Reading mode: Light Dark

Justification for choosing a superzoom.

Go to last post
cashewNut said:
cashewNut wrote:

Thanks for the info. I don't pixel peep. I just take pictures for memories. Nobody looks at our pictures to evaluate the quality of images. They just love to see the places we visited. As long as the Eiffel tower does not look like the leaning tower of Pisa then they are happy with my photographic skills. Keep clicking that camera.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, you picked the wrong website to ask this question, DPR is all about pixel peeping and measurbating. I've used the 18-200mm VR Nikon lens for years with great results. The largest prints I make are at 13x19 and look great at reasonable viewing distances. They also, look great on a monitor or iPad.

There's also pixel level sharpness and overall image sharpness. No normal, non-obsessive photog will be viewing your images at actual pixel size. A big percentage of a good photo is what / who you are shooting and composition.

I also will pixel peep and love sharp primes on my D700. It's just not the be all and end all of photography.
 
Yeah. DP review is all about pixel-peeping but equal amount of people ask for suggestions on what lens and what camera best for their needs or comparison between D7000 vs. D7100 for example etc. etc etc. The Nikon 18-200mm is a good bet. Thanks for your feedback.
 
I sent an email to Sigma Corporation asking if the Sigma 18-250mm macro lens works with Nikon D5200 auto-correction of distortion and here is their reply: " Those are post image acquisition features and should work with any lens." That's what I thought too. Now I am really happy. Cheers!
 
cashewNut said:
cashewNut wrote:

I sent an email to Sigma Corporation asking if the Sigma 18-250mm macro lens works with Nikon D5200 auto-correction of distortion and here is their reply: " Those are post image acquisition features and should work with any lens." That's what I thought too. Now I am really happy. Cheers!
Click to expand...


I just got the lens on my D3100 and the auto-correction does not work. But I have no problems with it otherwise. I usually shoot at f8-f11 and find it to be very sharp. As DPR stated in their review, it could be the best superzoom available.

cheers, i.j.
 
Thanks for the positive feedback. I like the size and weight of the lens. I am waiting for the answer to question of auto-correction on distortions from Nikon. Let you know as soon as I get it.
 
As I said above , I use superzooms and I love them for a lot of uses. I use the new Sigma 18-200 II OS HSM. It's 50mm shorter than the 18-250 but it's very sharp all the way out to 200mm where the 18-250 loses a lot of sharpness at and near 250mm. There's not much difference between 200 and 250mm and I find that I can make up the difference by cropping and still get a sharper image. Maybe you should consider it.
 
cashewNut said:
cashewNut wrote:

I sent an email to Sigma Corporation asking if the Sigma 18-250mm macro lens works with Nikon D5200 auto-correction of distortion and here is their reply: " Those are post image acquisition features and should work with any lens." That's what I thought too. Now I am really happy. Cheers!
Click to expand...
Nikon cameras don't auto correct third party lenses, the sigma will not show correction of CA or lens distortion.

The sigma 18-250 will also only resolve about 12mp (if you're lucky) of real detail on a D5200, the lens has to be stopped down to f11 to get good sharpness across most of it's range, while even the cheapest Nikon tele lenses are best at about f5.6-f8.

This will have a very dramatic effect on the real resolution of your images with a 24mp D5200.
 
Shunda77 said:
Shunda77 wrote:
Shunda77 said:
cashewNut wrote:

I sent an email to Sigma Corporation asking if the Sigma 18-250mm macro lens works with Nikon D5200 auto-correction of distortion and here is their reply: " Those are post image acquisition features and should work with any lens." That's what I thought too. Now I am really happy. Cheers!
Click to expand...
Nikon cameras don't auto correct third party lenses, the sigma will not show correction of CA or lens distortion.
Click to expand...
Not a factor if you shoot RAW. The auto correction feature causes a big hit to FPS and buffer capacity so one of the very first things I turn off.
 
mgd43 said:
mgd43 wrote:

As I said above , I use superzooms and I love them for a lot of uses. I use the new Sigma 18-200 II OS HSM. It's 50mm shorter than the 18-250 but it's very sharp all the way out to 200mm where the 18-250 loses a lot of sharpness at and near 250mm. There's not much difference between 200 and 250mm and I find that I can make up the difference by cropping and still get a sharper image. Maybe you should consider it.
Click to expand...
Samples please.
 
Shunda77 said:
Shunda77 wrote:
Shunda77 said:
cashewNut wrote:

I sent an email to Sigma Corporation asking if the Sigma 18-250mm macro lens works with Nikon D5200 auto-correction of distortion and here is their reply: " Those are post image acquisition features and should work with any lens." That's what I thought too. Now I am really happy. Cheers!
Click to expand...
Nikon cameras don't auto correct third party lenses, the sigma will not show correction of CA or lens distortion.

The sigma 18-250 will also only resolve about 12mp (if you're lucky) of real detail on a D5200, the lens has to be stopped down to f11 to get good sharpness across most of it's range, while even the cheapest Nikon tele lenses are best at about f5.6-f8.

This will have a very dramatic effect on the real resolution of your images with a 24mp D5200.
Click to expand...
Reach vs Crop. same diff
 
All this talk pushed me over the edge. I just ordered the Sigma 18-250 Macro HSM lens.



I'll do some informal comparisons to my 18-105, and my neighbor's 18-200, using a D7000 body and post some pics.



As for the comments about u4/3s, there is a lot to be said for that. I did consider selling my D7000 kit and moving on to a OMD. But the cost differential is not small (at least, when you are selling your stuff used and then re-buying all new) and I do like the fast focus, and the handling, of the Nikon.
 
cashewNut said:
cashewNut wrote:

According to Ken Rockwell, the Nikon 18-200mm lens is a life changer and he threw away all his lenses. He uses 12-24mm additional lens. The Sigma 18-250 is sharp from 18-25mm and 85-250mm so why carry two lenses? How sharp is sharp? The Nikon 55-200mm suffers from slow focusing and vignetting but cheaper. The Nikon 55-300 mm is worse than the Sigma 18-250mm lens. It also suffers from slow focus; very soft results at telephoto; extreme distortion across the range, vignetting and image stabilization not effective. the Nikon 18-55mm is sub-standard and is okay but not stellar in image quality. So maybe just get what Ken Rockwell got and change my life too.
Click to expand...
If you read his site (which I don't recommend) you'll also see that he says he only runs around with a 35mm f/1.8 on his camera, too. Ken says a lot of whacky and contradictory crap on his site, and beyond straight technical information, he's pretty worthless IMHO (and damaging for a lot of novice photographers).

That said, I have the 18-200 and I love it. When I was traveling around Europe this summer, it was my walk-around lens. When I could only take two of my five lenses out, it was usually one of them (the other was invariably either the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 or more often my 35 f/1.8).

It isn't the lightest lens. It is pricey. It isn't as sharp as some of the zooms with narrower range. But it isn't a poor lens at all if you're not pixel-peeping etc. and it is hard to beat as a travel lens with terrific convenience. Personally, I'm not a big fan of Sigma - their quality and sample variation seem... variable...

My $0.02.
 
Last edited:
Congratulations! The Sigma 18-250 is different. It is sharp at both ends of the extremes which is different from the other superzoom lenses. Looking forward for your comparisons. Thanks.
 
I would bet that the softness that dpreview notes in the middle of the 18-250 would not detract in any noticeable way from your photography. In other words, the image quality is probably acceptable but not spectacular. Nothing that will make the Eiffel Tower come off its hinges. I started out using a superzoom with my D90. It was not until I bought shorter range lenses that I noticed what I was missing. But, even knowing the limitations of my superzoom (relatively speaking) I still use it, enjoy it, and get images that are more than just reminders of good times. No shame in them, imo.
 
Yes, yes. The Sigma 18-250 macro lens is weak in the center of the range but still perfect for traveling and general photography. For portrait, low-light photography like birthdays, parties, funerals etc. I can easily get the Nikon 50mm f1.8 prime lens which is dirt cheap-$160.00. I almost fell off my chair when I checked the price.
 
Ken has been reviewing cameras when digital cameras are still at 2megapixels. That's a long long time. Shouldn't he get a little credit? No? A lot of people like the Nikon 18-200mm lens so he could be dancing the right boogie. No?
 
cashewNut said:
cashewNut wrote:

Ken has been reviewing cameras when digital cameras are still at 2megapixels. That's a long long time. Shouldn't he get a little credit? No? A lot of people like the Nikon 18-200mm lens so he could be dancing the right boogie. No?
Click to expand...
A stopped clock is right at least once a day too. That doesn't mean it is accurate. I gave up on KR a long time ago when he stated that a noise reduction program I was considering was the absolute best on the market, hands down. Then in the same paragraph mentioned that it was the only one he'd looked at. It's just not thoughtful, considered evaluation based on experience or any criteria. It's just cheerleading. Looks good. Fun and colorful to watch. Ultimately just entertainment. There are better and more substantive sources.

But hey. You couldn't say it on the internet if it wasn't true right?
 
This is it exactly. The super zoom is just one of many tools in the bag. I also have a 35 mm prime, a UWA zoom, the 18-105, and for kicks a Tamron 28-75 f2.8.

Ultimately, when I am out for "critical" photography, I hope to have the UWA, some sort of super sharp mid-range zoom, like the 16-85 or 24-120, and then a 70-300.

But, when I'm just looking to record the memories I'll opt for the 18-250. I actually thought about a Panasonic FZ200 for this role, but it's really not *that* much smaller than a D7000/18-250, and I just don't want to learn two camera systems.
 
cashewNut said:
cashewNut wrote:

Ken has been reviewing cameras when digital cameras are still at 2megapixels. That's a long long time. Shouldn't he get a little credit? No? A lot of people like the Nikon 18-200mm lens so he could be dancing the right boogie. No?
Click to expand...
No. I won't hijack your thread other than to say I'd value Ken's site for tech specs only, and disregard his opinions as they are highly erratic, often contradictory and occasionally insulting. He's a shock jock. Check out byThom, Kelby, Mansurov and others.
 
Okay. The people have spoken and no more Ken Rockwell talk. I really didn't expect negative reactions against KR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top