Another stupid lens qns: sigma 18-125 vs nikkor 18-135

[lightinsky]

I'm thinking of getting a zoom lens for this range... of course,in a perfect world, i'll get 18-200 VR, but have budget contraints

Read the reviews on photozone for both, (they only have review for the sigma lens on cannon mount, but i guess it has the same performance on a nikon mount??)

sigma : http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_18125_3556/index.htm

nikkor:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_18135_3556/index.htm

Reason why i want this zoom range? I need the wide angle, (cos i still do not have any wide angle yet), and i really would like the range, a slightly less perfect all-in-one walkaround lens... versatile lens... for the occasional portrait and headshots, and zoom-ins, without switching lens...

I think i will use this more on the wide end though... cos if i really wanted zoom, i'll switch to my 70-300. so been checking out the wide angle "problems". Barrel distortions is better with the sigma at 18mm, though i can't see anything very bad in the sample pics for the nikkor at 18 mm..

chromatic abberation seems to be better on the sigma as well

i'm not sure about image quality and image quality though.. dont really understand it... anyone any thots on this??

so first response is that the sigma will do the job, (plus point is its lower price as well).. but...

the review mentions poor AF accuracy below 50mm for the sigma lens tested on EOS 350D. Would this also apply to the D80? and what exactly does AF accuracy mean??? literally does not Autofocus properly???

thanks in advance, guys

at the rate i'm going, i can join the clique for sigma "trash"!! lol!!!

[jcon]

Ive read here and other places that the Sigma poorly focuses on the Canons, This isnt the case on Nikons. I used the Sigma 18-125 for almost a year on my D50 and got GREAT results with it. I havent touched the Nikon version so cant comment on it but for the money, the Sigma would be a good choice.

If you dont mind losing zoom on the tele end, look at the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8. That constant 2.8 could be very useful(if you dont shoot in low light than it may not be worth it). There are 2 versions. Both are fairly cheap with the older version a bit cheaper.

Ignore what others(wrestlingfool) say about Sigma being trash, its so untrue, the guy/child has probably never even shot with Sigma before. If you choose the Sigma, you wont be dissapointed.

[Kellie]

Also, since you have the 70-300mm covered, why not consider the Sigma 17-70mm f/2-8-4.5 (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1770_2845/index.htm)? That is $332.50 at Amazon and only a bit more than the Nikon.

I have the Nikon 18-135mm and although it hasn't received spectacular reviews, I have been very happy with it. It is very sharp and auto-focus is quite fast because it is AF-S. I haven't used it in low light, though. It is my outdoors walk-around lens. I can PM you some sample photos if you'd like. I think there might be some good examples in the POTD thread as well.

[Rooz]

i had the 18-135mm and i thought it was a good budget lens. it is fast, quiet, light, rarely hunted but most impressive to me was that it was sharp. it's no pro lens, but for general purpose, budget conscious walkaround it's a fine choice. have never used the sigma you mentioned. i don't actually remember seeing anyone here that has it. :confused:

if you can save and wait a bit longer, i'd grab the sigma 17-70mm. a better lens for not that much more cashola. you do lose the 135mm range but you grab nicer lower light perfomance. with a d80, you can always crop down quite easily if shooting in RAW or fine to compensate for narrower zoom.

[Rooz]

straight outta da cam with 18-135mm lens.

[swgod98]

I have the Nikkor 18-135 as well, and while I'd love to say nothing but good things about it (because I am quite happy with it), I'm going to mention a few things others haven't really yet.

CA is definitely a PIA with this lens under the wrong conditions.

Distortion can be a bit of a problem if you shoot architecture.

Vingetting is the least of the problems (much easier to correct), but it does have some as well.

With that said...and I hope I did not scare you from the Nikkor 18-135 (because I really do like it!) :) I think it's a great lens.

It is very sharp! As you can see in Rooz's pictures. I have never had trouble focusing with it. It is quiet and fast. Zoom and focus rings are nice, with manual override. Front element does not turn (makes for use of polarizers). Some of these often overlooked features are the ones third party brands do not come with.

[lightinsky]

thanks for the ideas...

rooz, great pics..

kellie, now you get me thinking about the 17-70... does seem like a good lens.. but sure, PM me some pics... would help more in my decision...

jcon, dont worry, I know sigma is not trash... i'm having lotsa fun with my 70-300 :D :D good to hear from u that the 18-125 does great shots.. hmm.. but it seems like its not as popular... the IF is is equivalent to AF-S right???

[rawpaw18]

the IF is is equivalent to AF-S right???

IF is internal focus HSM (hyper sonic motor?) is equivalent to af-s.