Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 v/s Nikon 18-200 VR

[job38]

I (think) I've narrowed it down to the following:

Sigma 50-150 f/2.8
Nikon 18-200 VR

Now I know a lot of you don't like the the mega-zooms, but I'm no semi-pro. Ideally, I'd like just two lenses;
the above for general use and my Sigma 10-20 for inreriors/Architecture (business) and landscapes.

????????????????????

[cab]

job38 said:

I (think) I've narrowed it down to the following:

Sigma 50-150 f/2.8
Nikon 18-200 VR

Now I know a lot of you don't like the the mega-zooms, but I'm no semi-pro. Ideally, I'd like just two lenses;
the above for general use and my Sigma 10-20 for inreriors/Architecture (business) and landscapes.

????????????????????

been debating whether to get 18-200 VR before the next holiday. Reviews seems to be quite contradictory with some people raving abt it (Ken R) and others saying it is juts a big compromise.... and suffers as a result of it.

Any views on the 18-200 would be much appreciated...

Hope im not hijaking the OP....

Thanks CAB

[poah]

the sigma by far.

[cab]

can i ask why you think this is the case???

[poah]

better optics and larger aperture. would you even consider the nikon if it did not have VR?

[cab]

The OP wanted something to compliment his 10-20 the 18-200 would appear to cover all the bases. 50-150 would appear to be a little limiting...

Like i said before Ken R seemed to ravge abt the 18-200, others however would seem to disagree...

[job38]

The Nikon 18-200 VR appears to be a 'Marmite lens' people seem to either love 'em or hate 'em

Good point tough, would you buy the Nikon if it didn't have VR, doubt it.

Don't know anyone who's got the Sigma 50-150 though?

I think I could live without the missing bit in the middle, the 20-50....

[cab]

Agree at c £500 it would be nive not have to take a punt though !!

[poah]

sigma 50-150 and 17-50 tamron lol

cab said:

The OP wanted something to compliment his 10-20 the 18-200 would appear to cover all the bases. 50-150 would appear to be a little limiting...

Like i said before Ken R seemed to ravge abt the 18-200, others however would seem to disagree...

[SGirl]

What about the Nikon 24-120mm? That's quite good, and it's got VR.

[-DeaDLocK-]

EDIT: Sorry I was waxing lyrical about the 70-200 without realising you were on about the 18-200. No idea on this one. Sorry!

Edited by -DeaDLocK- on Sunday 1st April 18:23

[nelly111s]

I've got the 18-200. I think it's fantastic. I wouldn't buy it without VR, but it has and I did.

Why do I think it's fantastic - because, for me, it does what I want, which is a good all round lens. I used to use primes - better quality pictures, but not always better pictures. Why did I always have the wrong lens on at the right moment? I can't be bothered carrying too much gear anymore, so this lens hits the spot.

Nelly

[trackdemon]

SGirl said:

What about the Nikon 24-120mm? That's quite good, and it's got VR.

Excellent lens; I've got one. f2.8 at 24mm + VR makes it useful for all kinds of things, or just gives a little insurance when a tripod is unuseable / unavailable. 120mm is enough zoom for me most of the time. Nice crisp images; although it does lose a little when you go wide open.

[cab]

nelly111s said:

I've got the 18-200. I think it's fantastic. I wouldn't buy it without VR, but it has and I did.

Why do I think it's fantastic - because, for me, it does what I want, which is a good all round lens. I used to use primes - better quality pictures, but not always better pictures. Why did I always have the wrong lens on at the right moment? I can't be bothered carrying too much gear anymore, so this lens hits the spot.

Nelly

Think the range does it for me - on holiday at the mo and changing lenses esp in a dusty environment is turning out to be a complete mare. May try and find someone with a liberal return policy........any suggestions as to who that vedor would be is of course much appreciated ;-)

[Mr Whippy]

cab said:

and others saying it is juts a big compromise.... and suffers as a result of it.

It is just one big compromise.

Depends what you want though.

