. Not only could I go all the way from 27 to 375mm in the real world, but I got back a bit over six ounces, the lens was lighter. So now I had two super zooms, which was good, because I go out people shooting with my sister a lot.

   So one would think I’d be satisfied, but when the Nikon 18-200 came out, well Nikon optics in a superzoom. I had to have it, so the Tamron went up for auction (because I just loved the Sigma, even though it didn’t reach as far). The Nikon lens focused faster, but not that much faster then the other two, had image stabilization and was faster at the long end and it took great shots, but it weighed more than the other lenses, coming in at a whopping 20 ounces and it was creepy, creepy, creepy and with no zoom lock. The other lenses had almost no zoom creep and they had a zoom lock, which I never used. Very annoying the zoom creep was, still, great shots from a great lens.

   Satisfied, well for awhile, then came 2008 and the Tamron 18-270 with their VC version of image stabilization and up for auction went my expensive Nikkor lens. Yeah, I still hung on the my first super zoom, the Sigma. For sure the Nikkor was a five star lens, but a girl can’t justify more than two super zooms at any one time.

   The Tamron lens actually weighed a fraction less than the Nikkor it replaced. It was a bit slower on the long end, was a bit stiff in the zooming, but easy to get used to and almost no, sometimes no, zoom creep and it has a lock. It’s just simply one heck of a lens. Sometimes it’s a bit slow to autofocus in lowlight, but still I think it finds its focus faster than I would, but not as fast as the Nikkor.

   I should add here that Nikon has upgraded their 18-200 adding a zoom lock. I’ve played with one and not only have they added that zoom lock, but it doesn’t seem to creep nearly as much, but that could just be the copy I used. I should also mention that Sigma has come out with their Sigma 18-250 OS which I was lucky enough to use for a month. That is just one super fine lens. It focuses fast and I think it finds its focus better in low light than the Tamron 18-270. Also this new Sigma has a super quiet motor, though I’ve never really been bothered by the sound of a focusing lens.

   By reading other reviews of these lenses, I’ve learned that they are all subject to zoom creep, so I suppose in the main, I’ve been lucky. All of these lenses are very good, at least all of the copies I’ve used. I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend any of them. However, if you go with Nikon, you’re going to be paying an awful lot more. You get a slightly faster lens on the long end and you get Nikon quality, but Sigma and Tamron give quality as well and Tamron warranties their lenses for six years, so they’re pretty confident that they’re building a great product (and now they’re part of Sony).

   So through my whole super zoom experience, which one do I wind up using the most? You guessed it, that Sigma I bought five years ago. Like the proverbial Timax, “It takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’.” If the day is bright and I’m going people shooting it’s the one I put on my camera, because it’s light and it’s images are true.

   Log in to Reply
2. Frank J. DeFelice says:

   September 3, 2010 at 4:25 am

   Review by Frank J. DeFelice for Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 AF DC II Lens for all Nikon DSLR Cameras
   Rating:
   I have an older version of this lens on my Canon Rebel XT, but bought this newer model for my Nikon 300. It’s light and easy to use. Its optics are fine for me, since I don’t need huge blowups. For portaits I use a 62 mm soft focus filter, since I don’t want the hassel of having to employ PhotoShop for retouching. The results are lovely.

   Log in to Reply
3. A. Johnson says:

   September 3, 2010 at 5:19 am

   Review by A. Johnson for Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 AF DC II Lens for all Nikon DSLR Cameras
   Rating:
   I got this lens to replace the 2 kit lenses that came with my Nikon D40x. I love that the automatic focus works on my camera, because not all lenses with AF will. I travel a lot and also take a lot of pictures of small children (who tend to move around constantly) and not changing between the two kit lenses is a huge plus and well worth the money spent. Also, having just one lens, and at this size, is great for carrying around in my bag. I have taken a lot of pictures with this lens in the last month and have not had any problems or noticed any downgrade in quality from what I had previously. I have not even noticed any vignetting, although I am not sure how much I have tested the extreme focal lengths. Agree with other posters that is it not the greatest lens for low light photography, but it is just as good as what I had before, and I didn’t expect anything else. My main criticism of this lens is the loud autofocus, which I find a bit annoying.

   I purchased from Amazon Prime and upgraded to overnight delivery, and received my product as expected.

   Log in to Reply
4. Earl E. A. Dopter says:

   September 3, 2010 at 6:14 am

   Review by Earl E. A. Dopter for Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 AF DC II Lens for all Nikon DSLR Cameras
   Rating:
   Short but sweet: this superlens is what you need. If you can only pack one, keep this one attached to your Nikon DSLR and leave the others at the house. I own several Sigma lenses besides this one, and there are certainly times when I want them. The 10-20 (Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras) and the Nikon 50mm f1.8 (Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras) being the other two “go-to” lenses that I carry almost everywhere. But I am finding more and more that I can get the shot I want with the superlens. The quality is outstanding. The front of the lens does not rotate as the lens is focused or zoomed, so I leave the included petal hood on all the time. At full zoom, the lens gets pretty long (impressively so), and it’s not the lightest. But it’s full of high quality optics, and all that glass isn’t going to be lightweight.

   Bottom line: For your Nikon (I own the D90) you cannot go wrong with this product instead of the kit lenses that come with the D90. If you have not bought your Nikon DSLR yet, I suggest going with the body only and get a prime lens or two like these Sigmas; you will be much happier with them than the kit lenses.

   Log in to Reply
5. Gerard says:

   September 3, 2010 at 6:38 am

   Review by Gerard for Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 AF DC II Lens for all Nikon DSLR Cameras
   Rating:
   Price paid: $ 420 (local equivalent).
   
