Sigma 18-200mm OS

[Arree]

Here (in the Netherlands) the Nikkor is around 610 EURO, but the
Sigma is about 500. As I said above, I am leaning towards Nikkor, but
the Sigma (with a zoom lock to avoid creep when carrying!) is indeed
a cheaper alternative.

Davout

Daar sta ik van te kijken Davout, een paar maanden geleden was de Sigma USM nog niet verkrijgbaar in NL.
Alleen de versie zonder AF.

Rgrds,

Arree

Like to see some pic's ?
http://picasaweb.google.com/Arretje56

 

[Veenee]

Well, I am Polish but I don't live in Poland - and I know the prices, because I've been thinking about buying some photo stuff cheaper in Poland. God I was wrong ;-)

--
Mik
http://www.flickr.com/photos/surreybloke/

 

[RichYak]

It was my understanding that the non-HSM versions of this lens are the Canon and Sigma mounts and the Nikon mount only comes in HSM. I could be completely wrong and I don't even know why I thought this.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/richyak/

 

[furfangos]

http://www.google.com/ ... ...cial&hs=MH3&q=sigma+18-200+os+review&btnG=Search

try that.....very nice links for this research.

 

[Patco]

That's my understanding, too.
See near the bottom of this page, "Corresponding AF Mounts SIGMA (available),
CANON (available), NIKON HSM (available)":
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3324&navigator=6
It appears the Nikon mount lens has the HSM motor, and the others have a
non-HSM motor.

It was my understanding that the non-HSM versions of this lens are
the Canon and Sigma mounts and the Nikon mount only comes in HSM. I
could be completely wrong and I don't even know why I thought this.

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels

 

[Aldor]

I did some research and decided against the Sigma 18-200, seems like one big compromise.

Im going for the 55-200VR and looking at the Sigma 17-70f/2.8-4.5 as a kitlens replacer. Found a 55-200VR for only 200 euro's(293USD) which leaves me with another 200 which by itself is almost enough to get the Sigma 17-70.

Changing lenses is something to get used to with SLR's i guess, dust can always be cleaned .
--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/14807929@N05

 

[André BARELIER]

at 200mm, and probably before, the Sigma is 6.3, while the Nikon is 5.6 (wich is already slow).

I have the Nikon, and I'm very pleased with it : mine is very sharp, and VR is very effective. It's just a little bit heavy (580g). But, well you can't have all !
Don't know about the Sigma. This manufacturer has some good lenses in its range.
But 6.3 is really slow...
Just my 2 cts.
André

 

[Agent Provocateur]

I got HSM version from sigma4les for 480$USD two weeks ago. I posted preliminary impression here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=25381903

More shots to follow.

--
Andriy http://x-processed.ca

 

[Aldor]

Thanks for the link
--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/14807929@N05

 

[Zeol1]

I checked again in the sigma web page and looks like the Nikon comes only in the HSM version. Now i based my comments in the lenses shown in this two stores:

http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=SG18200SNA

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/485229-REG/Sigma_888_306_18_200mm_f_3_5_6_3_DC_OS.html

Neither of this stores say the lens is HSM, maybe because they just copied the description from other sigma's mounts. If so, this is very misleading because what defines this lens to be compatible with all Nikon cameras is the HSM label.

--
'Attitude is a little thing that can make big differences'

Fujifilm Finepix E550 and F20

 

[Patco]

what defines this lens to be compatible with
all Nikon cameras is the HSM label.

Minor nitpick - it's not the HSM label that defines AF compatibility with all
Nikon cameras, it's whether there is a focus motor, HSM or non-HSM.
The Sigma 80-400 lens will AF on a D40, or any other Nikon, and is not an
HSM lens:
http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3272&navigator=3
It is included in the list of lenses that will AF on a D40(x):
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp?nID=3356

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels

 

[Zeol1]

I am so confused, i though the HSM was the only type of lens from Sigma that could work with D40(x). Now i realize there is another type of internal motor from Sigma compatible with D40. Better check this list first:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp?nID=3356

But now i wonder if the lens available in Beach Camera and B&H photo are of the HSM type or something else.

 

[inocencio penaranda]

I have 55-200 Sigma HSM and it works just fine with my D40. I bought it from http://www.adorama.com . Enjoy.

 

[Talkontar]

The world is small ;-) You can very easily meet polish folks all around the globe. I'm Polish and I live in Poland and have to live with these prices. But I hope that my friend, who is coming back from US in January will be kind enough to bring me d300 for a normal amount of money.
Wait! Dlaczego ciągle piszemy po angielsku?!
Pozdrawiam
--
----------------------------------------------------------Talkontar
D 4 0
1 8 - 5 5 f 3 . 5 - 5 . 6 n i k k o r
5 0 - 1 5 0 f 2 . 8 s i g m a
3 0 f 1 . 4 s i g m a
S B 4 0 0
If You don't have anything better to do, please view my galleries:
http://picasaweb.google.pl/witosz

 

[Veenee]

Rowniez pozdrawiam - powodzenia z D300!
--
Mik
http://www.flickr.com/photos/surreybloke/

 

[Karld70]

hope for a sunny day and slow moving subjects.

 

[Kim Letkeman]

The Nikon is superb. The Sigma is a nice lense, but not as sharp wide open and a little slow to focus. Good though. And the Sigma feels wonderful, very small and light. Great close focus as well ...

photozone.de shows that the Sigmas are pretty good for sharpness ... I don't think you can go wrong with either. I can tell you that, when traveling, the range and VR / OS is to die for.

I doubt you'd be unhappy with either.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[JoeR]

--The 55-200 is better at 200 than the Sigma.

The 18-55 and the 55-200 will be better optically and cost less.

joer56

 

[Patco]

True, f6.3 is not fast. But the Nikon 18-200 at 200mm is only 1/3 stop faster.
With a stabilized lens and very good high ISO performances in modern cameras,

I don't see 1/3 stop slower as a very significant limitation in non-critical work.
YMMV

hope for a sunny day and slow moving subjects.

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels