Customer Reviews

Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS (Optical Stabilizer) Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(22)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

This was shipped to my office yesterday, so I naturally had to play with it. I have an old Nikon D50, and had gotten use to the kit lens that was on it. This Sigma is CONSIDERABLY larger and heavier. I expected that of course, and maybe I'm just getting old, but IMO its a pretty hefty lens.

I bought this lens expressly for the Optical Stabilization, so that was the first thing I tested. My office has a logo painted on the far side, so I handheld, indoors, at 200mm and focused on one letter. The lens setting was f6.3 at 1/30 sec. Looking side by side at the OS and non-OS shot in the camera lcd screen, they looked almost identical.

However, puting them in Photoshop and blowing them up revealed a whole other story. The non-os picture was blurred - and no amount of sharpening in Photoshop could correct it.

The OS picture was sharp. I'm not easily impressed, but I was really surprised at how well it worked. When I enlarged it to 200 percent in Photoshop, it seemed to be a bit soft, so I applied a small bit of sharpening from the software - and ended up with a photo that looked like
it had been shot with a macro lens from 3 feet away on a tripod. It was outstanding.

I bought this lens for 2 reasons.

First I am a Realtor. All of my listings need indoor shots, and I stay away from flash if I can - natural light seems to create warm home interiors. Problem was, most of these shots ended up in the 1/8-1/15 range - so I packed a tripod around. This lens should be far more convenient.

Second, I am a photographer. I shoot a lot of weddings and reunions, and I often try to drag the shutter, especially in churches or large halls, where I want some ambient light to fill in the background. This lens will allow me to shoot all day at 1/15 sec. with a TTL flash, and create some nice balanced portraits without the background blur found in most of these sort of images from the slow shutter speed.

I have read in other reviews that this lens is slow. It is. If it were a straight lens with f6.3 at 200 mm, I wouldn't even consider it. However, the OS allows you to handhold safely at least another 2 fstops slower, so IMO, that makes up for the slow speed of the lens. Besides, it's ridiculous to compare a $500 lens to a $1700 lens in the first place.

The lens also has a bit of distortion. If you primarily shoot architecture, and don't want to correct all of your images, this isn't the lens for you.

I haven't noticed any lens creep yet, the zoom ring is pretty stiff, but that may change over time, and there is a lock, anyway.

One major complaint I have about this lens: the focus ring is prominent, and easy to grab. TOO easy to grab. Sigma warns against turning the focus ring when you are in autofocus mode, for fear of damaging the lens. I trained myself after about 15 minutes to keep my hand off of it, but I noticed that anyone that picked up the camera had a tendency to want to turn the focus ring, thinking it was the zoom ring. If you hand this lens to someone to take your picture, be sure to instruct them how to handle it, or risk damage to the lens.

The focus mechanism and OS are a bit noisy, but mostly because my ear is about 4 inches from the camera when it operates. I care very little about the noise factor.

Overall, this is a great lens. Inexpensive, will probably be on your camera exclusively, and allows you to handhold the camera in low light situations. I never got to test it against Nikon's version, but the difference in price made the choice easy. I recommend this lens highly.

First impressions after having the lens for 1 week, using with the Nikon D200 (upgraded from Nikon 24-120mm VR):

1. It is loud. When auto focusing or engaging the OS function, the lens makes a chirp sound. Doesn't really matter from a performance perspective, but it is annoying.

2. Auto focus in the dark takes longer than the 24-120mm Nikon. Not sure if this is the camera or the lens, but the lens just doesn't seem happy to do the nighttime auto focus.

3. Range is amazing. From full tele to full zoom, the photos look great.

4. OS stabilization seems to work just as well as the Nikon 24-120mm VR's did.

4. For just over 1/2 the price of the Nikon 18-200 VR, no matter how much quieter/faster the Nikon is, this seems like the better value for the buck.

I purchased this lens for use with a new Nikon D40 and have been blown away! I really enjoy having the flexibility to go from 18mm to 200mm in a single lens, rather than swapping between my 18-55 and 55-200 lenses. I took it for a "test drive" on a hike in the mountains this weekend, and I will never go back to carrying my two other lenses again when I'm walking around! Images were crisp and the colors were great. I forgot to take my circular polarizing filter with me, but it wasn't a problem with this beauty.

