Sigma 18-200mm vs Nikkor

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by rayjay86, Oct 23, 2011.

  1. rayjay86 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    #1
    Hey guys,

    Wondering if any of you SLR buffs can weigh in here. I bought a Sigma 10-20mm lens over the summer and absolutely love it but I find that while it's great for those shots of a monument or a landscape where you want to "take it all in" it's not at all useful for anything at range.

    I sold a Sigma 28-200mm lens to get some money towards this one but now I'm missing it.

    I was looking into the 18-200mm lenses and hoping to get one that has VR/OS. I came across the Sigma and the Nikkor version on Amazon.com

    Anyone tried either of these? I'm not too well versed on the more techy aspects of lenses such as "3.5-5.6G". What is the G? Or VRII versus VR? These kinds of things.

    Advice appreciated :)
     
  2. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #2
    G= no aperture ring, meaning it will work on digital SLRs only.
    VR = Vibration Reduction, meaning it will compensate for a little shaking and give you a sharp shot
    VR 2 = Improved VR


    I cannot weigh in on the lenses as I am not a huge fan of SuperZooms but if you want to go for lenses that have to have some trade off, I would go with the manufacturer's own, e.g. Nikon

    Just my 2 cents
     
  3. rayjay86 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    #3
    Thanks! Appreciate the input. The only reason I was considering the sigma is because a. It's almost $300 cheaper and B. I've found sigma lenses to be quite good. I'm not a pro by any means; I just wanted to know if there were any glaring differences between the two that would justify such a big price differnce
     
  4. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #4
    The MTF charts for the Nikon are significantly better zoomed out and zoomed in. The difference in image quality should be quite noticeable. However, "justify" is a qualitative analysis, and only you can say if the quality difference is "worth it."

    Like flosseR, I'm not a fan of superzooms because to me it's not "worth it" to trade the sacrifice in image quality for the convenience of not carrying and changing multiple lenses.

    Here's my thinking- if you truly want a superzoom, then save up for the Nikon or look at the Tamron 18-270- it sucks like other superzooms, but you'll get more range. Since it appears lensrentals doesn't rent the Sigma anymore, rent the Tamron and Nikon from them and compare the two on your camera shooting what you'd normally shoot- you'll immediately be able to see if the price difference is "worth it" to you. If it's not, you'll get an extra 70mm of zoom with the Tamron.

    Alternately (what I'd probably do in the same situation)-

    Buy the Nikon 70-300 ($589) and either the 35mm f/1.8 ($199) or 50mm f/1.8 AF-S ($220.) You'll get better lenses at the expense of having to zoom with your feet a bit. Better yet, get all three- that should keep you pretty set all-around and will only set you back about $150 more than the Nikon 18-200.

    Paul

    ----------

    Just to nit-pick, G lenses will only work on modern cameras which can control the aperture electronically- many Nikon film bodies will operate with G lenses, though some like the 8008 (released back in what, 1991?,) N70 and N90 will only do so in P and S modes. The latest Nikon film body, the F6 will work normally, as will the F4 and F5.

    Paul
     
  5. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #5
    see, I learn something new every day :)

    That 70-300,50 and 35 mm combo you suggested would produce stunning images :) Of course if the OP is after portability then yes a super zoom... :) It's also a small weight difference I guess.
     
  6. rayjay86 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    #6
    I've got the 50mm 1.8 that I bought last year for only $110 used. It's a nice and fast lens but my friend has been pushing me onto that 35mm that you mentioned. Is there really much of a difference? As you said I'd have to zoom with my feet over anything else.
    I like your suggestion of the 70-300mm + prime lens combo. I'm hanging on to my Sigma 10-20 as I love it so much so that won't be leaving my collection.

    I have the Nikon D5000. I know there are some lenses that have autofocus restrictions when it comes to certain cameras, any with this camera body?

    My Sigma for instance as you mentioned has no instant manual override, I have to set that through the camera settings which was a little annoying but I got used to it in the end.
     
  7. DW58 macrumors regular

    DW58

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Location:
    Scotland
    #7
    Although I can't specifically speak for the Nikon-fit Sigma 80-200, I use Canon- when I was looking for a similar lens a couple of years ago I did a comparison of Canon's EF-S 18-200mmIS borrowed from a friend and the Sigma 18-200mm which my brother-in-law owns. I took a fairly large number of images with both lenses on the EOS40D I then used (now my second body) and gave them a fairly critical comparison.

    In my opinion, the Canon lens was head and shoulders better than the Sigma equivalent, so I bought that one and am delighted with it.

    I have no prejudice against Sigma - I own and use their 10-20mm zoom which I love.

    Hope this helps in your decision, but I'd certainly go with the Nikkor lens.
     
  8. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #8
    The 35mm will give you a "normal" perspective on the camera- overall, you'll probably find it a useful companion to the 50mm. It's 44 degrees vs ~31, more useful for group shots and half way between the 20mm and 50mm. If your 50mm autofocuses, then you'll be all set- if your 50mm isn't AF-S then the AF-S version will autofocus on the D5k, older AF-D lenses won't AF on that body, so if it's a Nikon brand lens, just look for AF-S in the name.

    Paul
     
  9. DaReal_Dionysus macrumors regular

    DaReal_Dionysus

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    #9
    Sigma does not compete nikkor! Sigma is nothing but a knock off and it shows when you use them. Sigma = garbage
     
  10. rayjay86 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    #10
    THanks Paul, appreciate the advice.


    I wouldn't go that far. I do have some Sigma lenses and have had some in the past that were not bad and a fair alternative to an extremely expensive Nikon lens. The 10-20mm is my current favourite lens and it's a Sigma.
     
  11. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #11
    That is very far fetched at best. The sigma 85mm f1.4, the 30mm 1.4 and even the 50mm f1.4 are amazing lenses and the 85mm is arguably better in some respects than the Nikon counterpart. The other lens that is great, if you can find it is the 100-300mm f4 Sigma.

    Sigma is not garbage, by far. they have some Q&A issues, or had but i personally have never had a bad copy, including my 70-200 HSM 2 which was amazingly sharp and worked flawlessly.

    Saying that sigma is garbage is like saying that Hoya filters are garbage. Some might very well be but overall Hoya makes some very good filters. Even compared to someone like B & W..but cheaper.
     
  12. Ravaroo macrumors 6502

    Ravaroo

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Location:
    feels like Canada South
    #12
    if you're willing to go the used route, I'd take a look @ ebay or even Craigslist (if you live in the US) for the 70-300. I was able to pick up mine in excellent condition for $375 from a seller on Craigs. Assuming that you can find a similar deal, a new 35 1.8 could be purchased for $200 on top of that and would still be less than the 18-200 by itself
     
  13. rayjay86 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    #13
    Thanks Ravaroo.

    I don't live in the US. I'm in Vancouver but people here have things shipped to Blaine, WA all the time because we're so close to the border so Amazon.com has some great deals. Don't really have the opportunity to do the CL route though because the amount of time and gas I'd spend driving to seattle, I might as well take the price hit :p

    I think I'm going to go with the Sigma 70-300 OS. A friend of mine has it on his D5000 and he loves it, no issues from him; he doesn't have the OS version so he suggested I get that, especially for the higher end zoom.

    I'm still torn between a 50mm and 35mm f/1.8 from Nikon though. I really like Bokeh in my background and I've read some reviews suggesting that the 50mm will give me that slightly better than the 35. I have a 50mm but it's from my brothers D50 and it's AF so it doesn't autofocus with my D5k which is annoying.
     
  14. rayjay86 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    #14
    Oh as an aside, can someone tell me what's going on here.

    Attached is a picture of the AF 50mm lens I have that I mentioned will not AF on my D5000.

    On the bottom of the lens is a series of f stops and I can move that ring. However when it is set to anything other than f/22 and I try and take a pic on my camera, two little red lights flash (within the view finder) and it won't take the photo.

    Anyone know why?
     

    Attached Files:

  15. telecomm macrumors 65816

    telecomm

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Location:
    Rome
    #15
    Your camera sets the aperture electronically, but you lens (as it's not a G lens) lets you manually adjust the aperture as well. With electronic aperture control on a compatible lens which also has manual aperture control you need to lock the mechanical control on the lens.
     
  16. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #16
    Actually slightly incorrect.
    the Aperture WILL effectively be controlled on that camera.The lens will not work if the aperture is not set to wide open (f1.8), the notch that controls the Aperture is available on that camera. No problem there.
    It's the AF that will not work. The d5XXX and D3XXX series are consumer cameras and as such Nikon decided to leave the focus motor out of them. IF you want to AF on your camera you need to buy an AF-S lens (50mm AF-s, 35mm AF-s etc. etc.)
     
  17. rayjay86 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    #17
    Did exactly that. Sold this lens to the owner of a D7000 and ordered myself a 35mm AF-S on Amazon.

