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.
24765
I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos at effective focal length of 1000mm. This does require use of manual focus mode. I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos... » Read More I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos at effective focal length of 1000mm. This does require use of manual focus mode. « Show Less
916481
I have been very happy with the 18-200mm. It was my first lens and remains a workhorse. I have since acquired a 28-135mm as part of a used setup and have yet to try it - there's been no need as the 18-200mm exceeds it in range.
1413083
If you want an all-purpose lens, get the cheap 18-200mm. The 28-300mm is just not a very good lens when you consider the price and weight and image quality. For that money, you could buy two very good lenses.
575221
I agree and have noticed that as well. I bought the older version and have been pleased with it. I have also not read complaints about the newer version. It may be as simple as supply and demand or something we are not aware of. You might check review sites just to make sure the version 2 is well rated and then go for it if it's cheaper. The 20MM has been a great lens, I have received compliments about my photo's and 9 times out of 10, it's taken with the 20mm.
1490177
I also have a Sigma 50-500mm (Bigma) that is highly rated, I find this lens to compare favorably and being much smaller much easier to get steady & sharp hand-hel results at 300mm. Took photos at a band concert a week ago (indoors) and was impressed that I could read the type on name tags music stand from a distance. Basically a very sharp lens for the money. I highly recommend.
1192317
I really like the 18-140. I also have the 55-300. At the time I was researching to purchase a new lens the 18-140 appeared to be the better choice. I went to the Nikon site and did a comparison between the 18-140, 18-200, and 18-300. The 18-140 was new, with the newer technology, lighter, and cheaper. For me, 18-140 focus quickly and it has the range I use most. I usually keep the 55-300 with me, so I'm covered in most situations.
632572
I own the 18-250mm and it is really sharp and a good lens. I was very surprised. Not sure of the Sigma but I know with the Tamron it is a bargain at that price.
24762
I can't speak for the Sigma, but the Nikon 18-300 DX lens is on my D7200 almost all the time. We're serious birders and I'm happy with the reach and sharpness of the Nikon lens. The 18" minimum distance focusing range from 18-300 mm is a real plus for photographing insects and flowers. The extreme light weight of the lens is a big plus as is the 18 mm wide angle for scenery. Focusing is a bit slow, especially in low light. Another comment re. the greater light gathering of the Sigma is probably spot on. I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma lens for that reason. So many bird photos are in dim dawn or sunset light or in shadow. I can't speak for the Sigma, but the Nikon 18-300 DX lens is on my D7200 almost all the time. We're serious birders and I'm happy with the reach and sharpness of the Nikon lens. The 18" minimum distance focusing range from 18-300 mm is a real plus for photographing insects and flowers. The extreme light weight of the lens is a big plus as is the 18 mm wide angle for scenery. Focusing is a bit slow, especially in low light. Another comment re. the greater light gathering of the Sigma is probably spot on. I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma lens for that reason. So many bird... » Read More I can't speak for the Sigma, but the Nikon 18-300 DX lens is on my D7200 almost all the time. We're serious birders and I'm happy with the reach and sharpness of the Nikon lens. The 18" minimum distance focusing range from 18-300 mm is a real plus for photographing insects and flowers. The extreme light weight of the lens is a big plus as is the 18 mm wide angle for scenery. Focusing is a bit slow, especially in low light. Another comment re. the greater light gathering of the Sigma is probably spot on. I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma lens for that reason. So many bird photos are in dim dawn or sunset light or in shadow. « Show Less
394030
agreed with the sentiments above. I have purchased the tamron 16-300, as well as the nikon 18-300 f6.3 and this lense. The difference with the nikon is noticeable. Not only in picture quality. But also in distance. the 300 on the tamron doesn't reach where the nikon does. granted the nikon 18-300 @300 doesn't match the nikon 55-300 @ 300 either. Also the movement, the tamron is much stiffer than the nikon options. A Great all day lense. Im working into prime lenses, and high quality fixed aperture lenses, but for now I still use this as my main glass.
2071193
Yes. It is WAY better in every aspect. Although it costs a bit more, the image quality is much higher with the Sony lens. The Sigma is very soft, especially above 300mm. I tried the Sigma and was not satisfied with the images. My Sony 70-400 never disappoints.
1640068
From what I can tell, the cheaper version is smaller and lighter. But, I don't know if that necessarily makes it a better lens. Here is the link to sigmas page for the more expensive lens: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-200mm-f35-63-ii-dc-os-hsm And here is the link to the less expensive one: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-200mm-f35-63-dc-macro-os-hsm-c I have the more expensive lens, and I have used it exclusively since I bought it. I've never shot with the other one though, so I can't accurately compare one to the other.
305770
The image quality (sharpness, contrast, bokeh) of this 28mm prime is vastly superior to that of the 28-300mm. Primes are going to beat zooms 9 times out of 10 when it comes to IQ anyway, but even moreso when compared to a super-zoom like the 28-300mm. The 24-70mm f2.8 would be a closer competitor, but still falls short when solely comparing IQ.For reference, I own both the 28mm and the 24-70mm, and have used the 28-300mm a handful of times.
608748
I have both for my Nikon D300s. Sigma 17-50 2.8 is a much better choice. Range in slightly narrower but indoor performance, portrait photography, and bikes are better.
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.
1974651
I've had the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens, and I can definitely say this will blow both of them away! This is essentially a high-quality upgrade from the kit lens, and in my opinion gives at least as good an image result as the 50mm prime - but with the range of a zoom. The 35mm I don't have experience with, but I would still bet that the Sigma would compete just fine :)
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