Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM Review

By dpreview staff on Nov 20, 2012 at 19:26 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $349.00

Just Posted: Our review of the Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM. The latest version of Sigma's stabilized superzoom is smaller and lighter than the existing non-macro version, yet is able to add improved close-focus performance, helping it compete with the similarly-sized Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 VC PZD. These long-range all-rounders are a popular choice, so we've had a look at how Sigma's latest performs. We've also added DxOMark's test data for a selection of its competitors, to give a sense of context.

214
I own it
16
I want it
14
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 89
Eigenmeat
By Eigenmeat (Nov 24, 2012)

Let's put it this way:
Your 35mm F1.4 L is usable/dreamy at best at F1.4, and pin sharp across at F4
My Sigma superzoom is "usable" at 250mm, and excellent at 28mm.

See the pattern? Every lens has it's degree of freedom. High end primes and zoom give you flexibility in aperture, superzoom like this give you flexibility in FoV. All lens perform bad at their extremes, like the example given above.

Some ppl use their camera to create art, some use it document things. These superzooms are great choices when are you trying to document things on the go.

3 upvotes
skytripper
By skytripper (Nov 25, 2012)

So the very best lenses are required in order to create art? Baloney!!!

5 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Dec 2, 2012)

Hmm required, no. Useful, yes. Otherwise, to argue from the other direction, why not just use a point & shoot?

When you see the results from a really nice lens, with gorgeous bokeh and perfect sharpness, you may feel differently. Hense the market for primes in a world where zooms are getting better all the time.

0 upvotes
StyleZ7
By StyleZ7 (Nov 22, 2012)

Half of all comments with unnecessary flame :(
There will always be people who need such lenses, becase they won't be changing them during theyr travels or events.
The quality such a lens + low to mid ragnge body provides, is totally ok for purposes, they will be using the pictures later, and there's no need to tell them something else.

7 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Nov 23, 2012)

No one is saying that lenses like these aren't needed...sure they can be useful as an all in one travel lens. My point is that most experienced photographers already know that these lenses are basically mediocre...so just buy one and be done with it. If you're spending several thousand dollars on a 70-200 2.8....well maybe you are taking more care and searching for the absolute best....and that is when I read reviews, not for some cheap super zoom.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Nov 23, 2012)

Or to put it another way....I guess I am just being self centered and thinking about what I want:) Personally I could care less about superzooms, I would like to see reviews for the pro line of lenses:) I guess maybe someone new to photography that doesn't know much and wants to spend their money wisely would like this review.

2 upvotes
skytripper
By skytripper (Nov 25, 2012)

So only someone new to photography would be interested in a travel zoom such as this? More baloney!!!

3 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Nov 21, 2012)

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/sigma-35mm-f1-4-arrives-announces-new-world-order

thats a great sigma lens!!

0 upvotes
Jammer14
By Jammer14 (Nov 21, 2012)

Several people have been critical of the compromises made in using a superzoom versus multiple primes or more limited range zooms.

I agree with the arguments about ultimate quality, but often - for me anyway - it's worth giving up some of that for speed and convenience.

Over the years I've missed many shots because I wasn't quite ready for them, and having a superzoom on my camera as the default helps address that. I have a reasonably fast 35mm prime in my bag which I use when circumstances permit, and I'll be adding a 90mm or 105mm shortly. I'll probably add a wide-angle later as well.

Here's another way of looking at the quality-versus-convenience argument. How many times have you seen professional photographers festooned with multiple cameras, just so they don't miss a shot while they change lenses or settings? I'm not a pro and I'm not inclined to walk around with that much hardware strapped around my neck, so the superzoom + a couple of primes approach works for me.

10 upvotes
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Nov 21, 2012)

Okay, this was a nice toy lens review. The problem is that I haven't seen a single zoom lens that even comes close to properly filling more than 6 Mpixels. So can we now move along and review some primes for real photographers? That would make me super happy.

2 upvotes
toomanycanons
By toomanycanons (Nov 22, 2012)

"toy lens" LOL "Primes for real photographers" LOL You crack me up.

