Nikon 18-200 or Sigma 18-250

Started Apr 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
cman548 Forum Member • Posts: 62
Re: Nikon 18-200 or Sigma 18-250

I fall right in the middle of the poster and George.

D3100 with 18-55 and 55-200 VRII.  Got tired of swapping.  After some research, I got the Sigma 18-250 Macro OS about a month ago just in time for a trip to Vegas.  I didn't want to carry the whole camera bag around the strip and have to swap out lenses.  Also, birthday parties, soccer games, just like others have said.

The pincushion distortion on the sigma in normal ranges like 40-80 is noticeable if you are looking for it, and your shots are geometric.  But having reviewed photos taken so far, of like people and life, you don't even think about it.  I just use ViewNX so no distortion control once it's out of the camera.

In low light, I do tend to widen back to 200 to get back to 5.6.  The difference in the frame between 200 and 250 is fairly insignificant.  IMO it's better to zoom out, get wider aperture, and lower ISO, and then crop, than it is to zoom in, have one less stop of light, and have to increase ISO.

Also agreed about the bokeh.  It's ok for some distances, and a little edgy for others.

My wife does cakes on the side so it's nice to get a macro for icing flowers, etc.  I will say though, I have a 35mm 1.8 for indoor low light and situations where I want the best IQ I can get.  And that focuses about a foot away, so I'm not convinced Macro is all that critical.

The zoom is fast, and the VR is very good.

Adorama wanted nothing to do with my old lenses.  I could craiglist them for a few bucks, but..might as well just store them away in case I need them.

I've been meaning to do a shot/zoom/aperture comparison of the 55-200 and the sigma.  Some time soon.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow