Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Sigma 18-200 mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
jonpaul.raymond@gmail.com - 20 Oct 2006 01:15 GMT
Has anyone found any information on the coast and availability of this
new Sigma lens. Mind you, it's the "OS" version. See here:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093013sigma18-200dcos.asp
Bill - 20 Oct 2006 01:37 GMT
> Has anyone found any information on the coast and availability of
> this
> new Sigma lens. Mind you, it's the "OS" version. See here:
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093013sigma18-200dcos.asp

Be wary of the aperture of that lense at the long end. F/6.3 may be
too small for the autofocus sensors of your camera which is typically
rated at f/5.6 for most models. Some models will do better than that,
and some are rated down to f/8, but you may need to try it before you
buy it.
cjcampbell - 25 Oct 2006 10:19 GMT
> > Has anyone found any information on the coast and availability of
> > this
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> and some are rated down to f/8, but you may need to try it before you
> buy it.

And you can forget about AF at any but the widest angle if you put a
teleconverter on it.
bmoag - 20 Oct 2006 03:57 GMT
Presuming this is optically the same lens as the non-OS version my personal
experience is that this is a very satisfactory lens for travel and general
use. It may not be the best of its class but it is a reasonably good lens
for the price. I have used it extensively on a D70, and now a D80, in
globally dispersed locations without significant problems.
That is not the same as saying this is the only lens one would want to have.
However if one is on an extended trek and does not want to lug pounds of
glass (I personally just cannot do that any longer) this lens will suffice
for advanced amateur use and more. And that is the whole point of this class
of lenses, regardless of manufacturer. It surprises me that I have no
regrets about purchasing or using the non-OS version of this lens. I would
never say the same about the 28-200 class of lenses used with 35mm film
SLRs. The ones I tried, including Nikon, were just not good lenses for their
intended purposes.
At the wide end the Sigma has a bit more barrel distortion than the Nikon
18-70 kit lens and is prone to vignette wide open at shorter focal lengths.
However distortion and vignetting, if noticeable, are easily corrected in
Photoshop. Its a non-issue for me but could be for some users.
If you can afford the Nikon 18-200 VR that is a somewhat better lens, but
distortion at the wide end I believe is underreported by reviewers. However
the Nikon/Sigma price difference is considerable and it is not clear to me
that the qualitative optical  differences justify the price differential.
Obviously that is a personal decision.
If you are considering buying a Nikon 55-200 there is no comparison. In my
experience at those focal lengths the Sigma 18-200 is incomparably superior
(personal sad experience with two samples of the Nikon-they could not even
achieve focus!) and you have the option of using the wide end as well.
Michael Johnson, PE - 21 Oct 2006 22:27 GMT
I completely agree with everything said below regarding the Sigma
18-200.  I have used this lens for 1.5 years and continue to be amazed
at its price verses performance ratio.  It is VERY versatile and easy to
carry.  If the OS version is as good, the stabilization works well and
the price reasonable, then one will definitely be in my lens collection.

Here are a few shots taken with the non-OS Sigma 18-200:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/People/IMG_5966a.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/People/CRW_6733a.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/People/CRW_7000a.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/Misc%20Shots/CRW_6611a.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/WWII%20Memorial/WWIIMemorial2.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/WWII%20Memorial/WWIIMemorial8.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/Misc%20Shots/CRW_7101a.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/MikeJ9116/Misc%20Shots/CRW_7166a.jpg

> Presuming this is optically the same lens as the non-OS version my personal
> experience is that this is a very satisfactory lens for travel and general
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> (personal sad experience with two samples of the Nikon-they could not even
> achieve focus!) and you have the option of using the wide end as well.
jonpaul.raymond@gmail.com - 25 Oct 2006 05:52 GMT
Thank you all for that advice. GREAT information from all 3 of you.
Especially bmoag. Thanks!

I can't wait for a lens for my Canon D30. The other one somehow got
stepped on I think. The lens won't focus automatically and manually
it's like moving a weight. So I went ahead and ordered the non-OS
version based on what I heard from you all. Thank you very much.

One last thing. The salesman tried to sell me some UV filter and some
other kind of filter. I've never used filters on my old digitals, but
then they weren't 1400.00 digitals either. Should I really use lens
filters. I hear it protects the glass at least and the quality is
supposed to be better. Any recommendations>

PS Nice pics MJ :-)

> I completely agree with everything said below regarding the Sigma
> 18-200.  I have used this lens for 1.5 years and continue to be amazed
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> > (personal sad experience with two samples of the Nikon-they could not even
> > achieve focus!) and you have the option of using the wide end as well.
G.T. - 25 Oct 2006 06:59 GMT
> Thank you all for that advice. GREAT information from all 3 of you.
> Especially bmoag. Thanks!
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> other kind of filter. I've never used filters on my old digitals, but
> then they weren't 1400.00 digitals either.

You spent $1400 on a 6 year old dslr?

Greg
Signature

"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

jonpaul.raymond@gmail.com - 25 Oct 2006 18:49 GMT
Yeah I overpaid long story... But love the camera :-) !

> jonpaul.raym...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Thank you all for that advice. GREAT information from all 3 of you.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Waking to the sound of laughter
> Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
Jon-Paul - 26 Oct 2006 13:17 GMT
Oh by the way Greg, sorry I meant EOS 30D.

> jonpaul.raym...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Thank you all for that advice. GREAT information from all 3 of you.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Waking to the sound of laughter
> Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
G.T. - 26 Oct 2006 18:45 GMT
> Oh by the way Greg, sorry I meant EOS 30D.