9 upvotes
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Nov 22, 2012)

I'm glad that you are amused, unlike some others that have no sense of humor and get completely bent out of shape when confronted with brutal reality. Now if I could only find a lens that doesn't blur half the faces in my group shots..............

2 upvotes
toomanycanons
By toomanycanons (Nov 22, 2012)

"brutal reality" LOL When I first began researching DSLRs years ago I'd read comments from "experts" such as yourself and just get confused. Should I listen to what this guy has to say, he's so dam critical of lenses/cameras that others think are pretty decent. I finally realized "reviews" such as yours are more about the reviewer than about the product being reviewed.

4 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Nov 23, 2012)

I was laughing so hard at this clueless comment by maxnimo, I almost dropped off the darned chair. And I just love how the camera sensor's megapixel count is apparently being confused with the lens' resolving power or image circle throw or whatever.

6 upvotes
Jammer14
By Jammer14 (Nov 21, 2012)

I bought this lens based on reviews, specifications, and price, and after using it for a few weeks on my Nikon D3200 I'm happy with it.

To put that another way, if I lost it tomorrow I'd replace it with the same model, not a comparable Tamron, Nikon, etc.

I only have two critical observations about the lens. First, when I initially started using it the zoom action was disconcertingly uneven across the range, getting quite stiff in the middle before softening up again. However the lens did become more consistent after a little bit of use, and although some change in the action is still there I don't really notice now.

Second, the amount of force needed to zoom the lens is very dependent on whether the lens is horizontal, pointing up, or pointing down. If the lens is pointing down it zooms out effortlessly, but it takes real effort to zoom it back in. Basically the zoom lens tendency to "creep" gravity-assists you in one direction and fights you all the way in the other.

3 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Nov 21, 2012)

Great review. Too bad it's of a lens that I would not look at twice let alone buy. Slow superzooms = compromises, nothing to learn here, end of review.

How about the new Fuji line of lenses, or the new Zeiss 15mm 2.8 ZE, or any of a number of other far more interesting lenses.

3 upvotes
AP7
By AP7 (Nov 21, 2012)

Similarly, the quality of a lens is proportional to its price.

Expensive lens = Better Lens, very simple.

Therefore, no need to review expensive lens!

Inexpensive lens needs to review because we need to know within some price bracket which lens gives more.

10 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Nov 21, 2012)

I do not agree with either of these points. People will want to know about these compromises, the Nikon 18-300 is already worlds apart, and pricing is far from proportional to performance. They put values in different things. What then, you ask ? Read the review !

5 upvotes
toomanycanons
By toomanycanons (Nov 22, 2012)

OK, great to hear you won't be buying one and we're all just tickled pink that you let us know that. Thanks a bunch!

7 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Nov 23, 2012)

"the Nikon 18-300 is already worlds apart."

Sure is. It costs almost $600 more than this Sigma lens here, I believe.

1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Nov 23, 2012)

You have mastered the internets, congratulations !

1 upvote
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Nov 23, 2012)

AP7 - Expensive lens does = better lens...usually...so yes you are right. My point was this....if I'm spending $2400 on a lens like the Zeiss 15mm ZE, I obviously have much higher demands than if I am buying a cheap zoom. If I want a cheap zoom I already know the compromises I am making, I just buy one, no review needed.

If I am buying a $2400 lens I read reviews to make sure I am buying the absolute best lens I can. Sorry you cannot comprehend this.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
1 upvote
luap_42
By luap_42 (Nov 30, 2012)

Clint Dunn - Does anyone care about what YOUR requirements are? You appear to be living in cloud by yourself anyway.

0 upvotes
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Nov 21, 2012)

These sample photos are of significantly better composition than most of the other camera sample photos, so I am pleased for a change. Nice work.

1 upvote
vesa1tahti
By vesa1tahti (Nov 21, 2012)

Compared to Nikkor 18-300 mm ?

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Nov 21, 2012)

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon-af-s-18-300mm-3p5-5p6-vr

You can also use the Compare feature on the lens test widget to look at the two lenses side-by-side.

3 upvotes
Ubilam
By Ubilam (Nov 21, 2012)

A few macro shot samples would be nice in the DPR samples, since its supposed to be a macro lens too. Wink-wink.

