Anyone experienced Sigma 18-250mm lens?
Jun 30, 2015 09:30:16 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
The obvious reaction to such a lens is that it's a compromise. And it is. But I've read that this Sigma may be perhaps the best all-in-one lens out there right now...in a field of many. But I'd like to hear from actual users of it.
Are the extremes really poor? What are it's real IQ weaknesses?
I never thought I'd even find myself considering one of these kinds of lenses, yet here I am. One lens would certainly be convenient over frequent lens switching. But....is the quality decent enough to actually substitute it for my other 2 or 3 lenses (of equal total focal lengths)?
Thanks for sharing your experiences.
Are the extremes really poor? What are it's real IQ weaknesses?
I never thought I'd even find myself considering one of these kinds of lenses, yet here I am. One lens would certainly be convenient over frequent lens switching. But....is the quality decent enough to actually substitute it for my other 2 or 3 lenses (of equal total focal lengths)?
Thanks for sharing your experiences.
Jun 30, 2015 10:13:23 #
BobT wrote:
The obvious reaction to such a lens is that it's a... (show quote)
It is a very competent lens, and 5 years ago was about the best of the "all-in-one" crop sensor lenses. The newer 18-300mm Sigma and 16-300mm Tamron are both better lenses. But the 18-250 is still a good lens at the $349 price it is currently selling at.
Jun 30, 2015 10:18:28 #
I don't have the Sigma 18-250 Macro, but I do have their 18-200 Macro OS HSM and 18-300 Macro OS HSM. I find both of them to sharp enough to make beautiful prints up to 8.5x11 which is the biggest that I make. I also have a Nikon 55-300 VR and Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 II HSM (the non-)OS lens) and I can't see a difference between them in these size prints. If you get the 18-250 get the Macro version. It's the newest and best of several versions of this lens.
All I can tell you is that some people, like me, love their all-in-one lenses, and others don't.
All I can tell you is that some people, like me, love their all-in-one lenses, and others don't.
Jun 30, 2015 10:29:41 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
Thanks folks. In my researching of these lenses, I've seen more positive comments about the Sigma 18-250mm than I have about the newer Tamron 16-300mm; though the Tammy does seem to get many favorable remarks, except for it's CA issues.
Jun 30, 2015 12:13:11 #
The Tamron 16-300 and the Sigma 18-300 are new lenses so you won't see as many user reviews as you will for the older Sigma 18-250. There are several versions of the 18-250. The newest and best is the Macro version.
I tried the Tamron 16-300 and found it to be a little too soft at 300mm. I bought the Sigma 18-300 and I find it to be sharper especially at 300mm.
I tried the Tamron 16-300 and found it to be a little too soft at 300mm. I bought the Sigma 18-300 and I find it to be sharper especially at 300mm.
Jul 1, 2015 06:45:15 #
I'm not as experienced as most of the members here, but I have had good luck with the Sigma 18 - 250. Caught this on the side of the road.
Jul 1, 2015 08:09:13 #
Been using the Sigma 18-250 for about a year now and totally happy with it. My other 5 lenses are now gathering dust most of the time. Don't even carry them with me any more. It's just as sharp at 250 or 18 as in the center range.
Jul 1, 2015 09:14:18 #
Jul 1, 2015 09:21:27 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
You folks have sold me on this lens. Now, if I can find a good used copy(Canon EF), I'll be all set. Unfortunately, KEH (my go-to used camera source) does not have one.
Thanks to all for your feedback on it.
Bob
Thanks to all for your feedback on it.
Bob
Jul 1, 2015 09:22:05 #
rogerl
Loc: UK (Harrogate, North Yorkshire)
The Sigma 18-250 is my walk-around lens for my D7100 & I'm very happy with it.
Jul 1, 2015 10:06:48 #
Jul 1, 2015 10:56:24 #
Sheila
Loc: Arizona or New York
Used this lens on a D300s for a while. I had an 18 to 200 Nikon that needed a repair and I needed a substitute. I thought the extra length would be a good thing but I went back to the 18-200 Nikon lens. The Sigma is heavier and seems much bulkier to me. The lens extension mechanism is not as smooth and must be moved in the opposite direction from the Nikon lens I was used to. I thought the results were a little soft and had less contrast than the Nikon lens.
Jul 1, 2015 13:06:25 #
FM
Loc: near Syracuse, NY
I use the 18-250 on my D7000 and have been happy with it. It is soft at the long end, but all of my shots are hand held. perhaps on a tripod it would be sharper at 250. If I were you, and interested in the Sigma, I would invest in the 18-300. I want to sell my 18-250 and buy the 18-300. you could look at buys on a refurbished 18-250, however, the lens is such a good buy new
..Everything I've read says the 18-300 is a better lens-naturally, a little more reach too.
FM
FM
Jul 1, 2015 14:02:43 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
The 18-250mm sounds like a compromise enough. An 18-300mm sounds like even more of a stretch. But I'll do some research on that longer one. Thanks
Jul 1, 2015 19:57:41 #
I have the 18 - 250 on my 60D and it's great all around lens. Also have the 16 - 300 on my 70D. I like the little extra reach. The 16 - 300 also has better IQ.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.