The optical quality is much better than I expected. There is some barrel distortion when you're zoomed back to wide angles - it was noticeable through the viewfinder. If it bothers you, it's corrected easily enough using Capture NX or Photoshop to work on your images.

The lens is noticeably heavier than its brethren, but I don't believe that will be an issue. It's also almost an inch bigger in diameter than my 55-200mm lens, but I actually think that's good. It feels better in my hand.

I found myself switching to manual focus on several occasions, as I was shooting through trees into the valley several miles from the mountain. As others have noted, the focus ring is larger than I have come to expect on other lenses, and I did find myself grabbing it by mistake a couple of times when I meant to go for the zoom ring. I'll learn, though...I'll be using this lens almost all the time, so I know I'll get used to it.

I have noted that in extreme close-ups (macro range), the lens does a great deal of "hunting" to find the right focus. The Nikon lenses often do the same thing, but the hunting is a little louder with the Sigma lens. I wonder if the wider lens barrel partially blocks the camera's autofocus sensor. Again, this is not a big issue for me...especially in macro shots, where I prefer to focus manually anyway.

The Optical Stabilization feature worked great. I didn't have a single blurred picture from my shoot on the hike, even though I was shooting at f10 or narrower most of the time, at many zoom angles, in a variety of lighting conditions, and without a tripod.

The biggest problem I had came from the embarrassment of riches at having so wide a zoom range available to me! On many occasions, I found myself shooting the same scene from the same spot, all the way from 18mm to high zooms, and every one of the pictures had its own artistic interest and merits. How do I choose which one I like best?!

All in all, this is a great lens. I'm very happy with it and I know I'll be doing a lot more photography with it than I would have been doing without it.

I am pairing this lens with the Nikon D40 which is a relatively light camera body.

Pros:
- The OS works, I get about 3 stops better.
- The price is better than the Nikon 18-200mm

Cons:
- The OS when is on does chirp and whine a little. It is not as silent as the Nikon VR.
- It is heavy compared to the D40. This lens actually throws off the balance of the D40. You need a strong wrist to keep it from tilting forward. Keep in mind the D40 is light, and I know this is a light lens. But it is harder to shoot with one hand.

Overall, it is a great lens for a good value.

I buy many products based upon reviews from other users. That is also the case with this lens. I bought my Nikon D40 about 3 months ago (after 10 years of using point and shoots, including my treasured Canon S2is super zoom), with the kit 18-55mm lens, plus I bought a Nikon 55-200mm VR lens. I love the VR lens, but traveling through Europe for 2 1/2 weeks proved to me that I HATE changing lenses. It's inconvenient and potentially contaminates the inside of the camera body. So, I started looking around at something that I could use as a single walk-around lens. I love the wide angle perspective of the 18mm end, plus needed at least 200mm for the telephoto end. I liked the idea of Tamron's 18-250mm, but it's not image stabilized, which is really essential at the telephoto end. So, back to the Sigma. I read Camera Labs review of the non-stabilized Sigma 18-200mm, and it was favorable. So, I figured that the new stabilized version would be at least as good, and probably better.

I have not used this lens much over the past couple of weeks, but have found that (with a couple of exceptions), it focuses at least as quickly as the 18-55mm Nikkor kit lens, if not faster. The OS works great, making hand-held photos rock solid at 200mm. The only thing that I haven't spent a lot of time doing is taking indoor photos with it. I have taken indoor photos with the onboard flash, and they seem to work fine. I have not had much luck getting sharp photos at the telephoto end indoors, but admittedly have not tried very hard. I'll update this later, as I get more experience. Based upon what I know now, I am NOT AT ALL SORRY that I bought this lens. I was really having a hard time choosing between this and the [MUCH more expensive] Nikkor 18-200mm, but this lens seems like it is well worth the money spent. The focus/OS noise does not bother me at all (In fact, it's reassuring to hear that the camera is trying to focus, etc...). The only thing I wish Sigma had done was to make the lens Auto/Manual focus without having to move the switch from Auto to Manual, which the Nikkor can do. However, if it auto-focuses reliably, I guess it won't be a big deal. The zoom ring is a little tight right now, but I imagine that it will loosen up over time (hopefully not to the point of requiring the lock to be engaged). I also like the large manual focus ring; the Nikkor's is much smaller. Don't be put off by the 72mm diameter (which I was initially). It's not a big deal. Yes, it is quite a bit heavier and larger than the kit lens (or even my 55-200mm Nikkor), but not overly so. In fact, it makes the camera easier to hold, since I think the D40/40x/60 grip is just a little too small. I was concerned that the onboard flash will be blocked by the lens, but it seems to have no effect. I'm not seeing any shadowing. I'll keep you advised on how my ongoing review is going.
Happy shooting!

Update: Sept 19, 2008 - I continue to love this lens. The ONLY thing that bothers me about it is (as someone mentioned in another review) that the zoom and focus rings are too close together. When I hand this to my wife or son, I have to remind them which one is the zoom ring, and not to touch the focus (BTW - It makes a gears-are-grinding noise when you move the focus ring without moving it to manual - Not good, although it does not seem to have hurt the lens). There is a slight amount of shadowing the on board flash when you are at any zoom over the 18mm. However, I rarely if ever use the on board flash. I have a Nikon SB-400 flash that is absolutely essential inside, where you can bounce it (read Ken Rockwell's review at www.kenrockwell.com). I have not put the 18-55mm kit lens back on this camera since I have had the 18-200, and probably won't. I have a very old Nikon G model 50mm f1.8 that I can use (no metering or autofocus) on those low-light non-flash indoor shots, where the Sigma is not at it's best (although it's still very good).

I purchased this lens thinking it was a good value, and I got disappointed when the lens completely failed in the middle of a trip after getting the famous error message. Since I was within the 30 days purchase, I got it replaced by Amazon. The replacement started failing this morning... same error. I did some research, and apparently 30-40% of this particular sigma lens are lemons (google it!!).

Unfortunately, this happens after taken about 200 shoots..... if you are beyond 30 days of purchase when the lens start failing AMAZON DOES NOT REPLACE THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT, despite the one-year warranty. Sigma customer center sucks, and they make you pay for a secure back and forth shipment.

I STRONGLY recommend this product. The price is very attractive, and you might find the lens you get is a not a lemon (btw, the lens takes wonderful pics!!).... if you wanna give it a try... i would recommend NOT TO GET IT IN AMAZON, but in a local store you can return the lens within the one-year warranty offered by the manufacturer....

AMAZON told me I have to eat mine now....

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and so, I think, is one's opinion of a camera lens. I've learned over the years that lens reviews are helpful, but they are just opinions. Yes, for sure, you generally get better optics with more expensive lenses, but it's certainly not a guarantee. And for reasons one can only wonder about, oftentimes two copies of the same lens will produce very different results. For example, my friend Sara, who is as nuts about buying (we're like compulsive buyers) and using Canon lenses as I am about buying and using Nikon ones, has a Canon EF-S 18-55 kit lens that produces images so tack sharp through its whole range that would make you cry.

And so it goes with super zooms, these wonderful lenses that go from pretty wide to very long. If you look at the reviews of any of them, some people claim horrible results, while others scratch their heads, because they're just loving them to death.

My first superzoom was a Sigma 18-200 which I got about five years ago and I was blown away with what I could do with just one lens. Plus my shots were pretty darn sharp. The lens was more expensive then, than it is now. It's still a good lens, it weighs a couple ounces less than a pound and if I only could have been satisfied, I'd have saved a bundle of money. Ah well. Anyway, I had an opportunity to try out the Tamron 18-200 as well back then, but I decided on the Sigma. It was a coin toss. At the time I thought both lenses would be good general, all purpose, walkabout lenses. They wouldn't be as sharp or fast as primes and wouldn't be as light as shorter zooms, but heck, one lens which went all the way from 18 to 200mm (okay 27 to 350mm in the real world), such a deal.

Both lenses were five star lenses as far as I was concerned, both still are, because they are what they are, a very good compromise. If you're expecting a lens that will reach out across a dark night and grab a shot of lovers making out by the beach, then you don't want these lenses, but if you're looking for a good general walkabout lens, both will suit you and they won't break your bank.

But they don't have image stabilization and when Sigma came out with it, I had to have it. So I shelved the Sigma zoom I had, (thankfully I didn't sell it) and bought the Sigma 18-200 OS and Sigma's Optical Stabilizer worked great. I got sharper handheld shots in lower light, but they came at a price, almost half a pound. It doesn't sound like much, eight ounces (7.6 to be exact), but try carrying it around on your shoulder all day long. I really noticed the difference, especially when I was shooting.