3 upvotes
hea
By hea (Nov 21, 2012)

I agree you [DPR] should do a new approach to lens review. The round up for this kind of lenses would be good, put togheter the nikons, sigmas, tamrons, etc super travel zooms and review them. Then forget zuperzooms for a number of years. We really do not expect big diferences between them. Good lenses maybe require unique reviews. Also, the camera used should be according with the lens. D800 with 35/1.4, d5100 with 18-xxx. Thanks. Some typos (tablet writing).

2 upvotes
Nightwings
By Nightwings (Nov 21, 2012)

Can you (DPR) explain your methodology of testing (Your interactive slider graph) versus what SLRGear does (Blur Index). Then... convince me that your method is superior. The reason why I ask is .. I prefer the blur index method and their graphs because theoretically, it should not make any difference what so ever what camera body its tested on. It simply shows where and when the lens is at its sharpest and where its the weakest. Whereas your method produces different results .... starkingly different results when you test the same lens on two different cameras. How can the same piece of glass be sharper at f5.6 and weaker at f8 on one camera... and be weaker at f8 and sharper at f5.6 on the other camera.... makes no sense to me.

3 upvotes
Kokeen4231
By Kokeen4231 (Nov 21, 2012)

Where did you see the be sharper at f5.6 and weaker at f8 on one camera... and be weaker at f8 and sharper at f5.6 on the other camera'? I could not find it in the review. But if it did then its weird.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Nov 21, 2012)

The only time we have data for the same lens model on two different cameras at the moment, they are bodies of different brands (mainly Nikon D7000 and Canon EOS 7D). Since the same lens obviously won't physically fit on both, this means testing two different samples. So any difference is essentially sample variation.

SLRGear, of course, don't test the same lens in two different mounts, so you don't know what results they'd have got had they done so.

2 upvotes
ZorSy
By ZorSy (Nov 21, 2012)

Very useful review for anyone thinking of getting one of these lenses. When I bought Sigma 18-200 OS HSM years ago, there was no review to be found anywhere. That lens had a few very serious problems at some focal lengths - this one seems to have inherited some. The best example is looking at distortion changing the focal length, starting at 18mm and going up. At about 22-25mm, it has a "jump" from barrel to pincushion. I no longer have this lens, but remember anything photographed around this length looked very weird (the best word to describe without samples). I later had a Tamron and comparing the two, Sigma was much better, both mechanically and optically (with exceptions as above). I no longer have any superzoom lenses - but they have their practical value on holidays, capturing moments and memories and for the next overseas holiday I could even get one of these (again), who knows...the whole life thing is a compromise, isn't it?

2 upvotes
The A-Team
By The A-Team (Nov 21, 2012)

I've been shooting with a Sigma 18-200 OS for 5+ years (and often for professional use) and I've never noticed that certain focal lengths "looked weird". Although I'm aware certain spots are weak in distortion or sharpness, empirically speaking, you don't really notice when taking in pictures as a whole. At least me and my clients don't...

0 upvotes
Retzius
By Retzius (Nov 20, 2012)

I havent read the review but Im gonna guess it is bad wide open, good stopped down to f8, and recommended only if you need an all in one lens.

5 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 21, 2012)

exactly. why test a lens like this

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Nov 21, 2012)

And I bet the next new f1.8 prime is a little soft wide open with a bit of CA and vignetting, but sharpens up like a razor by f2.8. So should they skip those reviews?

6 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 21, 2012)

Plenty of f/1.8 are very sharp wide open. resolution is not the only thing or most serious thing wrong with super zooms. terrible bokeh distortion CA's and just and overall unpleasing look to the image (color/contrast). You really show your ingorance when you compare the IQ issues very fast lenses experince wide open to the complete junkiness that is a superzoom

1 upvote
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Nov 21, 2012)

Funny Retzius, I was thinking the same thing.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 21, 2012)

Actually tkbslc makes a good point. Most lenses, even some high end professional models, exhibit this same resolution curve where they are softer wide open and sharpen up across the frame 2 stops from wide open. Should DPR stop testing all lenses.