   Date bought: October 2008.
   
   Available in the following AF-mounts: Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony/Minolta, Sigma.

   For starters, anybody who expects stellar optical performance from a 400 dollar 11,1x zoom, better stop reading right now. It is not going to happen, not with this one, nor with the Nikkor, even if it costs $ 300 more.

   Summary:
   
   I got this lens in a hurry, because I needed an all-purpose lens to cover a spur-of-the-moment client event. At the time, this was the only 18-200 mm. available in Santiago.
   
   I also took a look at the (now discontinued) 18-125 mm. f/3.5-5.6D Sigma, but decided against it because it lacked the built-in focus motor necessary on the Nikon D40, my target camera.
   
   Tamron offers a similar lens, and so does Nikon: the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED comes with optical stabilization (VR in Nikon speak) and a built-in Silent Wave Motor (the S in AF-S), which presently streets for about $ 700 at Amazon.
   
   I expected this Sigma to focus slow compared to my HSM and AF-S lenses, but it’s surprisingly fast on the D40, the only camera I’m using it on. Build quality is also unexpectedly good, with a metal (instead of plastic) F-Mount, a partially metal body and a nice – EX type – crinkle finish.

   The AF/MF switch is placed where I need it to be, and the lens also includes an anti-creep button that locks it in the 18 mm. position for trouble-free transport.
   
   Thanks to what Sigma calls “inner focus” the front end does not rotate, facilitating the use of a petal-shaped lens hood (included), polarizers and other orientation sensitive filters such as grads.
   
   However, it is important to point out that this “inner focusing system” is not the same as IF, as it is slow compared to AF-S or HSM and a bit noisy, while the front end extends considerably – making it look a bit “amateur” at the long focal end (see image).

   At 18 mm., this lens suffers from pronounced barrel distortion and vignetting (wide open), but produces very good to excellent center sharpness, combined with good sharpness at the extremes.
   
   At 35 – 85 mm., the center is still very good, but the borders suffer at large (if you can call f/5.6-6.3 “large”) apertures.
   
   However, stop down just a little, and border quality reaches again very respectable levels.
   
   From 100 mm. on, the lens is pretty good stopped down to f/8, but interestingly, testers found that resolution (MTF) starts dropping off as soon as f/11.
   
   You’d want to be extremely carefull with your aperture selection to get optimal results.

   I have found myself avoiding the 200 mm. end, where my sample is decidedly soft, even stopped down. Lay off a little, though – to 150-180 mm. – and the problem is gone.
   
   Because of it’s rather complicated optical construction, this lens suffers (as expected) from moderate chromatic aberration throughout it’s focal range.
   
   On the other hand, it’s not as bad as other, even more expensive, lenses of comparable focal range.
   
   In short, pretty decent for a budget 11,1 times zoom, which seems to reach its sweet-spot early on: only 1 to 1,5 stops down from its f/max. throughout the entire focal range.

   People who have been destroying this lens (and others like it) in their critiques, seem to forget that for some purposes – like social events, weddings and general light travel – an all-purpose 11x 400-dollar-zoom-lens comes in extremely handy, and therefore, ought to be forgiven for some of its weaker points.
   
   Lest of course, you are prepared to lose *the* shot while changing lenses back and forth (which I am not) or are planning to mount it on a 8.000 dollar D3x, which is plain out stupid.
   
   Lets face it, this Sigma makes for a fairly campact & light package, which, combined with any half decent DSLR blows the pants (plus underwear) off of any 10x zoom P&S camera out there.

   Strengths:
   
   * Solid build quality & finish, good focus speed and accuracy.
   
   * Overall pretty decent optical performance, except at the very long end (in my sample).
   
   * Pretty unobtrusive internal focus, no rotating front-end. You can use petal shaped lens hoods, polarizers and grad filters without problems.
   
   * Quite heavy, especially compared to the D40′s (very good) 18-55 mm. AF-S plastic kit-lens. But, compact enough to be well balanced and not overly heavy – it is the lightest among its peers; you can use it hand-held and without penalty down to 1/125 or even 1/60 sec..
   
   * Very flare resistant. I have not seen any in my 4.000 takes with this lens, sofar.
   
   * Well placed AF-MF switch, useful creep-lock button for transport.

   Weaknesses:
   
   * Chromatic aberration and purple fringing on highlight edges throughout the focal range, especially wide open. This can, however, be easily corrected in post or even in-camera (select Nikon models).
   
   * Pronounced barrel distortions at the wide end, some pin cushion in the medium to long focal ranges.
   
   * No built-in image stabilization. Users who are prepared to pay for an expected 1-2 stop gain, might want to consider the optically stabilized OS-version. (MSRP: $ 750) Combined with one of the clean high ISO Nikons, however, one ought to very carefully balance his options. You can get as much as 3 stops (ISO 1.600) from these cameras with minimal sacrifice, while 300 bucks extra is 300 bucks you can spend elsewhere.
   
   * Can NOT be used with the Sigma EX 1.4x and 2x tele-converters. But then, I would not recommend using a lens of this level with a TC, anyway.
   
   * The f/max. of f/6.3 at the long end is pushing towards the very extremes of AF capability; the lens may hunt on occasion, but mostly at the long end.
   
   * Not exactly cheap for a “consumer” or kit lens.

   Those who consider this lens, might also want to take a look at the AF-S 55-200 mm. Nikkor, which – although of a more limited focal range – pairs nicely with the 18-55, and brings better optical quality, less weight plus a lower price (± $250) to the equation.

   Recommended (for social events, weddings, light travel, pseudo P&S)

   Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.