How does this 28-300mm Sigma lens compare to the new 18-250 mm Sigma lens (advantages and disadvantages)
256621
I don't know about the 18-250......a wider angle and a shorter telephoto. I have the 28-300 and have never needed a wider setting. Sigma makes a great product, you will be happy.
256622
I have not used the 18-250,but if it functions as well as the 28-300mm I think you will be well satisfied. For A APS-C bodies Sigma makes a great lens.
1746186
Yes, much better. Better optics, better sharpness and color transmission, better weather sealing. Heavier, and more conspicuous. You might consider the 100-400 IS L lens. I switched from that because I got tired of carrying it around. Which is a problem with a 400 mm IS prime. Good luck. JWK
1703579
There is some comparison which saying Canon 18-135 lense is sharper than Sigma 18-200. My frinds please Post Canon 18-135 or Canon 18-200. ( If both are from Canon. which is best).
2103068
Its really a budget decision. Both produce sharp images and good in low light, but with the sigma your packing more focal range without having to swap lenses.
1380696
The new lens is smaller and lighter, performs just as well and is (or was) slightly less expensive. The downside is that is a tad slower at the long end --6.3 v. 5.6. Some say it doesn't take as sharp of pictures. I don't agree and the trade off for how much small and lighter it is, is well worth it to me. It is even lighter than my older 18-200VR. For a everyday lens that can take photos between 18 - 300, It is ideal for me. If I need sharper, I'll use a dedicated lens for that shot!
1939650
The 28-300 is more of an all around lens. It is powerful enough for both wide angle and telephoto. The difference of the f stops is not that drastic. I have the 28-300 and used it only in Africa for two weeks and have hundreds of great pictures, many that the 70-200 could not produce.
1794473
Without it being available yet it's hard to say just what exactly will be different quality wise. The new one will improve bokeh out of focus highlights at a price though. You will lose T-Stops (light transmission) For example 1.2 might give you the same light as f1.8-2. This is because the filter is a type of Neutral Density filter. For me I shoot low light and having that extra stop is important. The trade off combined with price just doesn't work. So what's more important to you? Bokeh quality or low light shooting? The 56mm is a fantastic lens in either version. Highly recommended!
725613
Yes, it's as sharp and contrasty as the Canon. However, don't expect it to last quite as long. I've been using some of my Canon L glass since 1990. I'm rough on gear and suspect the build quality of Sigma lenses isn't as good as Canon. I have 24, 35, 50 and 85 Sigmas and all are good.
794544
i would get 24mm, wider angle is more useful and it's sharper than 35mm, also try the new Sigma 35mm 1.4, bokeh is irritating, quality, built not up to Nikon's, but it's sharper and cheaper.
606484
I'm so glad there's something posted here - this is one of the lenses I'm considering getting my husband for Christmas. He has the Sigma 50-200mm lens right now and in my experience with it, it hasn't been too bad. Should he be happy with the 18-200?
466983
I don't have the 200mm, so can't compare. I have no complaints on this lens, if that helps.
2183426
Hi, Here is a good review from Ken Rockwell. This Nikon 18-300mm VR is a smaller, lighter version of the original 18-300mm VR. The original 18-300 was very good, so good in fact that I sold an image I made with it to McDonald's - and they are using it on a billboard. This new lens is as good, and is smaller, lighter and less expensive, so it's even better! My only real complaint about the original 18-300 was that it weighed a lot more than my camera, and this new 18-300 weighs ten ounces less! This new 18-300mm also offers Vibration Reduction (4 stops) and instant manual-focus override. It's very slightly slower at the 300mm end (f/6.3 versus f/5.6) than the older lens, and for ten ounces off my shoulder, that's nothing. By taking off 10 ounces, I now can carry this new lens everywhere I never bothered with the old 18-300. This new lens do everything, and it even does macro. At 300mm, it focuses to within just inches of the front of the lens.
108982
The Contemporary version according to "http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-17-70mm-f2-8-4-os-hsm" is smaller, lighter, and uses revised optics compared to the old version which is why I choose this contemporary version. I use it on a Rebel T3i and I am very happy with the results.
1316304
I owned the 300 f4 and replaced it with the 70-300 L which for me is a better alternative. The additional length makes a huge difference; I also owned the 70-200 F4, a wonderful lens but I find I no longer use since I have the 70-300L. There is NO comparison between the non-L version of 70-300 & the L version. This is a terrific lens & you will be happy with it.
320074
I have a D800 and all the lenses you listed as well. The 35 i think would lend itself to portraits and the like. I take mostly outdoor stuff which the 28=300 is a fantastic all around lens that I use for a walk around lens. Necessary no not at all but a nice addition.
1319767
I'm not an expert just a photo hobby guy. But i believe there might be a second generation image stabilization on the 300 mm lens. Plus the obvious better zoom capacity. My 200 does a pretty good job at getting indoor pictures at a basketball game. I have to set the right aperture and ISO at first but it works for me. Depends on your need for the additional zoom. Good luck
448719
i dont have the 24 85mm to truly give you a comparison. but according to a few reviews and test i saw the 24 85mm has a slightly better sharpness wile the 24 to 120 has more focal length. so it depends on what you are going to be shooting and what you want to pay for your lens.and fyi if you go for a 24 to 120mm i dont reccomend this version of it as its one of nikons worst modern lenses . get the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR its the revised version and supost to be a better lens. or if you really want focal length the 28mm to 300mm hope this helps