Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS vs. Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR
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.
1891733
I have this 105 and the 105DC both are great for portraits. I don't like the fact that this lens changes aperture when you get in closer but it does have VR.
572666
Owning both the 55-200VR and the 70-300VR and have compared not only both but two copies of the 55-200 on two Nikon DX cameras against the 70-300. Viewing was done on two hi-def monitors (25" and 27") using close to two thousand pics. Bottom line- the 70-300 blows away the 55-200. It is not even close. The MUCH heavier 70-300 is considerably sharper, colors are balanced and accurate (as they are on the 55-200) but much richer, brighter, with better contrast and much better bokeh. Skin tones and portraits in particular are wonderful with the 70-300. Downside on the 70-300 is that it is heavier. I have read some comments that the 70-300 begins losing sharpness after 200mm but my copy is super sharp at all focal lengths. If you are a serious amature and can justify the price go for the 70-300.
990745
Congrats on the D5000 (and both great lenses you have). Be sure and get that 35mm down the road, believe me it will probably be the best 200$ you'll ever spend if you do any shooting indoors. I have tons of other lenses (including a 50mm f/1.4) so I held off for a while on getting the 35mm f/1.8, once I did finally get it I was kicking myself for not getting it sooner, it's that good. Happy shooting.
1736483
It's worth every penny, especially if you take portrait shots. I do not have the 18-200, but I have the 16-85 VRII. While the 16-85 is a great lens for outdoor shots, landscape and group photos, the quality of portrait I get from the 85 1.8 (or any prime lens for that matter) is way above any all around zoom. Most pictures I take with this lens are worth keeping.
2252858
It's probably a matter of personal preference, however, it was my preference not to change lenses while 'out and about' and I could avoid carry a second lens. The 18-200 lens is obviously heavier that either of the smaller lenses, but it works so beautifully that after I got it, I seldom used the other 2.
466982
I don't have the 200 f/2.8, but I do have the 70-200 f/4, and the 300 f/4. The 300 is an excellent prime lens. I think the primary difference is the light gathering capacity, and I can live with that.
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
1272575
I have both the Tamron 17-50 and the 28-75 as well as the Tamron 28-300 that I shoot with the Nikon D200. I can't say if I prefer the 17-50 over 28-75 but I love both of them and find I use them both depending on what I'm shooting. If I could afford only 1 lens it would probably be the 28-75 for my type of shooting. If you;'e shooting large groups of people or need the wider angle then I'm sure 17-50 may serve you better.
155655
Love my Sigma. It is fantastic lens for the money. If video is a requirement, I recommend the Sony. The OSS makes for much better video. BTW - when I shoot video, I change to 16-50 lens with OSS.
39229
If your are deciding between a 35mm and this lens.. I would ask.. What do you plan to shoot? If you need a wide lens for landscapes I suggest the 18 - 50... If you are looking for a portrait or low fstop fixed lense for close ups I say go with the 1.8 35mm. If your asking Nikon versus sigma.. I would say you get what you pay for. As far as the sigma performance... I use the lense quite often. I shoot in low light bars and venues and the lens is covered in beer..The lens is great for low light shooting at 18mm. I usually switch to a 50mm if I need a closer shot.
423677
If you are going to stick with a DX sensor Nikon for a while, then I think the 18-300mm is your best value. The image quality is going to be very comparable to the 28-300mm, plus the 18-300 has these advantages for the DX shooter: - It starts at 18mm, so you have much wider coverage for landscape shots or tight spaces - It's smaller and lighter. Since this is going to be an all-purpose travel lens, this will be very helpful - It's about $150 less - If you ever go up to FX / full-frame, you can always sell this lens down the road and recoup about 65-75% of the original cost Enjoy!
1253004
I have the exact same question. Please do post your findings. I am confused too. Apparently 18-200 is supposed to have larger zoom but I want to make sure that the quality of 18-200 matches to 18-135 at the least upto 135 mm. If so i will go with 18-200 for sure.
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.
582403
Before I bought my 18-200, I was often disappointed that I'd miss that great shot because I had the exact wrong lens on my camera (If I had the 18-55, I'd inevitably see something moving in the distance that I'd wanted to shoot,etc..). By the time I'd switched, the opportunity was often gone. The 18-200 meant less missed shots.
2052961
The 24-85 is an excellent lens that I use on my D700. However for a DX camera the 18-55mm VR is an excellent optical performer,lighter and costs less. It will also provide you with a wider angle than the 24-85. Keep in mind that the 24-85 on a DX will have the focal equivalent of 36-127mm.
1192318
I am extremely pleased with my 18-140. I do not own the 18-200, but I have handled it. The 18-140 is a bit lighter, and handles a bit quicker. It is sharper than my 18-105, especially at the wider focal lengths, where most pictures are taken.