Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,364

    Sigma & Tamron 18-200 review

    The review was posted on here already. Just getting the word out to those that have not seen it.

    The sigma 18-200 is just as good as the sigma 18-125 and better in many aspects. I especially love the minimal vignetting. The sigma has better build quality and even a metal lens mount. It has zoom lock, I dont know if the tamron 18-200 does.

    I wish the sigma had the same true focal range that the tamron 18-200. It appears that the 200mm end of the sigma is more like 170mm or so. Or it could be that the tamron 200mm is more like 230mm.
    When I get it I will do some testing.
    Here are some pics that I borrowed from a Japanese review. Credit goes to them for their hard work.

    I labeled and assembled them to illustrate the difference.

    Note the sharpness.

    Note the chromatic abboration.

    This one is at 200mm at f/6.3 and 1/1250
    Last edited by TheObiJuan; 04-26-2005 at 04:31 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,099
    Thought I'd contribute to this hot thread.

    The autofocus on this Sigma 18-200mm is slower and less accurate than Canon lens and much noisier too. It is slower and noisier than the similarly priced Tamron 18-200mm also. Anything within 10-20' knows you are focusing! It also tends to hunt quite a lot, especially in lower light conditions, sometimes failing to lock at all. I don't understand why Sigma can't produce a quicker, quieter autofocus system.

    The maximum aperture at the 200mm end is 6.3 and with the 1.6X focal length multiplier of the Digital Rebel it can be hard to get a fast enough shutter speed to avoid blurring due to shake. If you back off just a tad you get can get 5.6 aperture. Given that the maximum focal length is about 160mm (see below) then backing off just a little to get f5.6 puts you at about 150mm. At the wide end you get f3.5 at 18mm and f4.5 at 28mm.

    If you choose Sport mode on the Digital Rebel with this lens, the autofocus goes crazy. It hunts a lot and does so very quickly and just won't stabilize resulting in rapidly changing focus.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Monterey Bay
    Posts
    6,029
    Quote Originally Posted by gary_hendricks
    Thought I'd contribute to this hot thread.

    The autofocus on this Sigma 18-200mm is slower and less accurate than Canon lens and much noisier too. It is slower and noisier than the similarly priced Tamron 18-200mm also. Anything within 10-20' knows you are focusing! It also tends to hunt quite a lot, especially in lower light conditions, sometimes failing to lock at all. I don't understand why Sigma can't produce a quicker, quieter autofocus system.

    The maximum aperture at the 200mm end is 6.3 and with the 1.6X focal length multiplier of the Digital Rebel it can be hard to get a fast enough shutter speed to avoid blurring due to shake. If you back off just a tad you get can get 5.6 aperture. Given that the maximum focal length is about 160mm (see below) then backing off just a little to get f5.6 puts you at about 150mm. At the wide end you get f3.5 at 18mm and f4.5 at 28mm.

    If you choose Sport mode on the Digital Rebel with this lens, the autofocus goes crazy. It hunts a lot and does so very quickly and just won't stabilize resulting in rapidly changing focus.
    Oddly enough I didn't have this problem on the D70 when I tried the 18-200 a few weeks ago. It seems to work as well as my 18-125, which rarely has a problem getting focus lock, and the noise is no worse than any other low cost non-HSM lens. But it was only about 30 minutes of goofing around.

    Before I draw any conclusions I wil try to get out with this lens on a real shoot next weekend (and post the results). If it's as troublesome as you say, then I will quit offering it as a suggestion as a good walk-around.

    Thanks Gary.
    Last edited by D70FAN; 08-28-2005 at 08:32 AM.
    D7000, D70, CP990, CP900, FE.
    50mm f/1.8, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 18-105 VR, Nikon 55-200 VR, Nikon 43-86 f/3.5 AiS, Vivitar 28-90 F/2.8-3.5 Macro, Vivitar 75-205 F/3.8-4.8, SB800.
    Ha! See, I can change...


    http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    57
    Is it just me, or do the sigma picture look much better? Seems like the Tamron pics are, I don't know, hazy?

    I was thinking of getting the tamron 18-200 with my Maxxum 5D, but now I'm thinking the Sigma 18-125 is better. Unfortunately, Sigma doesn't make their 18-200 for Konica :-(

    I'm looking forward to seeing more sample shots.

    Thanks,

    Allan

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5

    Sigma Vs Tamron

    Hi

    Just registered as I urgently need to replace a wrecked Canon lens before a theatre shoot. Looks like I'll have to buy either the Tamron or Sigma 18-200 in a hurry for a theatre shoot in a week.

    Does anyone out there have any comparison shots other than the Japanese shots we have all seen. The Tamron shots seem implausably hazey and de saturated and I'm a little worried about the accuracy of the comparison.

    Between the two the tamron seems to have a smoother action and quieter focus system. The wierd range shift would be a real bonus as the lens seems considerably longer at the tight end whilst still giving me a very useful wide.

    Mike

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Monterey Bay
    Posts
    6,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Steadi
    Hi

    Just registered as I urgently need to replace a wrecked Canon lens before a theatre shoot. Looks like I'll have to buy either the Tamron or Sigma 18-200 in a hurry for a theatre shoot in a week.

    Does anyone out there have any comparison shots other than the Japanese shots we have all seen. The Tamron shots seem implausably hazey and de saturated and I'm a little worried about the accuracy of the comparison.

    Between the two the tamron seems to have a smoother action and quieter focus system. The wierd range shift would be a real bonus as the lens seems considerably longer at the tight end whilst still giving me a very useful wide.

    Mike
    The Tamron is quieter, but the Sigma is better optically. I have used both and like the Sigma on my D70. As a caveat I don't own either lens as I was hoping that Nikon would bring out a similar 18-200, which they seem to be doing in November (with VR).

    I would think for theater (indoor) use you might want something a little faster like the Tamron 28-75 f2.8.
    D7000, D70, CP990, CP900, FE.
    50mm f/1.8, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 18-105 VR, Nikon 55-200 VR, Nikon 43-86 f/3.5 AiS, Vivitar 28-90 F/2.8-3.5 Macro, Vivitar 75-205 F/3.8-4.8, SB800.
    Ha! See, I can change...


    http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Near New Orleans
    Posts
    1,264
    Maybe I should have waited ... ... nah I'm pretty satisfied with my 18-125 for now.
    Last edited by Bluedog; 04-26-2005 at 06:39 PM.
    .

    Canon EOS 30D | Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 | Canon 17-40mm f/4L | Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS| Canon 70-200mm f/4L | Canon Speedlite 430EX + Sto-Fen Omni Bounce | Manfrotto 3001BD & 680B/486RC2 | Hoya Super HMC Pro1 Digital Filters | Hitech ND & GND Filters | Bags > Kata R-103 + Lowepro Nova 5 AW

    RawShooter | premium 2006 > My PBase Gallery

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,364
    here you go George.
    I noticed that the 18-125 does give more contrast. The extra sharpness increases acutance, which makes images sharper. It is sharper at 125, it's maximum focal length, just like the 18-200 is very sharp at 200, it's maximum focal length. At 80mm, though, the sharpness is astounding. To tell you the truth, the only difference is the gain in "75mm" and less vignetting.




  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,364


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,364
    It should be worth noting that the sigma 18-125 in the 125-135 test shot was shot at f/6.3, which is stopped down 1/3 stop, where the 18-200 was wide open. This could have an effect in adition to the 18-125 being at the end of its focal range (125).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •