Is Sigma Lens a better choice than Nikon...Please Help!

[peter868]

I recently acquired the Nikon D300. I was told by the retailer that the Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC Optical Stabilizer was a better choice than the Nikon 18-200 Lens. I have used Nikon all my life and contemplating whether I should have purchased the Nikon Lens instead. Can anyone shed some light regarding the performance of Sigma over Nikon Lens?

[Aldor88]

Most reviews rate the Nikon 18-200VR over the sigma 18-200OS, the difference isn't too big tho and the sigma costs less as well. For the same price I'd go for the Nikon tho. The Nikon also has a fairly common problem with lens creep but is also faster at the long end.

In general both Sigma and Nikon make great lenses, Nikons AF-S seems to be a bit faster than Sigmas HSM and VR is a bit more effective than OS tho.

[herc182]

the sigma will be far easier to get a hold of since the nikon one is in short supply. i would get the Nikon if i could afford it (or wanted it for that matter!).

[tcadwall]

I have the Nikkor 18-200mm. I think there are more reasons to have it than to have the Sigma.

ByThom review of the Nikkor:
http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm

Comparison Review (not sure if this is an older version of the sigma or current):
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Si...mm/page3.shtml

[jcon]

Where is WrestlingReport when you need him?

[LR Max]

Nikkor all the way.

"Availability" really depends. All the camera shops in the bigger cities I've recently stumbled across (biggest cities in the southeast...excluding South Carolina) have had the Nikkor 18-200VR IN STOCK. So they are available, just do a little searching on the internet.

I've never seen a single shop carry the Sigma lense you speak of. I'm not too much of a fan of sigma on a nikon. Apparently they are made for Canons anyway...

[Rooz]

without doubt i'd get the nikkor. btw: does anyone have any info on how many stops sigma's OS is good for ?

[rawpaw18]

Where is WrestlingReport when you need him?

First thing that came to my mind when I saw
the title of the thread!

[K1W1]

For the cost of the 18-200 with stabilisation couldn't you get a Nikkor 55-200VR and a 18-55 or even 18-70 sized lens from either Nikon or Sigma?
IMO the 18-200 lenses are a flawed proposition - too much zoom and too many compromises.
I know it's convenient to have only one lens but the purpose or at least reason for a DSLR is the ability to change lenses to suit the occasion and by fitting a one size fits all product you are defeating the basic purpose of the camera.
My 2 cents.

[tcadwall]

With all due respect K1W1, I agree, and disagree with what you are saying. There are many other reasons that a DSLR would be chosen over a P&S. The sensor is one of the first things. Larger sensor (and all the benefits that go with it), ease of use (for adjustments and attaining the look you want), expandability, ruggedness, etc... Being able to change lenses of course is right in there. It isn't the only reason.

Yes, there is compromise, but the Nikkor lens is revolutionary in that the compromises are really done well, and the overall performance for the buck is very good. The ability to shoot many different focal lengths without having to change lenses is very helpful in many situations - sometimes even the difference between getting and not getting the shot. There are many very good reasons for choosing this lens. Perfect shots is not the reason. However, ownership of one does not mean that there aren't many occasions to use other lenses - it just means that you don't have to change lenses as often - without compromising much.