Battle of the superzooms! (a single vacation lens) Sigma 18-250 vs Nikon 18-200

[ulrichsd]

Ok, so I'm not planning to go to FX anytime soon so I'm looking to sell my Nikon 24-120 to help finance a superzoom for travel/vacation/kids photo purposes.

I've been looking at the Sigma 18-250 3.5-6.3 MACRO lens with optical stability for $350. Compared to the Nikon 18-200 I like the extended zoom range, but more importantly the 13 in close focus that allows it to pass for some non-serious macro photos without having to carry a separate macro lens.

So its either that for $350 new or the Nikon 18-200 for about the same price used somewhere. What do you vote for or any other suggestions?

Thanks!
Scott

 

[goodguy]

Sorry but neither, super zoom and very handy but you pay with picture quality.
Went to a trip in the Rockies and it was a bit tiring to "schlep" around the whole gear but I found my 24-85mm VR did almost 95% of what I needed with very good results, I own a DSLR because I cant stand "o.k" pictures, I want the best pictures my camera and skills can produce and a super zoom will not help me in that.

 

[TheLost]

I don't normally use a superzoom... but when i do... i dust off my Nikon 18-200.

It's built better then the Sigma, and despite the horrible depreciation on used copies ($800 New vs. ~$400 hardly used) it will still hold its value over the Sigma when you decide to dump it (and you will decide to dump it at some point).

 

[hamlet]

If i were you, i would just stick with a nice 50mm nikon prime. It is light and small with picture quality rivalling the very expensive zoom lenses.


Here are the reviews of the lenses you've listed:
Tests and reviews for the lens Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED mounted on Nikon D5000 - DxOMark
Tests and reviews for the lens Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC MACRO OS HSM Nikon mounted on Nikon D5000 - DxOMark



Even the 18-55 kit lens outperforms these superzooms.

 

[astroNikon]

A 50 doesn't replace the 18 wide, nor the 200 zoom.

I'd say go for the Nikon 18-200

I use a 18-105 on my d7000 crop and it's a very sharp and nice lens. But I have other lenses with more reach. The convenience of one somewhat compact lens (comparatively) though is really nice if one only wants one low cost lense.

 

[hamlet]

A 50 doesn't replace the 18 wide, nor the 200 zoom.

I'd say go for the Nikon 18-200

I use a 18-105 on my d7000 crop and it's a very sharp and nice lens. But I have other lenses with more reach. The convenience of one somewhat compact lens (comparatively) though is really nice if one only wants one low cost lense.

I suppose, but at 350$ it is hard to find a good lens that covers that large of a range.

 

[KmH]

Missing poll choice - None of the above.

When I go on vacation I take 5 lenses, 2 camera bodies, 2 speedlights, a tripod, and other assorted support gear.

For walk around or 1 lens use, I put a Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens on the camera. That lens also has a 1:2 macro (close up) capability from 35 mm to 85 mm.

To many IQ issues (distortion, soft focus) with any of the superzoom lenses for me.
See the Cons for the - Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM review: Digital Photography Review

 

[ulrichsd]

OK, ok, ok... I guess I need to add a bit more info, but I do appreciate all the feedback from everyone!

Goodguy, for any "scenic" vacations like your Rockies trip I'd still bring my "good glass" 12-24, 70-300 or 80-200 and 35 and/or 50mm prime lenses... this would just be for kid photos, a day at the museum/park/zoo and to be able to get the wide angle shot when needed and then still be able to get everything else.

TheLost, I'm not that worried about depreciation on a $350 lens, but I also suspect that DX lenses just won't have the same value over time compared to what FX lenses have done anyway. This is just to use with my D7000 for the next 5 years or so.

Hamlet, I have 35mm and 50mm primes and they are my most used lenses. However, my wide angle still gets used a lot and my telephoto every so often. If Nikon were to make a DX prime lens in the range of 12-16mm, I'd just buy that and carry it with a 35mm prime and a telephoto and call it a day. Honestly, I'd still probably want a nice usable zoom range because with kids, switching lenses is not always so easy...

AstroNikon, I think you are hearing what I'm saying. Right now my only mid-zoom is a 24-120mm VR (which at 5x is sort of in that super-zoom category, albeit the better part of the center of the lens using a FX lens on a DX body). I'm am overall pretty happy with the quality of images it produces, but I do wish it was wider angle than 24mm so I don't have to carry a separate wide angle all the time AND that switch means you are doing a lot of lens swapping as thats right in the middle of most used range.

Keith, I didn't put that as an option on purpose! If there was a third option I think it might be the DX 16-85mm... But even DPReview gives it a recommended rating - I understand the limitations but I think I'd be ok with it for what I'd be using it for. Softness in the corners and distortion aren't too big of a problem for out-and-about kid photos and vacation photos shared on facebook.

So my real reasoning for the superzoom: I figure why not go from my 24-120 FX to a smaller/lighter/wider-angle DX lens like the 18-105? And if I am going to go there then why not just get the 18-200? And if I'm going to do that, why not get the 18-250 that also can take some pseudo-macro photos?

I mean, a D7000 with a 18-200 lens is still going to smoke any non-interchangeable lens camera with the tiny sensors and cheap glass... there have to be some superzoom lovers on this site, right?

 

[hamlet]

I see why you need it. Kids and changing lenses don't mix. I looked some more into superzooms and the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Zoom Lens seems to be getting some praise.

