Sigma 28-200 or 28-300 quality?

[PaulNye]

I have to pick an all purpose lens from one of these two Sigmas. Does anyone have any advice or experience with either of these two?

Could it be there is a compromise with the 300 in quality because it's range is so broader?

1. 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 ASPHERICAL MACRO
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_200CHZ.htm

2. 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 Macro
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_300_macro.htm

 

[kwollenberg]

I have the same question, I am looking at both of these lenes, anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks,

Keith

I have to pick an all purpose lens from one of these two Sigmas.
Does anyone have any advice or experience with either of these two?
Could it be there is a compromise with the 300 in quality because
it's range is so broader?

1. 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 ASPHERICAL MACRO
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_200CHZ.htm

2. 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 Macro
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_300_macro.htm

 

[PA Chick]

I am curious as well...

Thanks,

Keith

I have to pick an all purpose lens from one of these two Sigmas.
Does anyone have any advice or experience with either of these two?
Could it be there is a compromise with the 300 in quality because
it's range is so broader?

1. 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 ASPHERICAL MACRO
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_200CHZ.htm

2. 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 Macro
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_300_macro.htm

 

[Hythloday]

http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/7/Sigma_28_200.htm

http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/8/Sigma_28_300.htm

According to this test the 28-200 is much better than the 28-300.

I have to pick an all purpose lens from one of these two Sigmas.
Does anyone have any advice or experience with either of these two?
Could it be there is a compromise with the 300 in quality because
it's range is so broader?

1. 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 ASPHERICAL MACRO
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_200CHZ.htm

2. 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 Macro
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_300_macro.htm

 

[gladys s]

Haven't used the Sigma, iI do have and use the Tamron 28-300 to shoot motocross and have been happ with it, take a look at these all shot with it.

http://www.pbase.com/gladys/oct_30__31
--
gladys

Canon 10D

http://www.pbase.com/gladys ( pbase supporter)

Being happy doesn't mean everything's perfect. It means you've decided to see beyond the imperfections

 

[TomFid]

I have a borrowed Tamron 28-300 & 1Ds. The lens is awful. Others seem to have the same experience with the Tamron 200. See these threads:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=10961671
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=10963084

Check the reviews at fredmiranda.com and MTF tests at photodo.com and

http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~loui/photodobest.html for confirmation that the Sigma performs about the same as the Tamron. According to the MTF tests they're reasonable at the wide end but fall apart badly by 200mm. That's consistent with my experience. Performance is bad all around, not just in the corners, so I suspect results would be no better on 1.6 sensor.

I suppose if you have decent light and can shoot stopped well down results might be OK. In low light the finder images are fairly dim. If I had to choose the lesser of two evils it would be the 200.

Tom

I have to pick an all purpose lens from one of these two Sigmas.
Does anyone have any advice or experience with either of these two?
Could it be there is a compromise with the 300 in quality because
it's range is so broader?

1. 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 ASPHERICAL MACRO
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_200CHZ.htm

2. 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 Macro
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_300_macro.htm

 

[Yoav Abrahami]

I have the same question some time ago. I selected the Tokina 24-200mm.
I am varry happy with this lens.

Why I selected it?

1. Any super zoom is a compromize. The 28-300mm lens give better range, but at aparture of 6.3, that can cause problems with the camera auto focus. The difference between 200mm and 300mm is not that large, and on a DRebel sensore the 200mm is equivalent to 320mm anyway.
The Tokina gives also the 24mm. Those 4 extra mm is a large number in WA.

2. Review at http://www.photozone.de:
Tokina 3.5-5.6 24-200mm - rating 3.2
Sigma 3.5-5.6 28-200mm - rating 2.84
Sigma 3.5-6.3 28-300mm -rating 2.30
Tamron 3.5-6.3 28-300mm - raing 2.65
Tamron 3.8-5.6 28-200mm - raing 2.63

Review at http://www.photographyreview.com
Tokina 24-200mm - rating 4.21 (39 reviews)
Sigma 28-200mm - rating 3.95 (42 reviews)
Sigma 28-300mm - rating 4 (20 reviews)
Tamron 28-200mm - rating 4.1 (39 reviews)
Tamron 28-300mm - rating 3.7 (53 reviews)

3. Here are some examples from this lens:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=10923769

Another example (with a Hoya +2 macro lens):

I have to pick an all purpose lens from one of these two Sigmas.
Does anyone have any advice or experience with either of these two?
Could it be there is a compromise with the 300 in quality because
it's range is so broader?

1. 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 ASPHERICAL MACRO
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_200CHZ.htm

2. 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 Macro
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_300_macro.htm

 

[wilfredmrand]

I have the 28-200 and as you can expect, there are indeed compromises; you can expect even more compromises in the 28-300 (10x!). But if you know what the compromises are you can play to a lens' strong suit.

For the 28-200, I find that detail doesn't render very well in far off subjects in infinity focus...it's been a weak lens for landscape use.

But here's what I like: it turns out to be a very fine protrait lens, and excels in close-to-medium range situations, maybe up to 100 feet. I have caught some extraordinary portraits (candid and studio) with this lens and it's very handy as a backyard event zoom. I've used it at a wedding, two graduations, indoor and outdoor concerts, and at a fencing tournament....all with absolutely wonderful results.
--
Wilfred M Rand
http://www.pbase.com/wilfredmrand/

I have to pick an all purpose lens from one of these two Sigmas.
Does anyone have any advice or experience with either of these two?
Could it be there is a compromise with the 300 in quality because
it's range is so broader?

1. 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 ASPHERICAL MACRO
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_200CHZ.htm

2. 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 Macro
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_300_macro.htm

 

[TomFid]

This sounds like good advice. Opportunities to successfully handhold a 300mm f6.3 on a 1.6 crop factor camera will be limited to pretty strong light; better to have more room at the wide end where the lens performs better anyway. - Tom

Why I selected it?
1. Any super zoom is a compromize. The 28-300mm lens give better
range, but at aparture of 6.3, that can cause problems with the
camera auto focus. The difference between 200mm and 300mm is not
that large, and on a DRebel sensore the 200mm is equivalent to
320mm anyway.
The Tokina gives also the 24mm. Those 4 extra mm is a large number
in WA.

2. Review at http://www.photozone.de:
Tokina 3.5-5.6 24-200mm - rating 3.2
Sigma 3.5-5.6 28-200mm - rating 2.84
Sigma 3.5-6.3 28-300mm -rating 2.30
Tamron 3.5-6.3 28-300mm - raing 2.65
Tamron 3.8-5.6 28-200mm - raing 2.63

Review at http://www.photographyreview.com
Tokina 24-200mm - rating 4.21 (39 reviews)
Sigma 28-200mm - rating 3.95 (42 reviews)
Sigma 28-300mm - rating 4 (20 reviews)
Tamron 28-200mm - rating 4.1 (39 reviews)
Tamron 28-300mm - rating 3.7 (53 reviews)

3. Here are some examples from this lens:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=10923769

Another example (with a Hoya +2 macro lens):

I have to pick an all purpose lens from one of these two Sigmas.
Does anyone have any advice or experience with either of these two?
Could it be there is a compromise with the 300 in quality because
it's range is so broader?

1. 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 ASPHERICAL MACRO
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_200CHZ.htm

2. 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 Macro
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_300_macro.htm