What is the difference between Sigma 18-250mm & 18-250mm macro?


TPF Noob!
Nov 27, 2015
Reaction score
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
both links take me to the exact same lens.

it is a regular telephoto lens that also works for macro, some of my lenses you need to be several feet away for it to focus on something, with that lens it says macro because you can be 13.8 inches from something and still get focus and with 250mm of zoom that should give you a nice close up image.

there is a version of that lens without macro, its a older version of the lens that was not able to focus as close, the older version can get focus around 18 inches from a subject and it was a bit bigger than the version with macro.

the newer version is not that much more money, i would definitely get the new version with macro if you go with that lens.

that is a descent lens, not a great lens but its good if you are looking for a convenient low priced lens that will work for most types of shooting without needing to swap lenses. image quality looks descent with those lenses but not great.
Last edited:
Some lens makers use the word Macro in the name of a lens for marketing.
In other words the lens doesn't really have an extreme close focus or macro capability.

Most dedicated macro lenses give a 1:1 to 5:1 reproduction ratio.
Sigma's specs don't include a reproduction ratio.
18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC (OS)* MACRO HSM | Sigma Corporation of America

Plus the lens isn't listed on Sigma's Macro lens page

The biggest issue is it's like pretty much all superzoom, jack-of-all trades, master-of-none lenses in that the lens has sharpness, distortion, and image quality issues throughout the massive 13.9x zoom range.

Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM 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

Conclusion - Pros
• Huge 13.9x focal length range, ideal general purpose and travel lens
• Good image quality in the wide to short telephoto range
• Fast, quiet autofocus
• Low distortion (for a superzoom)
• Good build quality, smooth zooming action and no zoom creep
I have one (macro). As any super zoom, it has lots of compromises: light fall off (vigneting), not the sharpest lens at all, etc. However, for going light in a family trip, with a DX camera, it's really convenient and can produce great pictures. So I don't rely on it for high end picture, but I like it for casual travel pictures. It's good also as a beginners learning lens. You can learn a ton out of it, given its versatility. Just don't think it will be your best lens ever.

Here my sample pictures with it, so you can have an idea of the kind of images it produces and the quality it can deliver, if well used: Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM

Good luck.
my nikon 18-200mm lens has been nice. lots of people seem to think its lousy, i think its good, not perfect but good, it seems decently sharp at all focal lengths, does not seem to have much distortion or anything else going on that i don't want, not sure if i got a good copy or people are just more picky than i am. but maybe that would be a lens to look into, from what i see it takes better images than the sigma 18-250mm

i do not use my lens much, my birding lens usually stays on the camera, maybe if i used it more i would find more faults in it i don't know. but when i have used it i have got some really nice photos with it.

you may even want to look at something like a 18-140 or a 17-70mm something like that will still be good for most types of shooting but will probably produce better image quality than a lens with so much variation in focal length..

Most reactions

New Topics