Nikon 18-200 VR -vs- Sigma 18-200 OS
Discussion
Has anyone got first hand experience of either of these lenses?
I've used the Nikon for a day and was happy with the results. But I've discovered the Sigma with OS which - if some reviews are to believed - seems to out-perform the Nikon and is cheaper too.
Could do with a bit of input TBH, but I think the choice is between these two. (It's a walkabout lens to complement Nikon 50mm and Sigma 10-20mm
I've used the Nikon for a day and was happy with the results. But I've discovered the Sigma with OS which - if some reviews are to believed - seems to out-perform the Nikon and is cheaper too.
Could do with a bit of input TBH, but I think the choice is between these two. (It's a walkabout lens to complement Nikon 50mm and Sigma 10-20mm
Wife has the Nikon.
It's great. Really. I am after one for my D2X.
Sure it's not the ideal lens for any given focal length - but with it on the camera you will rarely need to change lens and hence capture more "moments". Superb travel photography lens. The VR is VERY noticeable in comparison to my non-VR equivalent. More low-light shots are sharp.
Can't comment on the Sigma, sorry.
It's great. Really. I am after one for my D2X.
Sure it's not the ideal lens for any given focal length - but with it on the camera you will rarely need to change lens and hence capture more "moments". Superb travel photography lens. The VR is VERY noticeable in comparison to my non-VR equivalent. More low-light shots are sharp.
Can't comment on the Sigma, sorry.
Can't comment on the Sigma here either, but my VR is a great all-rounder.
I will admit it's never prime sharp, it's never really fast, so low-light action is still impossible, ie, the VR can't make up for a few stops if it's action...
Err, mine has fairly noticeable vignetting at 200mm, when shooting against a flat colour/gradient like the sky, but is not really noticeable the rest of the time. It also has some mega chromatic abberation as it approaches 200mm too, ie, an object at 60m is fine, but branches dangling down at 20m were in some cases nearly 50% banded out by their colours (edge of the shot)
BUT, to buy a range of primes at all as good would be £1000 easily, and you'd carry alot more weight, and miss lots of shots!
Try see if you can rent the two lenses for a few days and go do some shooting, see which suits you better...
I'd not go on general reviews too much, but on your own results with a lens in your hands!
I've not looked, so how much are they both retailing at these days? I paid £580 for my 18-200 maybe nearly two years ago...
Dave
I will admit it's never prime sharp, it's never really fast, so low-light action is still impossible, ie, the VR can't make up for a few stops if it's action...
Err, mine has fairly noticeable vignetting at 200mm, when shooting against a flat colour/gradient like the sky, but is not really noticeable the rest of the time. It also has some mega chromatic abberation as it approaches 200mm too, ie, an object at 60m is fine, but branches dangling down at 20m were in some cases nearly 50% banded out by their colours (edge of the shot)
BUT, to buy a range of primes at all as good would be £1000 easily, and you'd carry alot more weight, and miss lots of shots!
Try see if you can rent the two lenses for a few days and go do some shooting, see which suits you better...
I'd not go on general reviews too much, but on your own results with a lens in your hands!
I've not looked, so how much are they both retailing at these days? I paid £580 for my 18-200 maybe nearly two years ago...
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
If it's under £400 for the Nikon it's worth just buying as a 'default' must have lens just like the 1.8 50mm Nikon lens for £80...
Dave
I'd disagree, I think unless you need it for a purpose, eg travelling, then the money would be better spent on seperate lenses covering the same length.Dave
I have experience of both....
The Nikon is sharp enough as a general purpose travel lens and probably is THE travel lens if you don't want to risk losing a shot while changing lenses. I'd say it's definitely sharp enough for general "grabbed" travel shots. Only if you really have the luxury of having the time to set up a shot will you really appreciate the difference in image quality between this and sharper lenses (such as the 16-85mm which is a stunner for a "consumer" lens.)
I'm talking about travel and general purpose "grabbed" shots here. When you have all the time in the world to set up a shot there are some stunning primes and even zooms around now.
Regarding the Sigma. Well its image quality is probably on a par with the Nikon (I didn't own them both at the same time to make a direct comparison). I did actually initially buy it as a cheaper alternative to the Nikon but sold it after using it once and here's why...