Good, because I was starting to think you suffered a major scam.

Greg

>> jonpaul.raym...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Thank you all for that advice. GREAT information from all 3 of you.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>>>
>>> You spent $1400 on a 6 year old dslr?

Signature

"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

Ståle Sannerud - 25 Oct 2006 12:34 GMT
> One last thing. The salesman tried to sell me some UV filter and some
> other kind of filter. I've never used filters on my old digitals, but
> then they weren't 1400.00 digitals either. Should I really use lens
> filters. I hear it protects the glass at least and the quality is
> supposed to be better. Any recommendations>

UV filters have minimal effect on images taken with digital cameras. Film
was sensitive to UV rays, digital sensors are less so. The reason why many
people still want to use them is primarily to get a "sacrificial" pane of
glass between the front element of the lens and the hostile world around it.
A filter is cheaper to replace if something goes wrong, and easier to clean
goo off of. The downside is added expense and more risk of incoming light
going where it shouldn't. However, if you always use your lens hood (and you
should do this anyway, to prevent flare) this gives a similar level of
protection for most practical purposes and no risk of image degradation.
jonpaul.raymond@gmail.com - 25 Oct 2006 18:51 GMT
Thanks Stale! Any hood you recommend?

On Oct 25, 4:34 am, "Ståle Sannerud" <staale.sanne...@bibits.no>
wrote:
> <jonpaul.raym...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1161751952.952054.76070@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> should do this anyway, to prevent flare) this gives a similar level of
> protection for most practical purposes and no risk of image degradation.
jeremy - 25 Oct 2006 19:12 GMT
> However, if you always use your lens hood (and you
> should do this anyway, to prevent flare) this gives a similar level of
> protection for most practical purposes and no risk of image degradation.

This has been an ongoing debate for decades.  I have come down on the side
of using filters for protective qualities, rather than lens hoods, which I
also use regularly.  The other side of the argument is this:

1: Lens hoods do not prevent dust, sand, mist or some finger smudges from
being deposited on the lens surface.  Filters effectively seal off the front
lens surface from these threats.  I rarely clean my lens front elements,
because the filters bear all the brunt of the dust/dirt, etc.  I would
rather replace a filter every few years than have a compromised front lens
element.

2: Many or us are using rare or expensive lenses.  In my particular
circumstance, I have numerous lenses, all in excellent condition, that have
not been manufactured for decades, and it would be difficult and expensive
to replace any of them in as good condition from the used market.  Erwin
Puts, the renowned Leica specialist, has estimated that a GOOD filter will
have no more than a 2% effect on the image, while other factors, such as
camera shake or off-axis light would impact photos much more than that
amount.  So, I accept the small loss of image quality as the price to be
paid for the added safety factor that the filter provides.

My own informal tests have not revealed any image degradation when using
filters.  Since I use Pentax lenses, I have always purchased Pentax-branded
filters.  They can be had on eBay relatively inexpensively, and Pentax has
been fairly consistent in making lenses that use a 49mm filter size, do it
is easy to stock filters that interchange on many lenses (one of the
advantages in not going with multiple brands of lenses--if your OEM brand
tries to maintain a consistent filter size you can save a lot of money,
since you don't have to buy multiple filters in different sizes).

Others may not share my view, and that's okay.  I have elected to place a
higher priority on protecting my lenses than rather worrying about a
negligible impact of the filter upon image quality.  It works for me.
jonpaul.raymond@gmail.com - 25 Oct 2006 21:53 GMT
Thank for all the info. Guess I'll gab a filter and a lens hood...

> > However, if you always use your lens hood (and you
> > should do this anyway, to prevent flare) this gives a similar level of
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> higher priority on protecting my lenses than rather worrying about a
> negligible impact of the filter upon image quality.  It works for me.
cjcampbell - 26 Oct 2006 02:19 GMT
> > One last thing. The salesman tried to sell me some UV filter and some
> > other kind of filter. I've never used filters on my old digitals, but
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> should do this anyway, to prevent flare) this gives a similar level of
> protection for most practical purposes and no risk of image degradation.

The other risk of filters is vignetting, especially with the digital
lenses.
Michael Johnson, PE - 26 Oct 2006 20:57 GMT
>>> One last thing. The salesman tried to sell me some UV filter and some
>>> other kind of filter. I've never used filters on my old digitals, but
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> The other risk of filters is vignetting, especially with the digital
> lenses.

I should mention that the links to the photos I posted earlier in this
thread were taken with a mediocre UV filter.  I haven't noticed a
vignetting problem with the lens and one filter.  Maybe if they were
stacked it would be noticeable.
Don Wiss - 25 Oct 2006 19:06 GMT
>One last thing. The salesman tried to sell me some UV filter and some
>other kind of filter.

Sounds so much like you did business with one of the Brooklyn dealers that
had to make a phone call to close the sale and upsell you. The fellows get
a small salary and a commission on the upsale.

Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
jonpaul.raymond@gmail.com - 25 Oct 2006 21:54 GMT
Now that's funny Don. How correct you are...lol. tristatecamera.com

Sounds like you've been around for a while ...lol :-)

> >One last thing. The salesman tried to sell me some UV filter and some
> >other kind of filter.Sounds so much like you did business with one of the Brooklyn dealers that
> had to make a phone call to close the sale and upsell you. The fellows get
> a small salary and a commission on the upsale.
>
> Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.