Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 29, 2009, 4:31 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maggo85 View Post
And what do you people think about the Sigma 18-250 with image stabilisation?
It is also a good superzoom lens, but it is also not as good as multiple lenses of less ambitious zoom ranges.

Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM (Tested)
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical IF Macro AF (Tested)
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (Tested)

vs. what you have

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (Tested)
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (Tested)
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2009, 6:16 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Woodstock, GA
Posts: 5
Default Sigma 18-250 as an all purpose vacation lens

I purchased one of these to test on my Canon 30D. I was thinking I would be sending it back after a week of trying it out, but I have not taken it off the camera since I got it! Well, ok, I took it off to test it against other lenses in my camera bag, and it equaled or outperformed every one of them, even the 70-200 f4 (non-IS) - hand held. The only thing I can't get it to do is really close macro images. But, I am recommending this lens to all my friends
I have a blog post about it at www.********************************.com/blog.
Hope this helps.
Wayne
wrasku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2009, 6:56 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrasku View Post
... and it equaled or outperformed every one of them, even the 70-200 f4 (non-IS) ...
Objective test data indicate otherwise.

Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM (Tested)

vs.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (Tested)
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2009, 11:54 AM   #14
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrasku View Post
I purchased one of these to test on my Canon 30D. I was thinking I would be sending it back after a week of trying it out, but I have not taken it off the camera since I got it! Well, ok, I took it off to test it against other lenses in my camera bag, and it equaled or outperformed every one of them, even the 70-200 f4 (non-IS) - hand held. The only thing I can't get it to do is really close macro images. But, I am recommending this lens to all my friends
I have a blog post about it at www.********************************.com/blog.
Hope this helps.
Wayne
i am glad you are happy with your lens, but seriously, that is not a test. and your conclusions are just wrong.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2009, 6:14 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Woodstock, GA
Posts: 5
Default To Each His Own (opinion)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
i am glad you are happy with your lens, but seriously, that is not a test. and your conclusions are just wrong.
Well, I agree that it is not a technical test as the post above linked to, however, as far as being wrong, I can't find anything wrong with this lens, especially since I can't afford L glass, and I was looking for a lens that would stay on my camera in most situations. If you look at the user reviews on B&H Photo, they seem to concur with my opinion. I do read the reviews before purchasing, which is why I mentioned that I was planning on sending this lens back after trying it out, but I'm telling you, this is a very good all purpose lens.
wrasku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2009, 8:26 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

If you're looking for convenience, the Sigma 18-250 OS is one of the best. But if you don't mind changing lenses, multiple lenses with less ambitious zoom ranges will provide better image quality, and they'll cost less.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2009, 9:37 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
maggo85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arzl im Pitztal/Austria/Europe
Posts: 1,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
If you're looking for convenience, the Sigma 18-250 OS is one of the best. But if you don't mind changing lenses, multiple lenses with less ambitious zoom ranges will provide better image quality, and they'll cost less.
I'm about to buy the Canon EOS 1000D (Rebel XS) with the 18-55 IS kit lens next month, and the Sigma 18-250 OS would be a perfect travel lens because I don't want to carry a bunch of lenses with me during my holiday in NYC
maggo85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2009, 10:07 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maggo85 View Post
I'm about to buy the Canon EOS 1000D (Rebel XS) with the 18-55 IS kit lens next month, and the Sigma 18-250 OS would be a perfect travel lens because I don't want to carry a bunch of lenses with me during my holiday in NYC
Absolutely.

If you're looking for convenience, a Superzoom is tough to beat, and the Sigma is one of the best.

But the kit lens plus a Tamron 70-300 Di LD weighs the same, has more range, provides better image quality, and it's a lot cheaper.

And the kit lens plus a Tamron 55-200 Di II LD weighs less, provides better image quality, and it's a lot cheaper.

I just point this out because convenience is fleeting. The images will last a lot longer than your unpleasant memories of having to carry and change lenses.

And think what the extra $300 could buy while you're on vacation in NYC. ... a nicer room. ... a better hotel. ... an extra day. ... two more theater tickets. ... an extra few minutes playing three card monte with a street vendor.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2009, 10:43 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
What you seem to be referring to is a superzoom lens. Superzoom lenses, in trying to do a lot, end up not doing anything well. If what you want is convenience, a superzoom lens is what you want. If quality is what you want, you'll be disappointed with a superzoom. They all have significant distortion at the wide end, significant chromatic aberration at the long end, and aren't very sharp anywhere in their range.

Both the Canon 18-200 IS and the Tamron 18-270 VC are among the best superzooms available, but neither of them is as good as your 18-55 IS where their ranges overlap.
In actual fact, the Canon 18-200mm IS is probably the worst superzoom around.
The Tamron 18-250mm is probably the best, along with the Nikon 18-200mm.
The Tamron 18-270mm falls between the two.
dnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2009, 11:24 AM   #20
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrasku View Post
Well, I agree that it is not a technical test as the post above linked to, however, as far as being wrong, I can't find anything wrong with this lens, especially since I can't afford L glass, and I was looking for a lens that would stay on my camera in most situations. If you look at the user reviews on B&H Photo, they seem to concur with my opinion. I do read the reviews before purchasing, which is why I mentioned that I was planning on sending this lens back after trying it out, but I'm telling you, this is a very good all purpose lens.
i was not saying the lens was not a good lens for your needs or as a general walkaround lens.

i was referring to your conclusions specifically to the comparison 70-200 f4. i am simply stating that no one considering to purchase a consumer grade superzoom (18-2xx of any kind) should expect anything near the image quality from a dedicated telephoto lens (especially an L series). there are a lot of ppl that read these posts, and its important they have correct information for which to base their hard earned spending on. its important for them to know these lenses are not even in the same league. and should not even be compared really, apples to oranges ya know.

every lens is a compramise. superzooms compromise image quality for convenience. simple as that. if you need the convenience, then its a good compromise. if you do not, then its not. find the right tool for your needs.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:58 PM.