Sigma 18-250mm Macro (new) Vs Tamron 18-270mm PZD vs Canon 18-200mm

Started Aug 23, 2012 | Discussions
GregoryA
GregoryA Contributing Member • Posts: 559
Re: Canon 55-250 vs Sigma 18-250 macro

thedude1980 wrote:

Thanks for posting that. I think the Sigma pics actually look better.

I agree. Pretty impressive for this type of lens.

 GregoryA's gear list:GregoryA's gear list
Pentax MX-1 Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 6D Sony a6000 +16 more
OP djsquare1827 Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: Canon 55-250 vs Sigma 18-250 macro

GregoryA wrote:

thedude1980 wrote:

Thanks for posting that. I think the Sigma pics actually look better.

I agree. Pretty impressive for this type of lens.

Ya at par or better than the other lens.

setite Forum Member • Posts: 58
Re: Canon 55-250 vs Sigma 18-250 macro

Are the settings different on these photos? I know NOTHING about photography but the ones on the right seem more "photographic". I don't know how to explain, but the first photo is an example. It just looks like a photo that came out "right". Technically the photos look fine, except for the one close up on the center of the flower, the sigma looks bad. But while not meaning to say anything about the photographer, I assume the differences are just the subtle variations natural to photography. I already ordered the Sigma, and I will take it on the strip and see if I can manage any decent photos on it. I would have preferred it to be cheaper but I need a single lens. I can't stand switching between my nifty fifty and the 18-55 kit lens.

What boggles my mind is all the superzoom hate. While it's good that there are people out there making it clear that superzooms are an eternal compromise, calling it a waste of money outright isn't cool. First, blanket statements like that have little merit. If you want to go that route, then consider offering something constructive like alternatives.

Here is a quote from an anime I like, said by a rather stuck up character about a fictional McDonald's type of establishment.

"There's an understanding between makers of food like this and those that eat it. Quality takes a back seat to convenience, refinement isn't part of the equation. It's meant to be eaten quickly."

It's early in the morning, which is why I am going a little off book. But the relevance is similar to when people complain about a McD's hamburger compared to some restaurant or slower more expensive place. Most of us know that the laws of physics and others place limitations on camera technology. That's why I have been forced to by a Canon T3i to replace the point and shoots I finally gave up on. I love learning, so I welcome suggestions of alternatives. But I humbly request that you refrain from misplaced outright admonishments. Now I'm going to bed, good day!

OP djsquare1827 Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: Canon 55-250 vs Sigma 18-250 macro

Some more talk with sample pics about the lens on Sigma Blog

http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2012/the-sigma-18-250mm-f3-5-6-3-macro-is-ready-for-adventures/

OP djsquare1827 Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: Canon 55-250 vs Sigma 18-250 macro

Some more real world samples from a user

http://www.our-world-tour.com/diary/1973

OP djsquare1827 Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: Canon 55-250 vs Sigma 18-250 macro
OP djsquare1827 Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: Sigma 18-250mm Macro (new) Vs Tamron 18-270mm PZD vs Canon 18-200mm
Christoph Stephan
Christoph Stephan Veteran Member • Posts: 4,257
Superzooms and the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS

davyandjane wrote:

My wife has the Sigma 18-250 macro lens and loves it.Photo's are sharp and clear.Great not having to change lens to get a closeup then back for long wildlife shots.Saves dust getting into camera,put the lens on and leave it.All this would be irrelevant if the lens was no good but it is.Solid build and very smooth zooming in and out and quiet.Shorter than my Canon 55-250 which is pretty rubbish.The Sigma costs nearly twice as much but worth it.As soon as I have the money I will get one and sell my Canon 55-250.

How you come to describe the EF-S 55-250 mm as rubbish while praising the Sigma zooms is beyond my comprehension. I cannot speak highly enough of my Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS. In contrast, the unsharpness of the Sigma 18-200mm OS I bought in 2007 was simply intolerable. Sigma 18-2XXmm superzooms must have gone a long, long way to beat this little. lightweight gem of a lens.

You should be aware that the quality penalty of a superzoom is not distributed evenly across its whole range. My Tamron 28-300 mm holds out very well against my EFS 17-85mm IS at 28-85 mm (not quite, but almost) but its telephoto range is only usable for close focus. My Sigma 18-200mm OS was particularly awful at 35mm, but better at the extremes 18mm and 200mm (not that it would beat the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS).

Before I got accused of Sigma bashing let me tell you that I own a Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro, a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro (a shame they don't produce it anymore) and a Sigma 12-24mm and I am very satisfied with these lenses. It has more to do with the extreme focal length range than with the manufacturer.

 Christoph Stephan's gear list:Christoph Stephan's gear list
Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 40D Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro
Christoph Stephan
Christoph Stephan Veteran Member • Posts: 4,257
Re: My condolences...

djsquare1827 wrote:

davyandjane wrote:
As soon as I have the money I will get one and sell my Canon 55-250.

Don't!!!! Or at least thoroughly scrutinize the quality of your new 18-250mm across ALL focal lengths before you decide which one to sell.

 Christoph Stephan's gear list:Christoph Stephan's gear list
Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 40D Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro
Christoph Stephan
Christoph Stephan Veteran Member • Posts: 4,257
Varying quality across the focal length range

Karl Gnter Wnsch wrote:

At 50mm it's pretty ok but there there is significant distortion, at 18mm it's about the level of a cheap kit lens. Around 120mm it's abysmally bad, there is no other word for it and it doesn't really get better by much.

This is exactly my experience with the Tamron 28-300mm VC. The quality is good at 28-85 mm and in close focus but EVERY shot at long focal lengths at greater distances was so unsharp that I deleted it straight away - unsharp even when viewed on a 17" monitor. I have the impression that even my older Tamron 28-300mm without VC was better than this "upgrade".

The Sigma 18-250mm must have gone a long way if it really beats the EF-S 55-250mm IS - still I do not really believe it.

In addition, the EF-S18-55mm IS and EF-S55-250mm IS together are not heavier than the 18-2XXmm superzooms.
--
Chris
-----
http://christopher363.redbubble.com
http://www.whitewall.com/christopher

 Christoph Stephan's gear list:Christoph Stephan's gear list
Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 40D Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro
Christoph Stephan
Christoph Stephan Veteran Member • Posts: 4,257
Zoom lenses

djsquare1827 wrote:

Hi Karl,

I appreciate your comments and you seem to have good knowledge about lenses and some technical stuff. but after looking to your post I am still struggling to find my answer whilst; Which Zoom lens is the best out of 3 compared? or if you know any other available in the market. If your answer is no zoom lenses are good then thats not the answer we are looking for. At the moment we are looking for convenience which can cover the range from 18mm to minimum 200mm anything above is a bonus. But Yes I do agree with you the quality does matter and for me Sharpness is at most priority but again you can suggest any zoom lens covering the range of minimum 18mm -200mm which is very sharp, good quality, low ca, low vignette & low distortion. Thank you.

To cover the 18-250mm with low weight, but decent quality:

1. Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro. 1:3 Macro capability, 450 g (you need to buy it used) or
Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS II, 299 g
2. EF-S 55-250 mm IS, 55, 390 g
Total 689 not heavier than a superzoom.

If your EF-S 55-250mm IS gices you bad quality you have a bad copy and should have it tested or exchange.

 Christoph Stephan's gear list:Christoph Stephan's gear list
Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 40D Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro
Christoph Stephan
Christoph Stephan Veteran Member • Posts: 4,257
Re: Canon 55-250 vs Sigma 18-250 macro

Were all settings the same in your test, in particularly the aperture? In No. 1 the Canon is visibly closer focussed, they are not really comparable. In No 3, the backgroup is much sharper with the Sigma, indicating that the lens was stopped down more than the Canon und thus giving greater depth of field. Stopped down, any lens will be sharper and perform better.
--
Chris
-----
http://christopher363.redbubble.com
http://www.whitewall.com/christopher

 Christoph Stephan's gear list:Christoph Stephan's gear list
Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 40D Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro
Christoph Stephan
Christoph Stephan Veteran Member • Posts: 4,257
Re: Canon 55-250 vs Sigma 18-250 macro

setite wrote:

What boggles my mind is all the superzoom hate.

In my case it is not hate but bad experience myself. I really looked forward to getting my Tamron 28-300mm VC, to discover slowly over the years that the quality was worse than that of the Tamron 28-300mm predecessor without VC it replaced. I also wanted to like my Sigma 18-200 mm and used it for at least half a year before I could not longer ignore that my EF-S 17-85mm IS trounced it on every opportunity (I even had the comparisons submitted by the poster 007peter here, somewhen in 2007 or 2008). I had hoped that all the superzoom bashing here would be just hype, and the differences would be discernible only when scrutinizing the pictures at 100%. I was wrong. I had to experience that the quality compromise is there, and often clearly visible even during a slide show on the computer.

