Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS vs. Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR: I have experienced that after drinking BSN True mass it's upsetting my stomach and also having a problem of gas.Is there anybody who have also this problem??
1046019
The link for the comparison at cameralabs.com is not applicable because it tested the Sigma 18-200 DC prior to the release of the OS version. The OS version is much better optically than its predecessor and also includes HSM (High Speed Motor). I have read test reviews and comparisons at other sites such as popphoto that indicate the Sigma is sharper and has less distortion than the Nikon 18-200 VR, but they also state it is slightly louder. I just received my Sigma 18-200 OS today and have done limited testing, but I can tell you the AF and OS noise are not bad (the OS chirps when it turns on and off). The Sigma AF is louder than my Nikon 18-135 (w/SWM), but quieter than the AF on my Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime (wo/SWM). The HSM AF seems just as fast as my Nikon lenses. The build quality feels better than the Nikon 18-135; the zoom is smooth and solid. The first things I tested today were barrel distortion and OS functionality. Barrel distortion is present at the wide end on ALL wide-range zooms, but the Sigma controls it better. The Sigma has noticeably less barrel distortion at 18mm than my Nikon. This benefit of the Sigma is moot really, because barrel distortion of both lenses can easily be corrected with software. The OS functions very well, I can shoot hand-held down to 1/10th of a second with no blur. I will post again after I have time to do more testing.
547366
I love my 60mm and am unfamiliar with the 85. But If sterility is an issue then I would consider the NIKKOR-Micro 105mm f/2.8 lens. It is more expensive than the 60mm or the 85mm but well worth it for the increased working space it allows you. If you're going to be doing a lot of medical work you'd appreciate this.
2123502
If you hear a click before and after focus and release the shutter in your camera is totally normal....switch the VR off and you will notice that the click disappears...not big deal is totally normal...actually i have a few lenses that click in some way when the VR or OS or VC is ON....for me the results are that really matters...however..without the Vr if the noise of "click" is there then you should call nikon or if you can return for an exchange....good luck...I have thus lens and i made an extensive research about it...plus, I have another lenses like the 105 sigma OS macro and tamron 70-300 VC that some way make some "click" when the VC,OS, or VR is on... If you hear a click before and after focus and release the shutter in your camera is totally normal....switch the VR off and you will notice that the click disappears...not big deal is totally normal...actually i have a few lenses that click in some way when the VR or OS or VC is ON....for me the results are that really matters...however..without the Vr if the noise of "click" is there then you should call nikon or if you can return for an exchange....good luck...I have thus lens and i made an extensive research about it...plus, I have another lenses like the 105 sigma OS macro... » Read More If you hear a click before and after focus and release the shutter in your camera is totally normal....switch the VR off and you will notice that the click disappears...not big deal is totally normal...actually i have a few lenses that click in some way when the VR or OS or VC is ON....for me the results are that really matters...however..without the Vr if the noise of "click" is there then you should call nikon or if you can return for an exchange....good luck...I have thus lens and i made an extensive research about it...plus, I have another lenses like the 105 sigma OS macro and tamron 70-300 VC that some way make some "click" when the VC,OS, or VR is on... « Show Less
2118676
hihave to say . for the hype and good looks of this lens i was a tad unhappy and found it a bit soft .i have since sold it on . purchased the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 ( first verdion non VR which is optically better ! ) and WOW !! this lens never leaves my camera and is tak sharp and fast with great bokeh . No competition this tamron and the new tamron 70-300 VR are simply killers . The Tamrom 17-50mm f2.8 for the money is the best out there ( in my view )
1276663
I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut yourself on the sharpness. LOL. I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut... » Read More I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut yourself on the sharpness. LOL. « Show Less
537013
TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the cards too. TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the... » Read More TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the cards too. « Show Less
1966952
Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated.
506468
In same boat, Bob. I'm buying the D80. Cheaper, and less weight/bulk. I test drove a 30D and did not like the ergonomics. Have been waiting for a D70s replacement, and it's here!
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
2251841
I do own a 18-50mm on my Rebel.. and this one is for my Nikon... But I really can't distinguish any differences since I am pretty new to the hobby. But I find it very easy now to just have one lens on all the time .. with my canon I would always have to keep changing from my 15-50mm to my zoom lens a lot and it takes too much time plus you have to carry another lens with you. So far so good.. its a really awesome lens.. and all my friends think its cool!
465322
I have had both lenses and with a crop sensor I like the 10-22mm better than this one even though it's not L glass. I used to shoot a lot of events and nightlife and wanted that ultra wide look without going completely fisheye and the 10-22 is perfect for that. With a crop sensor the 17-40 won't look as wide as if you had it on a full frame camera. Again it just depends what you are trying to accomplish with the lens but if I had to do it all over again and had another crop sensor cam I would buy the 10-22mm without questioning it. I only traded in my 10-22mm for the 17-40mm when I sold my 7D and got a 5D MKIII. I have had both lenses and with a crop sensor I like the 10-22mm better than this one even though it's not L glass. I used to shoot a lot of events and nightlife and wanted that ultra wide look without going completely fisheye and the 10-22 is perfect for that. With a crop sensor the 17-40 won't look as wide as if you had it on a full frame camera. Again it just depends what you are trying to accomplish with the lens but if I had to do it all over again and had another crop sensor cam I would buy the 10-22mm without questioning it. I only traded in my 10-22mm for the 17-40mm when I sold my... » Read More I have had both lenses and with a crop sensor I like the 10-22mm better than this one even though it's not L glass. I used to shoot a lot of events and nightlife and wanted that ultra wide look without going completely fisheye and the 10-22 is perfect for that. With a crop sensor the 17-40 won't look as wide as if you had it on a full frame camera. Again it just depends what you are trying to accomplish with the lens but if I had to do it all over again and had another crop sensor cam I would buy the 10-22mm without questioning it. I only traded in my 10-22mm for the 17-40mm when I sold my 7D and got a 5D MKIII. « Show Less
1474695
Not that this will be of much help, but I'm with you. Ordered a 24mm 1.4 (later returned) expecting the same jaw-dropping results I get from the 85mm 1.4 and it's just not there that I can see. As far as your suggestion of getting closer to your subject for pop - sure, a wide angle lens will really exaggerate the perceived depth of a shot. That's how I'd roll with it for the most part; 2' from the subject (more for DX frame), avoiding top and bottom when shooting vertical (unless you want that edge distortion; maybe not so bad on DX). The sharpness you're looking for also won't exist until you get close enough to your subject to give eyelashes and things of that nature some pixels to work with. At 85mm, it pulls these details in and paints them across, say, 5% of the frame or more. With the 24mm you may be talking about less than 1% of the pixels dedicated to what you're looking for details in. I've seen some REALLY spectacular night landscape images that were made with this lens. Also, the bokeh that lens produces is right on par with the 85mm. The issues I had with the 24mm (and the reasons I returned it) were failure to find focus at 1.4 no matter how much I helped it along and a general lack of spectacular sharpness at 1.4. At this end of the price spectrum, this has to be gold. It's real close, and quite nice at 2.8, but so are lots of lenses at 2.8. That said, I've still got this lens on my mind. If it were a 20mm 1.4 I'd just suck it up and do it. At 24 there are some other close options out there.
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.
1526812
I had the Tamron first. I got it because it had good reviews, a lower price, and IS. Bottom line: it was very soft and had AWFUL back focusing issues over 50 mm. I sent it to Tamron for calibration and it came back worse. I ended up returning it and instead of getting another copy of the Tamron, got the Canon. Best decision I ever made. This is the sharpest lens I own, including all my primes. I was told by Tamron that 20% of their 24-70s have focus issues on the Mark III (which I have) due to the Mark III's focusing system and the Tamron not being totally compatible with it. I have a 60D as well and the Tamron also had back focus issues with that body as well, although slightly less. I would not hesitate to recommend the Canon, bar none.
2078344
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise. Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
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.
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