Sigma 18-200mm or, turn your DSLR into a junk P&S
RichA
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-200_3p5-6p3_os_n15/page3.asp
SMS
> What a piece of rubbish.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-200_3p5-6p3_os_n15/page3.asp
Has dpreview _ever_ published a review where the conclusion is "not
recommended?" The worst I've ever seen is "above average." I guess the
key metric is if they say "highly recommended" then the product is at
least above average.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Has dpreview _ever_ published a review where the conclusion is "not
> recommended?"
yes they have. most recently, they reviewed the sony 18-70 and didn't
give it a rating *at all*.
> The worst I've ever seen is "above average." I guess the
> key metric is if they say "highly recommended" then the product is at
> least above average.
no, they simply don't review crappy products. the ratings are what
they are. the cameras that would get below average are not reviewed.
Toby
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5659075-2687-4256...@x8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> What a piece of rubbish.
No worse than the Nikon 18-200, FWIW
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-200_3p5-6p3_os_n15/page3.asp
>
Robert Coe
They were pretty blunt in this case. I didn't even notice what they gave it
for an overall rating, but their elaboration of its faults was pretty
convincing. But what also showed through rather plainly in the article is that
any superzoom requires significant design compromises and that you'd better
understand and accept that before you buy one.
Bob
TheRealSteve
Actually, it is worse but not by much. If you do the side by side
comparison, they are very very close in just about every respect (one
slightly better in some areas, the other slightly better in others)
except for a strange phenomenon with the Sigma, where it drops way off
in sharpness around 80mm. Although the Nikon also drops off at 135,
it's not as pronounced as the Sigma at 80. Also, the Nikon seems more
consistent across the frame from center to edge while the Sigma does
better in the center in some cases, but much worse at the edges in
more cases.
Overall though, they do seem pretty close and if I haven't had the
Nikon 18-200 for the past year, I'd consider the Sigma only because
it's around $100-$200 cheaper.
Steve
Robert Coe
: "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: > What a piece of rubbish.
:
: No worse than the Nikon 18-200, FWIW
Maybe, but the reviewers made that point in a much more nuanced manner. They
said it was better than its competitors in some ways, worse in others. When
you're designing a superzoom, you have to make a lot of compromises, but you
get to decide, within limits, what those compromises are. What the reviewers
considered odd about this lens is that its sharpness at both ends of its zoom
range was better than it was in the middle. What the reviewers didn't go on to
say, but may be what the designers were thinking, is that one buys a superzoom
mainly for its performance at the extremes of its range; otherwise a lens with
shorter range would suffice. Deciding whether that's true or not is an
exercise left to the purchaser.
Bob
Frank ess
There was a (long-lost) program that read EXIF data from files it was
pointed at, and showed the zoom focal-length count/totals of every
focal length it encountered. Results (five years ago) in my zoom-use
very definitely supported the "extremes" supposition Bob mentioned.
Was on a Nikon CP5700 or 8700? Probably be a little different today. I
think. I hope.
SteveG
> What a piece of rubbish.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-200_3p5-6p3_os_n15/page3.asp
>
You get what you pay for and considering the price difference between
the Sigma and the Nikon alternative it's hard to see why the Nikkor is
so much more expensive. They gave the Sigma an overall score of 38.5 -
compared with 39.0 for the Nikkor and Tamron equivalents.
Your assessment may be a tad harsh :-)
--
Regards
Steve G
Wally
>RichA wrote:
>> What a piece of rubbish.
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-200_3p5-6p3_os_n15/page3.asp
>>
>
>You get what you pay for and considering the price difference between
>the Sigma and the Nikon alternative it's hard to see why the Nikkor is
>so much more expensive....
Which is to say that maybe you DON'T get what you pay for.
Wally
SteveG
Yeah, I kinda phrased that wrong :-)
--
Regards
Steve G
JC Dill
>
> There was a (long-lost) program that read EXIF data from files it was
> pointed at, and showed the zoom focal-length count/totals of every focal
> length it encountered. Results (five years ago) in my zoom-use very
> definitely supported the "extremes" supposition Bob mentioned.
This is because no matter how long/wide the zoom range, there will be
images you want to shoot that are outside the range of the zoom. When
I'm shooting with my 70-200, there are many images I would shoot at 210,
250, 300, etc. that I shoot at 200 because that's as far as the lens
goes. And on the other side, there are images I would shoot at 50, 40,
25 if I had a wider zoom. I step back as far as I can (given the
circumstance) and shoot at 70. Even when I have a 1.4 teleconverter and
24-70 in my bag, I don't just change lenses much of the time when I
would "like" a wider shot or longer shot, as I don't want to needlessly
introduce dust into the sensor chamber. I only change if I think the
wider view would be really spectacular, or if I plan to shoot in the
wider view (or with the teleconverter) for many shots.
jc
JC Dill
>
> There was a (long-lost) program that read EXIF data from files it was
> pointed at, and showed the zoom focal-length count/totals of every focal
> length it encountered. Results (five years ago) in my zoom-use very
> definitely supported the "extremes" supposition Bob mentioned.
This is because no matter how long/wide the zoom range, there will be
bmoag
Glad to see the usual battles of the ignorant against the uninformed rage
on: never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.
I can only write, since I own both the Sigma non-image stabilized lens and
the Nikon 18-200 image stabilized lens, and have the pictures to prove it,
that there is not any significant difference in optical performance between
the particular samples I am looking at on my desk. I have photgraphed
umpteen parallel lines and checkerboards.
I have also used the image stabilized Sigma 18-200: my impression is that
the OS-Sigma is slightly better than either the non-OS Sigma and the more
expensive Nikon in terms of distortion at the wide end. Given the choice it
is foolish to tithe Nikon the difference in cost if considering one of these
long zooms.
Life is full of choices.
It is utterly naïve to think that the cherry picked early production lenses
given to favored reviewers are representative of the production quality of
the average lens you are going to get off a store shelf unless you are
purchasing hand crafted lenses, Leica and Zeiss come to mind, and paying
commensurately for that degree of quality control. A lens is not like an
electronic device where it is very likely that most production samples will
function similarly. It is far more likely that a camera randomly bought off
a store shelf will behave like a review model than any mass-manufactured
lens.
Bernard Rother
I'll second you on the Sigma vs Nikon 18-200. I didn't know which to
buy either so tried out both of them ( off the shelf units ) I took a
few pictures at various focal lengths and with OS on & off and once the
pictures were up on the screen I couldn't see much difference between
them ..... in fact, the Sigma appeared to have a bit more contrast. The
following day I walked out with the Sigma OS and still going strong.