And its not Sigma or Tamron bashing. Indeed, I would assume that the Tamron (and perhaps even Sigma) superzooms are better than the Canon EF-S 18-200mm IS because they have longer experience in building these lenses.
--
Chris
-----
http://christopher363.redbubble.com
http://www.whitewall.com/christopher

 Christoph Stephan's gear list:Christoph Stephan's gear list
Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 40D Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro
Bipbip Forum Member • Posts: 51
Re: Canon 55-250 vs Sigma 18-250 macro

Hi,

As I said, my test is not scientific. I just tried to do the same kind of shots just by remembering how I took it with the other lens. The idea was to give a general idea of the output of both lenses. And surprisingly, I find the Sigma does quite well, knowing 3 shots were taken at full tele 250 mm.
For your question on shot N° 3:
Sigma: 51mm f 5.0 1/80 sec
Canon: 55 mm f 4.0 1/80 sec
I can assure you I didn't try to "cheat" to make the Sigma look better.
Shot N°4 Sigma and Canon both at f 6.3.
Shot N°5 Sigma is at f 5.0 and Canon at f 4.5

I agree shot N°1 is not comparable. But, still is a quite good picture coming out of the lens.

And I'm a real fan of the Canon 55-250. It's light, very sharp and cheap. And I'm not ready yet to sell it. I need more real world experience with my new lens. But I'm happily surprised with the first results.

Christoph Stephan wrote:

Were all settings the same in your test, in particularly the aperture? In No. 1 the Canon is visibly closer focussed, they are not really comparable. In No 3, the backgroup is much sharper with the Sigma, indicating that the lens was stopped down more than the Canon und thus giving greater depth of field. Stopped down, any lens will be sharper and perform better.
--
Chris
-----
http://christopher363.redbubble.com
http://www.whitewall.com/christopher

Bipbip Forum Member • Posts: 51
Re: Zoom lenses

For me the problem is not really a weight problem. Its just the convenience of not changing your lens on specific moments.

I love primes, but sometimes I need to be able to change from wide to tele very quickly, or I just don't want to freeze my hands and remove my gloves ...:)

To cover the 18-250mm with low weight, but decent quality:

1. Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro. 1:3 Macro capability, 450 g (you need to buy it used) or
Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS II, 299 g
2. EF-S 55-250 mm IS, 55, 390 g
Total 689 not heavier than a superzoom.

If your EF-S 55-250mm IS gices you bad quality you have a bad copy and should have it tested or exchange.

Bipbip Forum Member • Posts: 51
Re: Canon 55-250 vs Sigma 18-250 macro

On picture N°3, the Sigma background is not sharper, it's the bokeh that's more 'nervous' than Canon's. On that specific example, I have a slight preference for Canon because of the smoother background.

Christoph Stephan wrote:

Were all settings the same in your test, in particularly the aperture? In No. 1 the Canon is visibly closer focussed, they are not really comparable. In No 3, the backgroup is much sharper with the Sigma, indicating that the lens was stopped down more than the Canon und thus giving greater depth of field. Stopped down, any lens will be sharper and perform better.
--
Chris
-----
http://christopher363.redbubble.com
http://www.whitewall.com/christopher

OP djsquare1827 Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: Zoom lenses

Christoph Stephan wrote:

djsquare1827 wrote:

Hi Karl,

I appreciate your comments and you seem to have good knowledge about lenses and some technical stuff. but after looking to your post I am still struggling to find my answer whilst; Which Zoom lens is the best out of 3 compared? or if you know any other available in the market. If your answer is no zoom lenses are good then thats not the answer we are looking for. At the moment we are looking for convenience which can cover the range from 18mm to minimum 200mm anything above is a bonus. But Yes I do agree with you the quality does matter and for me Sharpness is at most priority but again you can suggest any zoom lens covering the range of minimum 18mm -200mm which is very sharp, good quality, low ca, low vignette & low distortion. Thank you.

To cover the 18-250mm with low weight, but decent quality:

1. Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro. 1:3 Macro capability, 450 g (you need to buy it used) or
Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS II, 299 g
2. EF-S 55-250 mm IS, 55, 390 g
Total 689 not heavier than a superzoom.

If your EF-S 55-250mm IS gices you bad quality you have a bad copy and should have it tested or exchange.

