Sigma 18-250 vs Sigma 18-300

I am thinking of trading in my Sigma 18-250 in favour of the 18-300. Has anyone done that, and what are your experiences in regard to IQ, balance, build quality, etc.?

Thanks!

The 18-300 is much sharper at the long end, equal to the Pentax 55-300. I have the 18-250 ( both versions), they aren't even close.

Thank you, Canonaimer, for that info.

I have been pondering for a while whether or not to stay with Canon APSC or make the move to one of the mirrorless systems, Fuji being the most attractive. But...I have grown quite addicted to the extreme convenience of the Sigma 18-250, especially when travelling. Fuji and M43 lenses, while no doubt excellent, cost a lot more than either Canon or third-party lenses for Canon. (The Fuji 18-135 is in the $1200 range in Canada.)

I have never been totally happy with the IQ of my Sigma at the long end, but you say that the 18-300 is substantially better. How about the focal lengths in between? At wide angle my 18-250 is pretty good, better than the Canon 18-55 kit.

Thanks again!

As I said, I have both the original 18-250 ( 72mm) and the newer 62mm. I was not at all impressed with the 62mm. The 18-300 is better all the way around. It isn't perfect but for an all in one lens, it is the best I have found. I liked it so well on Canon, I got one for my Pentax.

You may want to take a look at the DxOMark comparision:


The link gets you to the comparison overview. Click on "measurements" and then on "sharpness" to see the real issue with these lenses. In particular, if you go to "field map", you can select a focal length and f-stop, and you will notice that at 35mm, the 18-300mm model is somewhat sharp all across the frame if you stop it down to f/8. The 18-250mm has to be stopped down to f/11 to be somewhat sharp (less so than the 18-300mm lens) across the frame.

You can look at other measurements as well, but the differences probably matter less. The only measurement where the 18-250mm lens does better than the 18-300mm lens is the transmission measurements, where it captures more light than the 18-300mm lens a longer focal lengths.

Of course the DxO Mark data should not be regarded as completely definitive, because it only tells you about the sample that DxO Mark tested. A different copy of the same lens might behave a bit differently.

Well, I'm still kicking the idea of a new super zoom around. I fully realize the compromises in IQ they represent, particularly at the long end, but the truth is I have become addicted to their versatility. Especially when travelling, the convenience of being able to go from wide angle to eight-power is just so handy.

Looking through my album of favourite shots, I am reminded of how many I would have been unable to capture with an 18-55.

Thanks for the DXO link. I have always been a bit skeptical of them, if only because their standards seem to be so much higher than mine. But they do seem to corroborate what I have gleaned from other sites, as well as anecdotal evidence: The Sigma 18-300 is a bit sharper than the 18-250, and offers just that much more reach.

I have upgraded from Sigma 18-250 to 18-300, and I agree the latter is much sharper.

If you want samples, I posted pictures through the whole range of the 18-300 zoom (on a K-70) in the Pentax forum:

Travel zoom - Pentax 18-135 vs Sigma 18-300

Thank you, Fred. I have actually heard nothing but good things about the 18-300, super zoom limitations aside. It would seem to be a definite upgrade from the 18-250.