I would also not call ALL superzooms "junk" as a some like the Nikon 18-200 are quite decent performers. I mainly use primes for the faster max aperture but it's a bit snobbish to say all such zooms are junk.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Nov 21, 2012)

I'm not feeling very blissful, so I am not sure if I am ignorant.

I think honestly we all know just about how every review dpreview has done is going to turn out, but we still like to see the details. Did anyone not know how the D800 review was going to come out? Were you surprised by the LX7 review?

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Nov 23, 2012)

All single focal lenses have started out to be proper zooms, they just could not quite figure out the variable focal length changing part, the way I hear.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Nov 20, 2012)

Hey Barney,
You asked what we would like to see. Here is my request:

I would like to see a review on D800E vs Different Lens. Can any current zoom out resolve the sensor? How about primes? I would also like to see how Zeiss ZF.2 lenses perform. I heard they will come out with lenses for high MP sensors, this makes me question how good current lenses are as far as resolution.

1 upvote
D1cky
By D1cky (Nov 20, 2012)

Absolutely fair and very sensitive. Well done, Andy!

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Nov 20, 2012)

"Anyone unwilling to sacrifice image quality for convenience." That about covers it. Notihng wrong with this trade-off, so long as you're aware of it, and the same could be said of numerous pocket cameras, "super" zooms and wide angle zooms. Now that we have digital correction of barrel/pincushion distortion, they make lenses they wouldn't have in the days of film.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Nov 20, 2012)

I really don't like the term "Travel Lens" when it comes to these optically poor long ratio zoom lenses. I think this is an excuse to put convenience ahead of quality for someone who has lost some of their passion for photography and are looking for an easy way out. I know that sounds insulting and I really don't intend it to be so, but have a really hard time understanding interest in these type zoom lenses.

When we travel, it's often a special time away from the daily grind of work or maybe the boredom of retirement. Regardless, we're going somewhere we wish to visit maybe more exciting than staying at home. Why would we want to record this special time with mediocre glass? Wouldn't we want to take the extra effort to carry our best when taking once in a lifetime shots?

What do we use our "good" glass for that stays at home during these holiday events? Do we own and use good glass? I would think traveling is a special time where we can really put the good stuff to good use. :-)

11 upvotes
noirdesir
By noirdesir (Nov 20, 2012)

When a good colleague of mine bought his first DSLR a few years back, I recommended the Nikon 16-85 mm over the 18-200 mm, both because it was optically better and because I think 16 vs. 18 mm adds more interesting creative possibilities than 200 vs. 85 mm.
But he chose the 18-200 mm nevertheless. To be blunt, I think significant numbers of superzoom users care more about documenting things, ie, getting the shot instead of creating high quality photos.

2 upvotes
Gasman66
By Gasman66 (Nov 20, 2012)

I agree. My "travel" lens is a 24-105 f4 L series Canon - which is the lens I use most of the time anyway.

That said, the quality of the Sigma seems pretty impressive - and I'm sure will find wide acceptance as a general purpose APS-C zoom - travel or otherwise.

2 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Nov 20, 2012)

Some people simply travel to see places, that should be good enough of a goal already. It'd be a shame if you get caught up in your gear so much that you only realize what you've actually seen when you're back home looking at your monitor. Then you might as well have googled the place.

9 upvotes
whyamihere
By whyamihere (Nov 20, 2012)

I think noirdesir and M Jesper have a point: Knowing full well that most of the people surrounding me are more interested in capturing a moment away from home (a memory) than creating gorgeous photos (art - yeah, fine line, I know), I can understand the allure of the DSLR equivalent of the super zoom lens.

Another way of looking at it (and Kai at DigitalRev put it well): Who wants to lug a bunch of equipment around on vacation trying to get perfect photos when you're supposed to be enjoying yourself? Heck, a more technologically savvy co-worker just asked me what P&S camera he should buy before he goes on a cruise with his wife - and I know that man owns a D90 and some seriously expensive glass that he has put to good use for publication purposes. Sometimes, convenience trumps quality.

Lastly, and I say this will all due kindness (and I've said this before): If you can't justify the purchase in your head, it's not for you.

6 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Nov 21, 2012)

One isn't getting caught up in gear over looking at things. That's completely untrue. If anything, a photographer who is interested in a great image, is probably looking at things way more clearly and deeply than any non-photographer super zoom travel lens toting user might be.

If convenience really trumps IQ, good. So be it. Get a good compact camera and have done with it. There is nothing more convenient whatsoever is there?

I really think it's a matter of passion for photography and the love of seeing what's around you and creating images of what you see rather than going on some tour with 50 people on a bus. If that passion is gone. Ok. Just admit it. Don't try to pawn off something like this lens as a reasonable tool for good photography because you're not "lugging" around a lot of weight.

I think this whole Travel Lens nonsense is just that. If you really cared about image quality, then carry two small, high quality primes. You're in for a smaller overall size and weight.

4 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Nov 21, 2012)

Couldn't agree more. So someone makes the journey of his lifetime and takes the worst lens he owns.

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Nov 21, 2012)

The ultimate "travel" setup is an Olympus PEN-style camera with a handful of high quality primes.

Lugging around a DSLR with a giant mediocre lens kind of defeats the point.

1 upvote
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 20, 2012)

do people who buy superzooms even care? why not review lenses that there is some question of the optical quality. A sigma superzoom is bound to be optically weak. maybe it will be good compared to its class. but again i ask when people buy these lenses we know are weak do they really care.

7 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Nov 20, 2012)

ever get the feeling you just can't win?

24 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Nov 20, 2012)

This review was very useful. It confirmed al my prejudices. please test more blooperzooms, so I won't be tempted to buy them.

4 upvotes
Makinations
By Makinations (Nov 20, 2012)

It isn't a question of those who buy them but those who are thinking about buying them. They're better than they used to be. Some day they might be "good enough."

1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Nov 20, 2012)

If I super zoom is as good as a kit 18-55mm and 55-250mm. I could see many people buying one and selling the two kit lenses.

1 upvote
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Nov 20, 2012)

There are a huge number of photographers who not only struggle to carry their camera gear along with everything else they need, but also struggle to even feed their families and pay their bills. Why should these people not get quality information about lenses like this that expand their possibilities while allowing them to do what they love? Just because your wallet is fatter they should be excluded? Give me a break.

Try www.reidreviews.com, and maybe leave this site to us plebs?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Nov 20, 2012)

(and that's not saying anything against Sean Reid, at all. It's a great site, with wonderfully written and detailed reviews - but it's a paid site, and reviews more of the higher end specialized gear)

0 upvotes
paulski66
By paulski66 (Nov 21, 2012)

If they're truly struggling to feed their families, maybe a $150 P & S with a long zoom range instead of $600 for a dSLR and another $550 for a superzoom would be a wiser investment, no?

2 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Nov 21, 2012)

@ meanwhile
If you are that hard up, why are you even buying a DSLR and lenses. Get an all in one P&S camera with fixed superzoom. Much cheaper.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Nov 21, 2012)

"Meanwhile", me thinks you're making up a bunch of silly poorly thought out nonsense. If you have made the tradeout for convenience over quality images, just admit it. These super ratio zooms generally cost well more than a twin lens solution. It has nothing to do with poverty. You've been given a break. Think it over and try again.

3 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 21, 2012)

@meanwhile Your comment has helped me discover a personal failing. It seems I am incapable of rolling my eyes sufficiently far back to express what nonsense I think your comment is. Frankly the absurdity of dragging class politics and sensitivity for the handicapped into a discussion about what camera lens should or should not be reviewed boggles the mind.

I want to point some things out.

1. I said nothing when the virst lens deamed wothy of a review was a superzoom. I waited for it to be the first two lenses to be reviewed.

2. Superzooms are expensive. Unless you buy that a lenses appropriateness for different photographs is only determined focal length therefore a superzoom is for all types of photography, then a super zoom is $$$ lens that is good for a very limited type of photography. 50mm primes are cheaper and also more versatile.
3. there really isnt that much difference between one SZ and another and that is why i find the 2 first reviews being of them annoying

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Nov 26, 2012)

Way to think outside the box, guys. You just showed once again that the superior-than-though photographer stereotype is pretty much true. I didn't bring class into this Koda, you did. I wasn't actually talking about myself either, but thanks for the "you should be buying food not making art" lectures, enjoyed. Shooting mainly 50mm f/1.4 at the moment, not that it should matter, but that doesn't mean that people who buy superzooms shouldn't get quality information about them.