When you try and focus the lens, rather than the quick, quiet, efficient focussing of a Nikon AF-S or Canon USM motor this old-fashioned screw-drive Sigma just goes "buzz, whirr, bzzzt, whine" while it tries desperately to lock on to the subject. Then when it misses the target (about 100% of the time, unless you purposely help it out by focusing on a horizontal or vertical edge,) it just repeats the "buzz, etc" process, with the lens winding in and out hopelessly. On top of that your hand sits nicely just at the point where the lens rotates so you have to position your hand further back on the lens to avoid damaging the lens or amputating your hand.
Build quality is miles ahead of the Nikon and it seems like a quality item. However in use it's 100% useless. I would actually say it's the least pleasant lens I have ever used. If it had Sigma's USM I'd give it a try again.
However, equipped with the old screw-drive focussing system as it is, I'd rather sit down with an easel and paints and paint a picture of what I'm seeing as this way would be quicker...
Try it, you'll hate it...I did!
Malc
The Nikon is sharp enough as a general purpose travel lens and probably is THE travel lens if you don't want to risk losing a shot while changing lenses. I'd say it's definitely sharp enough for general "grabbed" travel shots. Only if you really have the luxury of having the time to set up a shot will you really appreciate the difference in image quality between this and sharper lenses (such as the 16-85mm which is a stunner for a "consumer" lens.)
I'm talking about travel and general purpose "grabbed" shots here. When you have all the time in the world to set up a shot there are some stunning primes and even zooms around now.
Regarding the Sigma. Well its image quality is probably on a par with the Nikon (I didn't own them both at the same time to make a direct comparison). I did actually initially buy it as a cheaper alternative to the Nikon but sold it after using it once and here's why...
When you try and focus the lens, rather than the quick, quiet, efficient focussing of a Nikon AF-S or Canon USM motor this old-fashioned screw-drive Sigma just goes "buzz, whirr, bzzzt, whine" while it tries desperately to lock on to the subject. Then when it misses the target (about 100% of the time, unless you purposely help it out by focusing on a horizontal or vertical edge,) it just repeats the "buzz, etc" process, with the lens winding in and out hopelessly. On top of that your hand sits nicely just at the point where the lens rotates so you have to position your hand further back on the lens to avoid damaging the lens or amputating your hand.
Build quality is miles ahead of the Nikon and it seems like a quality item. However in use it's 100% useless. I would actually say it's the least pleasant lens I have ever used. If it had Sigma's USM I'd give it a try again.
However, equipped with the old screw-drive focussing system as it is, I'd rather sit down with an easel and paints and paint a picture of what I'm seeing as this way would be quicker...
Try it, you'll hate it...I did!
Malc
Edited by malc350 on Saturday 30th August 22:27
Managed to compare the two on two side by side. After a bit of manual handling and a few test shots (which I previewed on the shop's computer screen), I've opted for the Sigma.
On paper there's very little in it and my brief comparison suggests that transfers to usage: the Sigma was faster to focus and slightly sharper. The Nikon was more quiet and produced marginally less distortion. But in the end they were sufficiently close that the Nikon couldn't justify its additional £150+
ETA
I know exactly the noise and effect referred to by the previous poster. But that's from my kit 18-135 which this replaces. I've had the camera out throughout the day and haven't experienced it on the Sigma... yet!?!
On paper there's very little in it and my brief comparison suggests that transfers to usage: the Sigma was faster to focus and slightly sharper. The Nikon was more quiet and produced marginally less distortion. But in the end they were sufficiently close that the Nikon couldn't justify its additional £150+
ETA
I know exactly the noise and effect referred to by the previous poster. But that's from my kit 18-135 which this replaces. I've had the camera out throughout the day and haven't experienced it on the Sigma... yet!?!
Edited by AndWhy on Saturday 30th August 22:46
AlfaFoxtrot said:
Mr Whippy said:
If it's under £400 for the Nikon it's worth just buying as a 'default' must have lens just like the 1.8 50mm Nikon lens for £80...
Dave
I'd disagree, I think unless you need it for a purpose, eg travelling, then the money would be better spent on seperate lenses covering the same length.Dave
The way I see it is, if you start to buy primes to cover a load of ranges because you care about quality to do that so much, you are wadded enough to splash out £400 on an all-rounder... well for me you are anyway
Dave
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff