redfordl Loc: Carver,Ma.

I"m looking for a walkaround lens in the 18-300mm range. Any comments on the sigma 18-300mm. I want the 18mm for wide angle and not a 24mm. Have a canon 18-135mm which i like but i would like a longer range. Not looking for higher end glass or l series! also have canon 55-250mm kit lens which is ok. Thanks for your help!

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

The Sigma 18-300 is excellent for a crop sensor camera.

redfordl Loc: Carver,Ma.

Why? What are the positives of this lens and the negatives! And what do you use it for? Thanks!

SkipGWV

I have one I use for travel (to minimize weight and bulk in my pack.). I used it in the Galápagos in January and loved it. Good range in the zoom, good clarity and sharpness throughout. I never felt the need for a faster lens but then most shooting was in good sun. It’s easy to handhold and much easier to carry on walks than my larger zooms. I’d go for it, despite the few compromises you have to accept. Good luck!

Nosaj Loc: Sarasota, Florida

I agree with this statement. My 18-300 is a staple on my crop sensor dslr.

redfordl Loc: Carver,Ma.

skip thanks for your advice on the sigma 18-300mm lens. But what are the compromises you have to accept for it? In other words the cons of it.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

I've seen lots of great pics taken by this and other lens in that range.....sharp as a high quality prime - no, but a good copy will be close. Buy one (from somewhere you can return to), do some testing, if you are happy with it all is good..... if not, return it. I have several of the Tamron version 28-200 and 28-300 and use them often. The 18-300 or the 18-400 is on my wish list.

SkipGWV

It’s a bit slow at f3.5-6.3 if that matters to you. Some think it’s soft but I’ve found it quite satisfactory.

FredCM Loc: Central Illinois

I have one for my Nikon, I assume it's the same except for the mount. There is some distortion at the 18-25 mm focal range. I think it's pin cushion distortion, the vertical lines bow in at the middle some. It's not awful by any stretch, only noticeable if you're looking for it. I took this lens to Russia and South Africa for the reasons stated, weight and ease of use. Not disappointed.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You already have 18-135mm and 55-250mm.... it would be almost completely redundant to get an 18-300mm!

The primary "advantage" to the wider ranging zoom is that you wouldn't need to change the lens out as often.... a little bit of "convenience" perhaps, or possibly nice for travel when you're really constrained as to what you can take. But I'd be concerned about other things with a 16X zoom... about how it compromises in other ways to be able to have such a broad range of focal lengths. With it you'll have approx. 600 gram lens... lighter than two lenses.... but a heavier lens on your camera all the time. In comparison, the Canon 18-135s are about 500 grams and the 55-250mm is under 400 grams. Combined they weigh more, but either of them on the camera would be lighter weight to carry around. The Sigma also requires larger, more expensive 72mm filters (18-135 uses 67mm, 55-250 uses 58mm).

Image quality? I don't have one to comment about... and never will because I avoid lenses of that type. See for yourself: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=971&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=1&LensComp=856&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1 and https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=971&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=809&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0.

It looks to me like the Siggy is a bit softer and lower contrast than either of the Canon lenses. I only looked at a few focal lengths they each share.... didn't try stopped down (which might improve it).

The Siggy also is at least 1/3 and up to a full stop or more slower than the Canon lenses. For example, the 55-250mm at 135mm is f/4... while at 135mm the Siggy has already dropped to f/6.3 (a loss of 1.33 stops). The Canon lenses aren't "fast"... but the Siggy will be a "good light only" lens.

To be fair, the 18-300mm does have HSM focus drive, their version of ultrasonic focus drive which is pretty similar to Canon USM.... a good thing for still photos in either case (faster than STM, but STM is better for video... both STM and USM/HSM are faster/quieter than micro motor focus drive).

The 18-300mm also has OS, Sigma's version of in-lens image stabilization, which many users feel is as good as Canon's IS.

Finally, the Siggy might be labelled "Macro" (aren't they all?), though it's not. It's maximum magnification is 1:3. Either of the Canon lenses you have actually can give the same or very slightly higher magnification.

IMO, unless you absolutely must downsize for travel or need to shoot in situations where you can't simply change lenses, I'd recommend you use what you've already got. The STM and USM versions of both 18-135mm and 55-250mm are pretty darned good. The earlier micro motor versions aren't bad either, just aren't as fast or quiet focusing.

With the 18-300mm you really aren't gaining very much and will be taking a step backward in some other respects. So I'd rather put my money toward a lens that expanded my capabilities... such as a wider Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM... or a higher magnification EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro... or a more low light capable lens like an EF 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4.

redfordl Loc: Carver,Ma.

alan, i agree with you that the 18-300mm would not give me much more reach than the 55-250 lens(kit) and weighs more which can be a little more of a burden in hiking around. also since i do use polarizer lenses i would have to purchase a 72mm one. But i am considering purchasing the new canon 70-300mm Is nano usmII which is an upgrade from the 55-250mm and gives me a tad more reach. Whats your opinion of this upgrade.. and no i do not mind switching lenses from 18-135mm to the 55-250 lens as it takes no time.( i like my 18-135mm) I do carry my 150-600mm tamron G2 attached to my canon 70d in a duffel bag loaded in my trunk.And i just hook it up with an old hvy duty tripod which was modified by a machinist to hold a Nest Gimbral head. This works out well for birding. Anyway thanks for your advice from an apparently knowledgeable camera guy.

jdub82 Loc: Northern California

Alan, I really value your posts which are always full of good information. However in this case, it seems to me that not having to change lenses in the field would be a key advantage in certain situations. Like the OP, I have the Canon 18-135mm USM, as well as the 55-250mm STM. They are both very good lenses. However, I have found myself in situations, such as dusty conditions, where changing lenses is not a great idea. Having an increased focal range of lenses such as the 18-300mm (The lens mentioned by the OP) is a matter of convenience and the ability to shoot a variety of subjects without changing lenses. I believe this is the reason so many have purchased the Tamron 18-400mm. I understand there are downsides to a very wide focal range, but there are some advantages to such a lens, in my opinion. Having said that, I haven't yet purchased such a lens myself, but remain interested in the possibilities.

redfordl Loc: Carver,Ma.

jr. yes alan does have some good points as i am in the same situation as you with the two canon lenses. I"d suggest purchasing another camera body as a used canon t4i for around 349$ in good condition so you do not have to change lenses. I am thinking of purchasing the new canon is ii nano 70-300mm lens to upgrade my older 55-250 lens. Its faster focusing and produces sharper pictures. Good luck!!