 Aleksandra Miesak |
Sigma 18-200 OS vs. Nikkor 18-200 VR So has anyone read any comparison reviews between the new Sigma 18-200 OS and Nikkor 18-200 VR? I have been saving my pennies for the Nikkor but now I'm tempted to settle for the Sigma ($200 less). Is there a lot of difference in the optics and quality? I heard that the Nikkor has a very annoying lens creep but I haven't read anything like that about the Sigma. I know the regular 18-200 by Sigma has a switch to stop the lense from creeping but I'm not sure about the new OS. All the comparison reviews I have seen are between the Sigma and Canons. Any word on the Nikon version? Also I know that even the Nikkor has it's limitations and the sharpness isn't that great so it might be worth spending less on the comparable Sigma and maybe saving up for a REALLY good lens in the future. Any advice would be great. Thanks, Aleks
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
The Heretic speaks again: For many years the argument was that only the caamera manufacturer's lenses were worth purchasing. At that time, there were 10 after-market manufacturers [Sigma, Vivitar, Soligor, etc.] and, maybe, the suggestion was the right way to go. Today, however, there are only three after-market guys [Tokina, Tamron and Sigma.] A recent article on a Tokina lens in Pop Photo described the fact that lens was available under the name of one of the major camera manufacturers. Can't remember which one. But, in truth the after-market guys have made great strides and, often, produce a better, cheaper lens. That's why lens reviews in the major photo mags are so useful [and, I realize that Pop Photo never reviewed an advertiser's camera or lens it didn't like.] I bought the Tamron 28-200 mm zoom [first iteration of four (and the best)] for use with my Canon EOS 620. I then used it with my EOS 3. It works with my Canon 30D, albeit the effective zoom range is 45-320 mm. This lens was much more highly rated than Canon's equivalent [pre-digital] 28-200 mm. I can't speak to Nikon, obviously, since I use Canon stuff. But, just remember - today's after-market guys do supply versions of their lenses to the majors - why even one of the Nikon lenses is a Tokina with a different dress.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Aleksandra Miesak |
That is a very good point John. And I do have a Sigma 10-20mm wide angle and absolutely love it. And unless I grow an Ansel eye and sell thousands of my prints overnight I cannot justify spending all of my savings on glass. I was just wondering if anyone actually took the time to compare the two so I could feel better about my decision. Anyway, thanks John for your advice.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
I've heard anectdotally that the Sigma 18-200 OS lens is a good lens... for an 18-200 zoom lens. Lenses are like a lot of other things, in that the jack of all trades is the master of none. What you get with an 18-200 lens, from any of the reputable brands, is one lens with a wide focal length range. What you trade is superior image quality for good image quality. Does it make a difference? For most people, doing casual photography that will either live on a hard disk or get turned into a bunch of 4x6 prints at the local WalMart, no, it won't make a difference. For the photographer who is serious about his photography, yes, it makes a considerable difference. If I were a photojournalist shooting for the web, I'd buy one of these lenses in a heartbeat. (Actually, I'd get a pair of Fuji F30 digicams, and shoot with those.) If I were trying to do fine art landscapes that I'd sell as large prints, I'd avoid it like the plague.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Aleksandra Miesak |
Yeah, that is the reason why I am still debating the idea altogether. Even if one is cheaper than the other neither one is really that great. The problem is that the lenses that are great are way out of my price range. But I think I'm going to have to get a longer zoom with some sort of vibration reduction at some point (the one I have now is really worthless). I think for now I'll just keep saving $$$ and rent a good lense for my september trip to the Southwest and get something really worth it for Christmas. Thanks for your comments John, I really appreciate all of them.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
I have both the Nikon 200VR and 4 of the Tamron 28-200 mm zoom I think they are both wonderful lens/can't see a difference in quality. But I use the Tamrons the most, D200/D70/fuji S2 all pack one on a reg bacis. I can move eaiser and feel better with this lens outdoors at events ect. then the Nikon 200VR, the Tamrons are MUCH cheaper to replace, then the Nikon. I hope this helps, Debby
|
|
|
|
||
|
Chip Cummings |
I generally keep my mouth shut on subjects "photography" that I know nothing about, but in this case I do know good from bad.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Aleksandra Miesak |
Based on all of your comments I think I should just rent a few different lenses from Adorama and see how each feels and performs. The fact is I am neither good enough nor have I spent the $$$ amount to get my shots in the National Geographic to be that picky. But my scientific mind tells me to be more practical about spending even $400 on a piece of glass. And I think that's why I posted this question, just to bounce it off someone. So thanks for all your input, even if I don't make a decision right away at least I had a conversation with others about it and that's alrady a good thing. I'm sure other BP members will appreciate our discussion. And once I try some other lenses I'll remember to write a little something aobut it here. And if you have any other comments or want to put your two cents in, PLEASE DO SO!
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||