18-200mm lenses

[ericande]

Does anyone have experience with the Sigma or Tamron 18-200mm lenses? They are both basically the same specs and almost the same price. I don't know which to get.

I know the sacrifices of "super-zooms" and am ok with it. I just need one lens to bring with me on motorcycle trips and really don't want to hunt for the Nikon VR 18-200mm, nor do I want to bring that pricey of a lens with me.

Currently I just have the 28-80 and 70-300 kit lenses. Even though the two lenses I'm looking at have a much larger zoom range, will either of them outperform the kit lenses?

Thanks

 

[woodsac]

Sounds like you've already done your homework

I have the Sigma version and am very pleased with it. Color rendition and sharpness are very nice. Zoom is a little slow in low light. I like that it has a zoom lock to keep it from extending while attached to your lens.

I'm actually selling mine right now, but it's a Canon mount. The only reason I'm selling is because I'm slowly upgrading all my glass to f/2.8 or faster. It's a great multi-purpose lens for the price.

 

[auer1816]

I can't comment on the Sigma or Tamron aspect, but I do have an 18-200mm zoom. It's really been a great lens, and I use it for most of my shooting. I just like the fact that I can get wide angle perspectives and telephoto perspectives without hauling around extra glass.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Do not buy the Tamron 18-200. It's junk. I've never seen such crazy distortion (for the exception of special lenses). One of my classmates uses it on his rebel and the wide shots have rediculous pincussion distortion and you have to be in direct sunlight to hand hold it at 200mm and ISO 100.

I don't know about the sigma one. But I just assume buy only Nikon glass.

 

[woodsac]

Do not buy the Tamron 18-200. It's junk. I've never seen such crazy distortion (for the exception of special lenses). One of my classmates uses it on his rebel and the wide shots have rediculous pincussion distortion and you have to be in direct sunlight to hand hold it at 200mm and ISO 100.

I don't know about the sigma one. But I just assume buy only Nikon glass.

I haven't used the Tamron, but I have seen literally dozens of shots with it, and they all had little to no distortion. And it has very good ratings from all sources on the web for a lens of it's zoom class and price range. Maybe your friend has a bad copy?

I think your statement "buy only Nikon glass" is rediculous. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of pros, and semi-pros that shoot with Tamron, Sigma and Tokina. If you take the time to research, there are dozens of reviews that rate some Sigma and Tamron glass higher than manufacturer glass of the same focal lengths.

 

[sothoth]

there are dozens of reviews that rate some Sigma and Tamron glass higher than manufacturer glass of the same focal lengths.

An 18-200 (regardless of who makes it) WILL have distortion at the shortest and the longest focal settings. That's just unavoidable. So I agree with one post that says they see distortion with the Tamron at 18mm, however I have never seen it the way or to the extent they described, so frankly I think you shouldn't sweat it based on that post.

Take your camera to a good camera shop, attach both Sigma and Tamron and whoever else you want to evaluate, and just snap a couple of photos with each. Go home and look at the images closely and decide. It's really just about how you like your photos to look and how you want your lens to feel on the camera. They're all good, just a little different. And maybe you'll find that you see no differences in the photo quality and end up liking one over the other based on weight or price or build quality.

Weight can be a factor, heavier lenses are assumed to be harder to keep stable when shooting w/o a tripod. I think that's bunk, I usually see it the other way around, that heavy lenses (assuming they're not too long and make the camera front-heavy) are easier to stabilize. But that's just MHO. I ended up with the Tamron because it was (at the time) about $100 cheaper than the Sigma, and my local shop only carried the Tamron and I'm fairly loyal to them for all the good advice they give me. I'm happy with the Tamron.

I'd probably be just as happy with the Sigma if they cost about the same, and I might sway towards the Sigma because I like that it feels heavier. I tend to associate that with better build quality, but intellectually I know that's not necessarily the case (lighter weight can be a virtue).

Hope this helps. Happy shooting!

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Maybe your friend has a bad copy?

I think you're right. When we had an assignment in downtown seattle, and the images he got using the tamron were just all wonky and the distortion was so complex that if he corrected it in PS, than things lookd like they're in front of a fun-house mirror- really wavy.

I think your statement "buy only Nikon glass" is rediculous. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of pros, and semi-pros that shoot with Tamron, Sigma and Tokina. If you take the time to research, there are dozens of reviews that rate some Sigma and Tamron glass higher than manufacturer glass of the same focal lengths.

I'm biased. I didn't buy a Nikon system just to not to use Nikon lenses.

 

[sothoth]

the images he got using the tamron were just all wonky and the distortion was so complex that if he corrected it in PS, than things lookd like they're in front of a fun-house mirror- really wavy.

That sounds really bizarre, you should post an image if you can, I'm curious what this looks like, esp prior to PS edits. If I had that problem I'd return the lens or the camera or both, your friend seems to have defective equipment.

I'm biased. I didn't buy a Nikon system just to not to use Nikon lenses.

You should compare side-by-side with 3rd party lenses, you might find that you still like Nikon stuff, but you also might find that you're paying a lot more money for little or no improvement. I'd been told to only buy Canon lenses with my Canon, but frankly I'm much happier with my Sigma and a little happier with my Tamron than I'd be with the Canon equivalent, and I probably saved a couple hundred clams with each 3rd party lens, if not a lot more.

To quote flavor flav, "Don't believe the hype!" But... do your research and make informed decisions about lenses.

 

[Sebastian]

...I just need one lens to bring with me on motorcycle trips...

I have the Sigma too. I bought it concerning the same reason as you will.
It`s a fine lens with a high quality. But at the end of the zomm, the picturequality goes a little bit down. It`s typically vor 11x zoom I think...
I am still happy with this lens, go and try it on your own

 

[ericande]

Thanks for the help all.

Does anyone know how these lenses will compare to the kit lenses? I will go down to Glazer's and try it, but I just wanted some opinions on that before I went down there.

 

[JIP]

The 2 lenses you already have will most definately outpreform any 18-200 if you do a search you will see that there has been extensive discussion on the topic of looooong zoom range lenses.

 

[sothoth]

The 2 lenses you already have will most definately outpreform any 18-200 if you do a search you will see that there has been extensive discussion on the topic of looooong zoom range lenses.

Agree 110%. If I had to pick just one lens I would like the 18-200 due to the flexibility, but if I can juggle a few in my bag without a problem (most of the time), I find that I have no reason to put the 18-200 on there when fixed angle or tighter-ranged zooms are available.

 

[ericande]

Ok, so new question for you. I've been going back and it seems that the 18-125mm would cover 98% of the shots I've been taking while out riding. The sigma 18-125 is about $100 cheaper then the 18-200. Obviously it's cheaper and part (all?) of that is the smaller zoom range. But how will the 18-125 compare to the 18-200 or my kit 28-80 optically? Anyone have any idea as to the build quality comparisons between the 3? It's hard to find the 18-200 locally to find out.

Thanks...

 

[JIP]

I think you are leaving out the most important part of the lenses you are considering. Maximum aperture is crucial in considering one lens over another.

 

[ericande]

I think you are leaving out the most important part of the lenses you are considering. Maximum aperture is crucial in considering one lens over another.

Not so much in this case. They are all fast enough to serve my purpose. I rarely shoot over 1/200th while out riding and it's always outdoors. I have a mini-tripod for the rare times I need it. Even when I take pictures of people riding, they are panning shots so I don't need high speeds...