    If you give me a convincing enough argument as to why I should've gone with the 50mm AF-S before 5pm MST today I can cancel my Amazon purchase before it ships :)
     
  18. telecomm macrumors 65816

    telecomm

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Location:
    Rome
    #18
    Yes, the aperture can be controlled on this lens by the camera, but AFAIK, can't be controlled by the ring on the lens. CPU lenses are supposed to have their mechanical apertures locked at the highest f-stop.
     
  19. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #19
    uhm.. it's not locked.. its open.. that's it. And no, with an AF-d lens you cannot control the aperture at the same time as using it on a digital SLR. That's why the lock mechanism is on the lens.

    @rayjay86: about buying a 50mm. the debate of 50mm vs 35mm is up for grabs. Personally the 35mm does not do it for me, the 50mm does.. but that is anyone's taste really...
     
  20. telecomm macrumors 65816

    telecomm

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Location:
    Rome
    #20
    Uhh... I think we're just misunderstanding each other. Here's a quote from page 19 of the D5000 (OP's camera) manual.

    "In the case of CPU lenses equipped with an aperture ring, lock aperture at the minimum setting (highest f-number)."
     
  21. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #21

    Uhm, I have a 50mm AF-D and its locked at... HAAHHA.. wow.. ok i recant my statement. Yes its locked at its minimum aperture.. funny enough it LOOKS as if it were on 1.8 because the switch is there but the point which designates the actual f-stop is on f22..

    wow .. learn something new every day...

    Still that has nothing to do with AF which is what the OP was after :)
     
  22. telecomm macrumors 65816

    telecomm

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Location:
    Rome
    #22
    I think if you check post 14 you'll find that the OP was asking why he can't take photos when the aperture ring is set to anything other than f/22. ;)

    Anyway, I'm sure rayjay86 has this all figured out by now. :)

    I've got both the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S and the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S, and like them both quite a bit. I got the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S so it would autofocus on my old D60 and got the 35mm later. I wouldn't want to be limited to just one, but I find myself shooting lots of events where the 35mm tends to be more useful. As a general purpose lens, I'd definitely recommend the 35mm over the 50mm.
     
  23. rayjay86 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    #23
    Haha Rayjay86 certainly has not figured it out...I had to cancel my Amazon order because of a problem with me being able to go across the border to pick it up. I'm thrown back into the lens debate question though and now I don't have that original 50mm AF-D lens anymore either.

    A friend of mine shoots with a 35mm AF-S and he said he loves it. There price difference is about $40 on most US online stores like Amazon...Canadian stores really get you on prices.

    What do you guys think about the Sigma 70-300 OS for Nikon. I know people mentioned Nikkor being much better but it's a moot point because no matter where I look, the Nikkor is easily $200+ more than the Sigma and I just don't have that kind of cash right now. I won't be using the 70-300 a lot, mainly when I'm out in the bush (moving to Australia) for wildlife shooting.

    If the Sigma is that much worse though would you say hold off on it or is there another similarly priced lens that you would suggest for zoom?
     
  24. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #24
    Hi, I would say for "wildlife" photography, especially long vocals, get the best you can afford. The nikon 70-300 is pricey for a reason. It is REALLY good, especially if you have god daylight. The Sigma is soso at best. I don't personally think that the cheaper zooms are any good from Sigma, once you reach higher altitudes in price, their quality increases significantly. The Nikon 70-300 can also be obtained used and it is a very good lens.
     
  25. Artful Dodger macrumors 68020

    Artful Dodger

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Location:
    In a false sense of reality...My Mind!
    #25
    I can say from using and having most of these mentioned I'll list the why's per se.

    I just received the Nikkor 35mm, great lens, can't say enough about it and wish I was able to get it sooner but it's all good.
    I bought the Nikkor 50mm & 18-200mm at the same time. I really like the 18-200mm for what it is. With that said, it's sharp and has a nice feel overall for a superzoom at that level. There are plenty of forums for the 18-200 and folks there are tickled with them. I have this on my backup camera now and my girlfriend will be getting a good deal of use from it as well.

    As for the 50mm, I'm way happier with the 35mm and could toss the 50mm away for all I care. It's just not for me.

    I ended up getting two other lenses this past summer, the 16-85mm & 70-300mm. I use both all the time. However since getting the 35mm I may use the 16-85 a bit less but time will tell.
    The 70-300 has been great for me with regards to some sports, mild wildlife and a few air shows. I had a friend use my camera with the 70-300 on it for an air show while I shot some video and his photos came out very well considering he never used a dslr prior to that day so a big plus to the Nikon VR for the most part.

    There are other ranges to check out if cost is an issue but to be honest if you use a tripod or monopod then maybe the 70-300 without the VR, just a thought.
     

Share This Page