And they do differ quite a bit Koda, different lenses make different compromises, some are better for video, some focus faster, handle CA/distortion/fringing better, have better ergonomics, or are simply better bang-for-the-buck. It's also really easy to not be annoyed by them - don't read them.

Not sure where you get the "sensitivity to the handicapped" shtick from, not something I was discussing.

0 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Nov 26, 2012)

Oh, I guess it was the "struggle to carry their camera gear" part. More along the lines of - kids to wrangle, suitcase to carry, nappy bag to take already, etc - as well as carrying their camera gear.

Maybe struggling to feed their family was hyperbolic. How about "doesn't make six figures", or "doesn't have a huge amount left after their bills are paid". It's not rocket science.

Thank you Guidenet for the benefit of the doubt.

1 upvote
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Nov 27, 2012)

More simply put:
"do people who buy superzooms even care?" Yes.

That a (usually) cheaper superzoom may be optically inferior to a (usually) expensive prime doesn't mean that people who buy superzooms shouldn't get quality information about them - which is what you are suggesting.

0 upvotes
AP7
By AP7 (Nov 20, 2012)

It is better to have 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses than this expensive superzoom ($300 for two vs $550 for one). Two lenses combo is cheaper and optically better than Sigma.

Comparison with Canon 18-200mm is missing (only IS performance is compared, no comparison on Sharpness, etc.).

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Nov 20, 2012)

1) Click one of the 'Compare' links on the data widget. 2) Select the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS as the second lens. 3) Compare data. Top tip: cursor keys change focal length/aperture settings for both lenses simultaneously. Just be aware that they can get out of sync if you're not careful.

5 upvotes
AP7
By AP7 (Nov 21, 2012)

Thanks Andy for your excellent work. Please review lenses from all the categories: budget and luxury/professional, prime and zoom, etc. Please not concentrate only on the expensive lenses as many people suggested. There are lots of non-professional folks here.

2 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Nov 20, 2012)

Not bad at all! And great professional review. Well done.
Good travel zoom for any who make A3/A4 prints(if any)

3 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (Nov 20, 2012)

Why cant we comment on Connect "news"?

0 upvotes
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (Nov 20, 2012)

Wasn't you last review of a megazoom lens also? What's next, the sigma 18-5,000mm F/5.6~F/8?

3 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Nov 20, 2012)

Ah, sarcasm... how useful. What would you like to see reviewed? (a serious question)

8 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Nov 20, 2012)

Can I, can I?! =) Please Olympus 60mm macro, 17/1.8 and 75/1.8
Also Fuji 18-55mm if you can, Sir =)

9 upvotes
paulski66
By paulski66 (Nov 20, 2012)

I think the Nikon superzoom review was useful to establish a baseline, but I kind of agree that I'd like to see a more "serious" lens reviewed next. I mean, people either already know that superzooms are mediocre (at best) performers or they just don't care.

Seems to me there have been some great, or at least very intriguing, lenses released in the last 2-3 years. Nikon alone has released some great primes, and I'm not a Canon man but they've refreshed their line-up as well. Or even a review of the inexpensive Samyang line-up would be very helpful.

4 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Nov 20, 2012)

How about a group review of all the 50mm F1.4's?

3 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (Nov 20, 2012)

Barney, DPR's reviews are great and you guys do a good job, but like others, super ratio zooms for APS-C cameras are not really important to many people here. There are some novice photographers who shoot this type lens and even some more seasoned people who will give up IQ for convenience, but most people who love photography websites are a bit more passionate about image quality.

I agree that any zoom is somewhat of a compromise, but I think most of use would prefer to stick to 2x, 3x and maybe even to 5x ratios at the most to preserve as much quality as we can.

I'm certain I'm in the minority also because I'd like to see reviews of some prime lenses. Maybe a good roundup of 85 f/1.4 glass or primes between 24mm and 35mm would be fun. How about APS-C 35 f/1.8 to f/2.8 under $250 glass.

