Nikon 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6 VS Sigma 18-250 mm F/3.5-6.3 Help please

[dustin0479]

Ok so i have been looking at several cameras, i think i may have landed on the D300 so now i have a couple lens questions.

There is a huge cost difference between the two lenses so i am trying ot find out if it is really worth the money.

Nikon AF-S DX 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikkor Zoom Lens
VS
Sigma 18-250 mm F/3.5-6.3 DC Optical Stabilizer HSM Zoom Lens

Thanks!

 

[tirediron]

Depends on what you want. The Nikon lens will likely be better made and suffer less from distortion and CA, but the Sigma has an extra 50mm of "reach". Both are "Swiss Army" lenses (inexpensive consumer-grade lenses that do a lot, but don't excel in any one area).

 

[dustin0479]

So you would consider the Sigma a consumer lens not suitable for Professional shots?

 

[tirediron]

It depends on the nature of the professional shots. I know professionals who use those sorts of super-zooms for exactly the benefit they give; a huge range of focal-length. The one thing you won't get from either of those two that you will from a top-end lens is build quality. Both of those are plastic-barreled lenses with less than stellar build quality. They will both do the job though, and as long as you're not pixel-peeping or shooting wide open at 18mm, will give you some good results.

 

[IgsEMT]

+1 for Nikon.
Sigma and Tamron are both softer then Nikon at default settings. A lot depends on what you're shooting and as mentioned above perhaps that extra 50mm on crop frame (=75mm on Fx) might be what you need. I used to own Tamron version and played with Sigma.
The Nikon 18-200, look into VR2 and not b/c of VR upgrade but b/c it is better optics. HOWEVER, there are thing you ought to do to fully optimize that lens for quality: boost the sharpness in-camera and don't shoot wider then 5.6.

 

[sobolik]

I owned 2 sigma lenses when I got my first Nikon lens. I took half a dozen test shots to verify If my eyes were deceiving me or was it really that night and day difference. I immediately sold the Sigma lenses and swore I'd never buy another off brand with out testing it and comparing it to a Nikon. Or reading a trusted reviewers comparison between the two. Thus I own a Tokina 12-24 I did not personally test before buying. Digital Wide Zooms

Here is what the same reviewer says:

"Nikon and Canon are each primarily lens companies, not camera companies.

It's sad to see people buy good cameras and put off-brand lenses on them.

...​

Did you know that Nikon is one of the world's leading makes of professional laboratory microscopes, often beating out Zeiss and Leitz? Nikon also makes the million-dollar lenses and mechanical steppers used in semiconductor manufacture. They have a 37% market share. These lenses and mechanics resolve at 45 nanometers, or less than one-tenth of a wavelength of visible light? That's over 10,000 lines per millimeter! See Nikon Precision."​

Nikon vs. Canon

ps I own the Nikon 18-200 VR and have no complaints.Bought it used with bag. Polarizer and UV for $550.00 I also have the D-90 kit 18-105 and have no complaints.

 

[dustin0479]

The big question is
The Nikon 18-200 (it is VRII) is $850.00
the Sigma 18-250 is $450.00
is there going to be a big (or visible at all) difference between the two lenses?

 

[IgsEMT]

The Nikon 18-200 (it is VRII) is $850.00
the Sigma 18-250 is $450.00
is there going to be a big (or visible at all) difference between the two lenses?

Difference? yes. Big? depends what you're shooting and how...
shoot something at f/16 outdoors - probably won't see much of a difference. Shoot a portrait at f/8 and you'll see the difference.