Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM

[eitanzur]

I'm considering buying Nikon D7000 with Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM. The main purpose is traveling, so I need versatile lens. Does anyine have experience with the above lens? Any recommendations as to the camer/lens/combination are welcomed.

 

[KmH]

It is a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none lens, as are virtually all superzoom (10x+ zoom range) convenience lenses.

With a nearly 14x zoom range It is virtually impossible for the lens designer to account for all the technical optical aberrations the zoom range presents.

Here is a review of that lens - Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM review: Digital Photography Review

Conclusion - Cons
​

• Very inconsistent sharpness through the zoom range - extremely soft at 135mm
• Soft corners at almost all focal lengths
• Image stabilization not as effective as on similar lenses, especially at telephoto end

 

[3Ddeath]

I have heard people say good things about this lens, the ones that upgraded from the stock lens really love it!

I think for travel it should be no problem!

Personally I would prefer something like a 17-70, and then a 70-250 if that's not too much, just cause I rarely find a need to super zoom without knowing about it, usually if I would see something cool id run across the street to photograph it

 

[sovietdoc]

Those "all-in-one" lenses are pretty terrible for IQ. Doesn't Nikon have a18-200 or something like that? It's better quality.

 

[MLeeK]

Those "all-in-one" lenses are pretty terrible for IQ. Doesn't Nikon have a18-200 or something like that? It's better quality.

I've heard the nikon version is much better in quality also.

 

[KmH]

DPReview.com also has a review of the Nikon. They note Nikon 18-200 has issues too, though the issues the Nikon has are somewhat different than the issues the Sigma lens has.

A lot of people buy superzoom lenses. For them the convenience is more important than image quality (IQ) is.

I recommend carrying 2 lenses to cover the 18-200 mm focal length range.

 

[sovietdoc]

Yes, buying a super zoom is often a cheaper alternative to carrying 2-3 lenses of the same focal length.

 

[shadowlands]

I own the new Nikon AF-S 18-300 VR and I love it. It's a tank and I'll never part with it.
To each his own.... I made the most money with my former Nikon AF-S 18-200 VR, so I'm a fan of these lenses.

 

[eitanzur]

Thanks to your advice, I decided to buy 2 lenses. I'm considering sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 DC Macro +Tele 55-300 or 70-300 of Nikon

Also, I think Nikon D5100 is more suitable for me (for video mainly), but I can't really decide between d5100 to D7000. Main dilema is weather proof, good body vs. flip out screen and HDR function. I understand that th IQ of 5100 is not inferior to D7000.
What do you think?

 

[ma_photo]

It is a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none lens, as are virtually all superzoom (10x+ zoom range) convenience lenses.

With a nearly 14x zoom range It is virtually impossible for the lens designer to account for all the technical optical aberrations the zoom range presents.

Here is a review of that lens - Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM review: Digital Photography Review

Conclusion - Cons
​

• Very inconsistent sharpness through the zoom range - extremely soft at 135mm
• Soft corners at almost all focal lengths
• Image stabilization not as effective as on similar lenses, especially at telephoto end

This linked review is not for the new Macro version of Sigma's 18-250. It's for the older version. This new macro version just came out this past summer and has got some very good reviews. People need to understand that if you want a super zoom, there is a reason. Yes, it may not be a "pro" lens. But it is great for what it is. We'd like to know which of the super zooms has the best reviews so we can make an informed decision. I recently went on vacation and spent so much time switching lens, missing shots, getting dust and dirt in my camera, dragging around a heavy backpack with all my equipment in it, that when I got home I knew I wanted the super zoom. It's just a matter of which one. Please don't tell those who are in the market for one that it's a waste of time and they should buy 2 lenses instead. If I was shooting a pro job I'd probably use a different lens, but for my next trip, I'm buying a super-zoom.

 

[Colorado_Gary]

It is a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none lens, as are virtually all superzoom (10x+ zoom range) convenience lenses.

With a nearly 14x zoom range It is virtually impossible for the lens designer to account for all the technical optical aberrations the zoom range presents.

Here is a review of that lens - Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM review: Digital Photography Review

Conclusion - Cons
​

• Very inconsistent sharpness through the zoom range - extremely soft at 135mm
• Soft corners at almost all focal lengths
• Image stabilization not as effective as on similar lenses, especially at telephoto end

This linked review is not for the new Macro version of Sigma's 18-250. It's for the older version. This new macro version just came out this past summer and has got some very good reviews. People need to understand that if you want a super zoom, there is a reason. Yes, it may not be a "pro" lens. But it is great for what it is. We'd like to know which of the super zooms has the best reviews so we can make an informed decision. I recently went on vacation and spent so much time switching lens, missing shots, getting dust and dirt in my camera, dragging around a heavy backpack with all my equipment in it, that when I got home I knew I wanted the super zoom. It's just a matter of which one. Please don't tell those who are in the market for one that it's a waste of time and they should buy 2 lenses instead. If I was shooting a pro job I'd probably use a different lens, but for my next trip, I'm buying a super-zoom.

I agree ma_photo. I picked one of these up a week ago to take with me on the first of 3 summer trips and since I'm flying to the destination, I didn't want to pack a lot of heavy photo gear. So far I've been very happy with the lens operationally, and with the results and IQ. I wouldn't say, as did an earlier poster, that people buying this lens care more about convenience than image quality, but rather that they understand and are willing to accept the limitations of such a lens. I shoot Canon. In my case, I researched all of the superzooms: Canon 18-135 & 200 Tamron and Sigma 18-200's, Tamron's 18-270, and this one, the newer Sigma 18-250 Macro lens, which I believe the consensus is that it comes out on top in this genre.

So when I'm shooting this lens I'm paying attention to the aperture, because a lens that might not be super sharp wide open can sharpen up considerably using a smaller aperture (higher F Number - and F8 - F11 gives great results at with this lens at longer lengths.). I have some "L" glass (the Canon pro lenses), but they are heavy and harder to lug around on a hike if you carry multiple lenses. Don't get me wrong, there are some times when I make sure I have my super telephoto L lens with me, but often for traveling or hiking, I love the convenience of having one lens on the camera that can cover such a wide range of shots.

Some comments on this lens: I have used both generations of Canon's IS ( image stabilization) and I find that the OS on this Sigma is rock solid. Also the AF/MF and OS On/Off switches are large and conveniently placed for no-look operation and the zoom lock switch is right under the left thumb when I'm raising the camera from hanging on the strap to a shooting position.

-CG