I'd also like to see how well Nikon's 16-35 stacks up against others of similar length.

Just a thought and you did ask. :-)

6 upvotes
camcom12
By camcom12 (Nov 20, 2012)

Thanks for the excellent review. Superzooms have their place. Sometimes just "getting the shot" is the priority over perfect technical quality. No apologies from me for using a SZ when appropriate.

2 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Nov 20, 2012)

The 18-55mm F2.8-4 on the Fuji X-E1 would be most interesting !

3 upvotes
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (Nov 21, 2012)

Barney, I think a review of a mirror-less cam lens would be great and my suggestion would be any one of the Samsung NX primes, especially since you haven't tested any Samsung lenses yet.

1 upvote
shahid11235
By shahid11235 (Nov 21, 2012)

Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
Canon EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

0 upvotes
guianMangali
By guianMangali (Nov 23, 2012)

as per paulski66 please review some samyang/rokinon lenses, I'm hearing they are great optical performers minus the AF

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Nov 20, 2012)

Andy.... thanks for another extremely well written lens review.

I am not particularly fond of superzoom lenses, but you have done a very nice job of explaining the pros and cons of this lens for people who might be interested in this sort of lens.

If anyone wants a "one lens solution" then this could be it for them.

8 upvotes
h2k
By h2k (Nov 20, 2012)

Thanks for your evaluation.

1 upvote
Sergeg
By Sergeg (Nov 20, 2012)

A good and useful review, I bought the lens in early October for the Canon 650D. I am impressed with the overall performance especially quite and fast focusing, however, my particular sample has the annoying intermitent issue of not focusing at the 250mm end ocassionaly. I have to back of on the focal length a tad, then it focuses, and then I can zoom in.
Also, it quite obviously does not track focus as a proper zoom should at all focal lengths, a refocus is necessary if changing the focal lenght. Aside from these quirks, the optical performance is quite impressive.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
robert james
By robert james (Nov 21, 2012)

Useful review. However, these reviews really need to test several copies of each lens. The prior Sigma 18-250 has better and larger glass elements, yet didn't test as well. I tested THREE copies, and my results differed greatly from the DPR review of it. I had one bad decentered copy, one pretty sharp copy, and one copy that is VERY sharp....even at 250mm!! And my best copy does not have the exteme weakness at 135 like the DPR test. At 250, the results were shockingly good against my best $1500 zoom lenses. So I hate to say it, but given the lack of quality control of almost all lenses, it seems that you just have to find a good one or just get lucky. Decentering and optical quality variation seems to be an epidemic these days.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Rich Turk
By Rich Turk (Nov 21, 2012)

dont' understand the implications that super zoom users don't care about IQ. Everything is a tradeoff. Size and weight for example, a huge factor some of us approaching the "golden years" or anyone w/back/neck trouble. I'd rather get a shot that won't hold up to a huge magnification than not get it at all. BTW, I don't own a superzoom yet, but will be getting this one. Also, it seems like technology has improved superzooms lately. I remember when just plain "zooms" came out, no serous photographer would use one. As far as cost, no argument that the pro lenses are better, but my real word experience is that if you triple the cost, you don't triple the IQ.

4 upvotes
skanter
By skanter (Nov 21, 2012)

I've used a superzoom (Sigma 18-200 OS) for years, find it to be an incredibly useful lens that is on my camera 50% of the time. I have had no IQ issues, once I learned its capabilities.

I should add that Sigma has quality control issues. I bought three versions of the lens at B&H, tested them over a weekend, then kept the best one. (I live a few blocks from B&H).

Any lens is a compromise regarding focal length, speed, IQ, price, weight, etc. I've always had a superzoom as part of my arsenal - wouldn't live without it, especially for travel and all-around lens.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
1 upvote
jshetley
By jshetley (Dec 19, 2012)

I am looking at getting this lens for a trip where I will be snow mobiling and skiing. I think I would get better pictures with this on my 30d than I would with a small P&S. A good P&S would cost about that same amount. What do you guys think?

0 upvotes
Total comments: 89