Sigma has two lenses [18-250mm f3.5-f6.3] one is std Telephoto and one is w/MACRO.What is the physical/design difference between them ?
604835
Disclaimer: I am not a photographer nor do I know much about optics. I own the Macro. Which is 470 grams as opposed to the 600+ grams of the std lens. Also my understanding is that even at high zoom it can be used as a Marco lens. E.g. I used my Nikon 200 mm at full zoom to look at a close object (2-3 feet away) and it would not focus where as the Sigma lens did.
604836
My advice is to go to DPReview, which is an excellent resource for looking at digital cameras. That is where I get my info. My lens will focus only to ~ 8", so I'm guessing that the macro lens can get closer. Enjoy - it's an awesome camera!
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
2251843
Image quality is good ...but not better than my Pentax 55-300mm and 17- 70mm Lens, changing lenses is not easy in outdoor photography....so the Sigma 18-250 is very useful.
1264649
That's a long answer that is best described here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/sigma-30mm-f1-4-dc-hsm-vs-sigma-30mm-f1-4-ex-dc In short, the DC HSM is the newer model with improvements in build quality and manual focusing.
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.
1506918
It has both and one really great lens I would recommend it too anyone!!! Also great macro use if you want to use it for that!!!
1646078
Both lenses are excellent and brilliantly sharp. The Sigma is less expensive. The Canon focuses more quickly, a little, no macro lenses are fast. It should come down to what focal length you want. Canon offers an IS version of the macro. The stabilization is nice if you hand hold, but doubles the price and weight.
617202
The 600 appears to be a standard telephoto zoom (600-1300mm, f/8 - f/16) while the 500 is a reflecting telescope design (mirror) with a fixed focal length and aperture (f/8) that can be converted to 1000mm by adding the included doubler. These are both very inexpensive lenses for these focal lengths!
1565241
The non-macro version is the older model of this lens and uses 72mm filters. The macro version is the new and improved version, uses 62mm filters and is manufactured somewhat differently. I believe the new macro version is supposed to be a bit smaller overall and lighter than the older version.
1756271
I am a serious amateur. After comparing both lens, I concluded that the sigma is a better deal.After purchasing the Sigma I could not be happier with my purchase, it's an excellent lens for the money, I love it!
1857982
I have no idea as I have never used a Sigma lens. I know with my Tamron... I do get good shots with it. Only problem is using it runs my battery down faster. Sorry couldnt help, but I love mine.
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.
108984
The contempporary version of sigma 17-70 has an upgraded array of optics, and is lighter compared to the initial version of Sigma´s 17-70, and more compatible with newer camera models ie canon60D. This is the reason beneath the price difference. I am quite happy with my choice. Lens performance is great, image sharpness is outstanding!
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.
901099
hello. not sure about the sigma, but i've been able to use the tamron pro SP X1.4 TC w/ the Nikon 300mm, F/4 lens w/ good results.
1249481
Yeah, Diverhank nailed it - two very different lenses. Important to note that the 50mm 1.4 is NOT a macro lens and that was something you mentioned in your initial post. I used the 50mm on my T2i and absolutely loved it, though I eventually upgraded (and much preferred) the Sigma 30mm 1.4 for the "normal" focal length on the crop-sensor. I now shoot a full frame and primarily use the 50mm but will likely get the 100mm shortly. Be sure to take a look at the Sigma 30mm before buying the 50mm Canon but if Macro is what you're looking for, you can't go wrong with the 100mm L.
2163871
I am using Sigma 150mm f2.8 AF APO EX DG OS HSM for Canon. I don't have any problem to use f2.8 at 1:1. Using a tripod to shoot at flat object first to see if you can get a focused image. If you do, then the lens is good. At f2.8 and 1:1, DOF is almost 0, means that you only have a "point", or a "flat" image in focus. Macro lens using f2.8 at 1:1 has its use, may be doesn't fit for one of your applications.
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.