I wanted a do it all (ish) lens and it's been on my camera since day one, but I've also wanted about three other lenses since and could have bought them all for the same cost as that ONE 18-200...


I'm still in two minds about it myself, and the real test has been using it and for all it's worth it's not THAT great in itself in every field... but it's not meant to be really.

All it really does because of the VR is give you a bit more time to play with at longer shutter speeds, but not much below 1/20th, and then you have the issue of subject movement, which is where the faster lenses (which this is trying to get it to mimic in some ways) win over. So the VR makes it better in maybe 20% of disciplines.

Chromatic abberation isn't so hot at times, but I'm not sure you'd get better without getting a decent long prime anyway, which might cost more than this whole lens... lots of corner shading at 200mm and wide open, so stopping down is always a good idea to get a picture you won't crop, so the VR helps if the subject isn't moving too much... Build quality not so great for the lens type and cost...

Certainly not the only lens you'll want, and that in itself makes it rather pointless.

So it's good, at times it's excellent, then at the same time it can be complete crap

I guess if you had a few lenses then you wouldn't even HAVE the option of doing some of the things it does badly, so you'd swap to the lens that does it well. Can't really win I guess... hahaha, hard to sum up really.

If you can afford it get it, but I'd like to think that the Sigma would be the better lens (for doing the shots within it's range), and wish I'd got THAT, kept my stock 18-70 (which I still have, doh need to sell it) and then get a nice wide ish indoor fast prime...
But then I think thats three lenses to carry round rather than just the one on the camera and maybe a second...

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Friday 30th March 14:51

[Biker.ie]

One huge problem in the field (sports & motoring event anyway) is the level of dust everywhere, so chopping & changing limited range lens's & primes is the last thing you need, maybe get another another body or two. 18-200mm covers practically everything, with zero chance of dust bunnies on the sensor and VR means you won't even have to try and they'll still be sharp, get a 50mm f/1.8d for low-light situations then.

[VxDuncan]

Using one lens such as the 18-200 won't stop you getting dust on the sensor. One of the main causes of dust is the lens sucking in air when it's zoomed, then blowing it on the sensor. From this point of view it may be worse than many lenses as, unlike expensive pro lenses, it isn't sealed and expands a massive amount, growing to about 2.5 time it's length, so sucking in more air than a std. zoom.

My cheap 18-125 never stopped depositing dust on my 300D sensor even though it was my only lens.

[cab]

VxDuncan said:

Using one lens such as the 18-200 won't stop you getting dust on the sensor. One of the main causes of dust is the lens sucking in air when it's zoomed, then blowing it on the sensor. From this point of view it may be worse than many lenses as, unlike expensive pro lenses, it isn't sealed and expands a massive amount, growing to about 2.5 time it's length, so sucking in more air than a std. zoom.

My cheap 18-125 never stopped depositing dust on my 300D sensor even though it was my only lens.

hsve to sdmit i never took this into account, however, zooming the lense cant let more dust in v. when you actaully exchange leses.... quite prepared to be proven worng :-)

[Mr Whippy]

cab said:

VxDuncan said:

Using one lens such as the 18-200 won't stop you getting dust on the sensor. One of the main causes of dust is the lens sucking in air when it's zoomed, then blowing it on the sensor. From this point of view it may be worse than many lenses as, unlike expensive pro lenses, it isn't sealed and expands a massive amount, growing to about 2.5 time it's length, so sucking in more air than a std. zoom.

My cheap 18-125 never stopped depositing dust on my 300D sensor even though it was my only lens.

hsve to sdmit i never took this into account, however, zooming the lense cant let more dust in v. when you actaully exchange leses.... quite prepared to be proven worng :-)

I've heard of this.

Lets put it this way though. I've been out alot with the camera and not had a speck of dust, then one day I took the lens of to show someone and voila, three specks of dust on the mirror (not sensor)... and that was indoors being careful!

I think the pumping of dust is an issue, but vs the exposure of the bits during swapping lenses it's probably tiny in comparison.

Dave