Wooooo..!! Are you asking me to buy 3 lenses to cover that 18-250mm range. I would rather but a 15x zoom digital cam well actually I dont need to coz I already have panasonic TZ7...lolz. I already have Canon 18-55mm, Canon 50mm 1.8 with my Canon 550D. Only reason Im looking for a zoom lens is for convenience over the hassle of changing over the lenses. I am not a pro but a passionate photographer. As for what I can say by comparing the above pictures no one can really make a precise difference as which pic belongs to which lens. Zoom lens are evolved during the course of time and they are not as bad as people think of. There are many factors which decides which lens to buy. Pro would go for quality lens but not all pro have the most expensive kit in the world. Factors like budget, kind of photography, convenience & quality shooting , casual shooting etc etc....Bear in mind that all of us give our suggestions on our personal needs and experiences. Best person to judge what you want is urself coz you will be using the lens not other people who are commenting here. Thats what I did Iv made up my mind to go for a Zoom lens which can cover 18-250mm range. Without any disrespect to anyone I would expect to get some suggestions on the given zoom lenses or else it will become more confusing for other people..lolz. Thanlks for your response anyways...;)

elcarpo New Member • Posts: 3
Re: Sigma 18-250mm Macro (new) Vs Tamron 18-270mm PZD vs Canon 18-200mm

Hey djsquare1827, you convinced me to create a profile to get into the discussion.

I'm also searching for an "all in one" lens. Sigma looks like a winner, but I'd love to see how it works in the inside, because so far, every picture we have seen is from the outside, with great light.

I'm saying it, because Canon 18-200 has a 5.6 aperture, whereas Sigma in the upper side is darker, 6.3... That should mean something...

In already have a Canon 18-55 and a Canon 55-250, but I want an intermediate everyday lens. What about the new 18-135 from Canon? Anyone has tried it?

Sorry about my english, I'm not an english spoken person...

Thanks!

Bipbip Forum Member • Posts: 51
Re: Sigma 18-250mm Macro (new) Vs Tamron 18-270mm PZD vs Canon 18-200mm

Hello

For me, the Sigma doesn't work so well inside. It's a slow lens and needs daylight to work properly. I managed to make some nice indoor pictures, but needed to boost the ISO quite a lot (more grain). I don't think the 18-135 or the 55-25O are much better. f5.6 is a fraction faster than 6.3, but doesn't change a lot.
Usually I use fast primes inside. (my beloved Sigma 30 1.4 ou Canon 85 1.8)

elcarpo wrote:

Hey djsquare1827, you convinced me to create a profile to get into the discussion.

I'm also searching for an "all in one" lens. Sigma looks like a winner, but I'd love to see how it works in the inside, because so far, every picture we have seen is from the outside, with great light.

I'm saying it, because Canon 18-200 has a 5.6 aperture, whereas Sigma in the upper side is darker, 6.3... That should mean something...

In already have a Canon 18-55 and a Canon 55-250, but I want an intermediate everyday lens. What about the new 18-135 from Canon? Anyone has tried it?

Sorry about my english, I'm not an english spoken person...

Thanks!

OP djsquare1827 Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: Sigma 18-250mm Macro (new) Vs Tamron 18-270mm PZD vs Canon 18-200mm

elcarpo wrote:

Hey djsquare1827, you convinced me to create a profile to get into the discussion.

I'm also searching for an "all in one" lens. Sigma looks like a winner, but I'd love to see how it works in the inside, because so far, every picture we have seen is from the outside, with great light.

I'm saying it, because Canon 18-200 has a 5.6 aperture, whereas Sigma in the upper side is darker, 6.3... That should mean something...

In already have a Canon 18-55 and a Canon 55-250, but I want an intermediate everyday lens. What about the new 18-135 from Canon? Anyone has tried it?

Sorry about my english, I'm not an english spoken person...

Thanks!

Hi Elcarpo,

I understand your concern but I think you should read the above reviews which are quiet rigorous studio test. I would recommend you not to judge the lens by checking the real world photo samples because most of the photographs uploaded are from casual shooters semi pros (no disrespect) but the point what im trying to make is it totally depends if one has used the optimum settings to snap the shot. I would rather rely on controlled studio test coz that gives you real comparison as compared to real world comparison. Iv compared 18-135 lens as well on the same review sites and there is not much difference but again that lens doesnt cover my purpose. If you check the review of all 3 lenses you will see the new Sigma has the least Barrel distortion, Least vignette, least CA, better or at par in sharpness as compared to Canon. But I am still waiting for other pro review websites to give their verdict. Coz this lens will be there for many years with due to my budget issue.

Other issue you raised is aperture. I would consider if the difference was between 2.8 - 6.3 but 5.6 -6.3 is not more than 2 stop difference. You can expect everything from one lens, every lens will have some drawbacks. No lens is perfect. Thats why there are 100s of lenses in the market because it depends on you needs. If one lens can do all the work then even Professional wouldn't have multiple lenses. I dont know a single Pro who has only 1 lens in his kit.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads