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.
1668188
You mean the Tamron 18-300mm VC lens compare to 18-270mm lens. In my opinion the 18-300mm VC is a better lens for the price
1069240
I not used the earlier model, but Olympus claims that the 75-300mm is an improved version. All of the review say the same. It is a good lens, especially considering the small size and weight. A couple of tips: avoid shooting at either widest or longest zoom (shoot at 80-275mm), shoot at f8 and use a tripod or monopod to steady the shot and it takes very good images.
134989
I am very happy with this lens. I have not tried the Sigma. I have the tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 VC both outstanding lenses - fast and sharp. Tamron is slightly more expensive and reviews always slightly higher. Sorry I could not give you more info about the Sigma
845608
I just saw that the new model (pzd) is just 20 dollars more and its lighter. The old version is a great all around lens. I highly recommend it. Recently i bought the 17-50 2.8 VC which way sharper and brighter, but the zoom range of this one is amazing. Good luck
604837
Hi Jack - to be honest I've not had hands on with this lens. It was bought for my Son for his birthday. And from what I do know about it it is smaller and with the Macro capability - a more useful lens, also the 18-200 has less focal range then the newer Macro Lens. Seems to have pretty good reviews and as my son uses it for digital video - he's pretty happy thus far. Sorry I can't be of more help.Chuck
1974652
I haven't used the 35mm but i can assure you the image quality is better than the 50 f1.8 or the kit lens. This sigma will serve you well as a starter lens and actually shouldn't be something you immediately feel like upgrading. Primes are well and good if you are ready for them but zooms are better for starting out. if you test out different focal lengths you can find out what prime lenses will work best for you. you don't want to buy a 35mm just to find out you'd rather have a 24, etc.
582401
I used to have those 2 lenses and moving to a single 18-200mm gave me a whole new experience in photography. No more spending times switching lenses on-the-go, which saves me from missing shots and protects the camera a little further (in case you would need to switch lenses outside, like in a beach or something -- my case).
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!
1947495
The biggest difference is that this lens is weather sealed, while the Sigma 70-300mm is not. Its range also meshes well with the stock 18-55mm kit lens. Regarding IQ, the only head to head test I found seemed to indicate IQ was similar except at the far end (270-300mm) where the Pentax had slightly better IQ. But the two lenses are close enough that if I hadn't valued the weather sealing I probably would have gotten the Sigma at half the price -- the reality is that neither is a professional grade lens and neither will give you professional-grade IQ at 300mm.
2096569
the only differences between the two lenses are: 1) focal length and 2) price. The 18-300 is approx. $150 more than the 18-200. If you are shooting sports or wildlife, and can afford the higher price, I would definitely go with the 18-300 for the longer reach. However, I personally own the 18-200 and love it for 98% of the shooting I do
2096571
It is hard to say.... I am very satisfied with the 18-200mm. The quality is impressive and i don't mind the weight of the camera. It is the only lens I use. If I need additional detail, I can use the available computer software to provide additional zoom. Overall, I am very happy with the camera and lens.
305767
I had both lenses and sold the 28-300 after I got the 28mm 1.8. No contest at 28mm. Now i use the 70-300 VR for long range and switch to the 28 prime for wide angle. The flexibility in aperature is also huge for me. If you are just shooting snapshots at 28mm for 4x6 or 5x7 prints you won't be able to tell the difference, but if you are shooting for money or larger prints, the 28mm will resolve much higher clarity especially in the corners on FX.
2152800
Great，I use the sigma 30mm f2.8 lens, it's just approximate 1 pound. I bought it cost $449 with 18-55 and sigma 30mm lens is 120 dollar~
2154579
IQ wise the 28-135mm is the superior lens. There is less barrel and pincushion distortion, and FAR fewer chromatic aberrations. And sharpness is more consistent across the focal range. I had the 18-135 on my T3i and then the 60D, and in order to get a sharp image, the lens had to be stopped down to at least f8 on the wide end and f11 on the tele end. And even then, at some focal lengths, the pictures were just plain soft no matter what. There was a significant amount of corner and edge blurring, especially at the wide end. And at the tele end, my oh my, the CA! Not just at the edges, either - color fringing was very noticeable well into the frame. The 28-135, on the other hand, is pretty sharp at its widest apertures throughout the range and quite good stopped down one stop narrower than its maximum opening at any given focal length. And pictures have very good corner and edge sharpness across the entire focal range. While image stabilization is superior on the 18-135mm, by the time you stop it down enough to get a sharp picture, you're still running up on using slower shutter speeds (which equals motion blurred images), using high ISOs and/or flash. The 28-135 lets you avail yourself of more light, so you can shoot at lower ISOs or increase the shutter speed a tad to compensate for its less sophisticated image stabilization. By the way, image stabilization on the 28-135 is effective. It's just not quite as effective as the 18-135. About the 18 vs 28mm at the wide end--unless you're shooting indoors in smallish rooms a lot, you probably aren't going to notice the difference. Looking at the EXIF data of 18-135mm sample images on the web, I've noticed that most of them are shot toward the tele end of the zoom. I certainly tend to zoom at least a little with nearly everything I photograph. I much prefer the 28-135. It focuses faster and more quietly, I can shoot at wider apertures for better bokeh and more light, and it produces great pictures with a minimum of distortion and CA.
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.
150329
Stay with the 200. Vignette is minimal to none and the clarity of the 18-200 is very impressive. Clear and sharp edge to edge(this impressed me the most.) You wont miss the 300 and you can take the money savings and apply to another lens.