 

[goodguy]

OK, ok, ok... I guess I need to add a bit more info, but I do appreciate all the feedback from everyone!

Goodguy, for any "scenic" vacations like your Rockies trip I'd still bring my "good glass" 12-24, 70-300 or 80-200 and 35 and/or 50mm prime lenses... this would just be for kid photos, a day at the museum/park/zoo and to be able to get the wide angle shot when needed and then still be able to get everything else.

I understand, well for times I feel like not "schleping" a lot of gear I take my Canon G15 which is a fantastic camera, being a P&S it is compact and it gets the job done.
So maybe you can consider some good quality P&S instead of taking the DSLR when you want to walk light.

 

[18.percent.gary]

Even the 18-55 kit lens outperforms these superzooms.

I just want to point out that this isn't true. My 18-200 is noticeably sharper than my 18-55 and practically blows the doors off the 55-200. Plus, the build quality is substantially better than either.

I'm not sure where the whole "Nikkor 18-200 sucks" philosophy started (probably an internet review long since lost in time) but it seems to be perpetuated by people who have never used one and/or doesn't understand the purpose of it.

1) People who decree that all super zooms, in general, are inherently junk seem to ignore the Nikkor 28-300 which is optically on par with the 70-300. Heck even pro photo-journalists swear by it for their D3s and D4s.

2) If I'm going out with friends to do something I'll take off my grip, pocket the battery, slap on the 18-200, throw it over my shoulder and get some fun shots. Otherwise I would just say "screw it" and leave my camera and bag of lenses at home and take zero shots.

3) If you're just viewing your photos on a computer screen then... well, the 18-200 is pretty much overkill as far as image quality goes. Any kit lens is.

I can't comment on the Sigma or make a comparison to the Nikkor since I haven't used one, but I would suspect that the Nikkor is better overall.

 

[Gavjenks]

55-200 f/4-5.6 VR, very ncie reviews, $250
+
any of the various kit lens clones, free or maybe $100 to upgrade if desired.


Budget = About what you're aiming for
Quality = Definitely higher than you get from a superzoom (of the same price)
Weight/Inconvenience = Minimal, both probably fit in your jacket pocket, and easy to juggle.

the Nikkor 28-300 which is optically on par with the 70-300

Thats an > $1000 lens...
Of course it's POSSIBLE to make superzooms that don't make significant compromises, but you end up paying for it, this being a perfect example.
Short ranges are better budget choices. You can almost always save hundreds of dollars in exchange for being willing to take your lens off every once in awhile.
The 18-200 is also a nice lens, but similarly costs 3x as much as the two lenses covering the same range!



And "Oh just get it used and it's the same" is not a valid argument. Because if you're willing to get used, then you're willing to get used on the two separate lenses ALSO, and it still remains 3x more expensive.
If you're willing to spend 3x as much for the convenience of not removing your lens, then by all means, the 18-200 is a fine choice.

 

[TheLost]

How about if i rephrase my response..

Of the two.. The Nikon is the better lens. Its sharper, its built better, its easy to find a good used copy. The sigma feels cheap, doesn't handle that great (i didn't like the feeling of the zoom), isn't as sharp and is exactly what you get when you pay $350 new for a 18-250mm lens.

Not on your list... but better then the Sigma (IMHO) is the Tamron 18-270 ($450 new.. $399 after rebates right now). Its sharper then the Sigma, its built better and gives you more range. I'd still pick the Nikon... but i'd pick the Tamron super zoom over the Sigma any day.

 

[TheLost]

When I go on vacation I take 5 lenses, 2 camera bodies, 2 speedlights, a tripod, and other assorted support gear.

I take a small good quality point and shoot (currently a Sony RX100).. Saves me money on all the Sherpa's i used to have to hire to carry all my gear.

 

[astroNikon]

I understand the single vacation lens thing. With 4 kids (or a school field trip) just going to a museum like The Henry Ford in Dearborn, Michigan is challenging.
No room for an extra lens and the quick pace there's no time for lens swapping.

I do prefer my 24-85/2.8-4.0 lens for general use (same as Keith's recommendation)
but you loose that 18 (better for crop) and the extra reach of 105 (for my lens or 200/250 for your option). You also loose the object separation of the 2.8 of better lenses.

But for a general, all-purpose "get it done quick" and "inexpensive" lens you can't beat the general purpose zooms.

There are times though on a kids field trip that I wished I brought a 2.8 lens but the kids and parents loved all the pics I took of them along the way.
So the objective was getting the kids and surroundings and not so much "real" photography. I plan on going back by myself though to the last field trip.

Last year on a field trip I brought my $99 P&S Nikon pocket camera. Very light, small, etc but the picture quality just was blah. I wish I took the d7000 w/kit lens.
The field trip from a month ago I took the d7000. Yes more bulky than a pocket camera but the images were really nice comparatively.
Taking the grip off the d7000 with just the kit lens makes it nice, small and portable comparatively to what I'm used to. Buying another camera for this or that also to me doesn't make much sense. Why spend $400+ on a really nice mirrorless camera when you already have a nice camera (yes, depends upon what one's objectives are)

Scott,
I also have a bunch of lenses that I could use too - the 24-85/2.8-4, 24/2.8, 50/1.8, 17-35, 35-70/2.8, 80-200/2.8 etc but the convenience of that 18-105 on my d7000 is so nice sometimes.

have fun