I probably wouldn't have gone to that auction site with my fairly new lens, if it hadn't been for Tamron. They came out with their Tamron 18-250 and I had to have it. A bigger reach, the heck with image stabilization. Not only could I go all the way from 27 to 375mm in the real world, but I got back a bit over six ounces, the lens was lighter. So now I had two super zooms, which was good, because I go out people shooting with my sister a lot.

So one would think I'd be satisfied, but when the Nikon 18-200 came out, well Nikon optics in a superzoom. I had to have it, so the Tamron went up for auction (because I just loved the Sigma, even though it didn't reach as far). The Nikon lens focused faster, but not that much faster then the other two, had image stabilization and was faster at the long end and it took great shots, but it weighed more than the other lenses, coming in at a whopping 20 ounces and it was creepy, creepy, creepy and with no zoom lock. The other lenses had almost no zoom creep and they had a zoom lock, which I never used. Very annoying the zoom creep was, still, great shots from a great lens.

Satisfied, well for awhile, then came 2008 and the Tamron 18-270 with their VC version of image stabilization and up for auction went my expensive Nikkor lens. Yeah, I still hung on the my first super zoom, the Sigma. For sure the Nikkor was a five star lens, but a girl can't justify more than two super zooms at any one time.

The Tamron lens actually weighed a fraction less than the Nikkor it replaced. It was a bit slower on the long end, was a bit stiff in the zooming, but easy to get used to and almost no, sometimes no, zoom creep and it has a lock. It's just simply one heck of a lens. Sometimes it's a bit slow to autofocus in lowlight, but still I think it finds its focus faster than I would, but not as fast as the Nikkor.

I should add here that Nikon has upgraded their 18-200 adding a zoom lock. I've played with one and not only have they added that zoom lock, but it doesn't seem to creep nearly as much, but that could just be the copy I used. I should also mention that Sigma has come out with their Sigma 18-250 OS which I was lucky enough to use for a month. That is just one super fine lens. It focuses fast and I think it finds its focus better in low light than the Tamron 18-270. Also this new Sigma has a super quiet motor, though I've never really been bothered by the sound of a focusing lens.

By reading other reviews of these lenses, I've learned that they are all subject to zoom creep, so I suppose in the main, I've been lucky. All of these lenses are very good, at least all of the copies I've used. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend any of them. However, if you go with Nikon, you're going to be paying an awful lot more. You get a slightly faster lens on the long end and you get Nikon quality, but Sigma and Tamron give quality as well and Tamron warranties their lenses for six years, so they're pretty confident that they're building a great product (and now they're part of Sony).

So through my whole super zoom experience, which one do I wind up using the most? You guessed it, that Sigma I bought five years ago. Like the proverbial Timax, "It takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'." If the day is bright and I'm going people shooting it's the one I put on my camera, because it's light and it's images are true.

Go for the Nikon, or buy the lens in your local store, so you can return it within the one year warranty. The OS/AF mechanism is defective in 30-40% of the lens (it shows up after 200 shoots). You will not be able to return it to Amazon if it fails beyond the 30 days of purchase...

UPDATE: This lens ceased functioning 14 months after I bought it. The local repair shop could not fix it, and said it needed to go back to Sigma. Minimum repair price was $125, and likely higher than $150. Plus shipping. I changed my rating from 4 stars to 1 star because of this. I replaced it with a Nikon 28-200 that has been quite satisfactory, though I occasionally miss the extra wide reach of the Sigma. Call me an unhappy Sigma customer.

ORIGINAL REVIEW: I have used this lens with my D40 for about a month. I was concerned about the relative slowness of the lens, especially at full zoom, but the OS makes up for it allowing me to shoot successfully at slower shutter speeds. Optically the lens seems fine to me. It DOES autofocus with the D40. Combined with a Sigma 30mm HSM prime lens, I have everything I need for most situations. This lens is significantly larger and heavier than the Nikon kit lenses. You will know that you have this 1-lb lens hanging around your neck! I am very satisfied with this lens. Recommended to replace both the 18-55 and 55-200 Nikon kit lenses.

Loved this lens when it worked... however now, only one year later, this lens doesn't work! Short circuits new Nikon D90 camera and won't AF on D50. I can't afford to be buying a new $500 lens on a yearly basis - I'm extremely disappointed in Sigma's longevity.