Customer Reviews

Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM IF Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I would not give much credence to reviewers who compare lenses they have not actually used, or have only used one of them. We bought both This Sigma and the Tamron 18-270 and used them for a week in Mexico. We have a Nikon D70s and a D300, and exchanged the lenses after a few shots at the same time and place. We shot about 75% RAW and examined severe crops of the images on our 30" Apple Cinema Display before and after correction with Photoshop. Here is our opinion:

The Tamron is noticeably sharper. The Sigma is very soft except at the low-medium zoom range, and it's still softer than the Tamron over its best range. The higher distortion of the Tamron is much less noticeable and easily corrected with software. The CA is about the same for both. Image stabilization was clearly more effective with the Tamron, especially at the long end where you really need it.

The Tamron is noticeably slower in focusing than the Sigma, which is very fast for this class of lens. However, the Tamron often was more accurate and we missed several shots when the Sigma balked and did not focus at all. Over 5% of the shots we took with the Sigma were significantly out of focus, but only a few with the Tamron.

With superzooms, you pick the weaknesses that bother you less. It was a close, but fairly easy decision. Though it was sometimes annoying to use, we got obviously better pictures with the Tamron. We both agreed to return the Sigma.

Actually my review is somewhat similar to the previous review by W. Cooper. I, like him, didn't find much resources about this lens, but was confused between the Tamron & the Nikon long range lenses, I was about to go with the Nikon 18-200mm because I felt that the Tamron 18-270mm lens didn't really get good reviews and I didn't like the fact that it was slow in focusing. And boy am I glad that I waited for this one. I think I gambled (being an early adopter) and it worked.

Its really a great all around lens which is exactly what I was looking for (I hate changing lenses). The best thing about it is that its really pretty fast in focusing at 250mm, maybe even faster than my D90 kit lens the Nikon 18-105mm. It really is a HSM equipped lens, I saw a few threads in forums about ppl debating this fact, so rest assured it has a motor. The OS is working as it should at maximum zoom as well so no issues here. I have been using it for a couple of days only to be fair, but I'm very excited about it and about the quality of the images I have took so far. I'm taking it out for a full test in the next few days, if I feel that things weren't perfect I will update this review. I didn't notice a lens creep (yet!), but in any case there is a lock switch on the lens, this switch will only work when the lens is at 18mm. I noticed that when you are trying to shoot close-ups at 250mm, the lens wont focus properly if you are too close to the subject, manual focus will still work though and you can take a clear sharp picture. The make and the body of the lens feels nice and durable as well, it doesn't feel cheap at all.

In the end I have to say that this baby will beat the Tamron 18-270mm lens hands down, and surely the Nikon 18-200 if you want a bigger zoom. And the price is surely worth it and acceptable.

Update: I think I was wrong about close-up focus, it still focus pretty well and fast at close range while at maximum zoom.

Update 2: I have uploaded some pics in Picasa, plz see comments for link. The images don't look good after uploading to Amazon.

Update 3: I have to confirm again my initial statement that sometimes it fails to auto focus at close range (according to my tests), I would have to use manual focus. Going back to auto focus it would then work, it seems it needs a reset from time to time!

Update 4: It weighs around 650g or 1.43 pounds.

With lack of reviews on this product, it was a difficult decision to purchase this lens instead of the Nikon 18-200mm or Tamron 18-270. Since I was very happy with my Sigma 10-20mm lens, I thought it would be worth the risk--and it was, I am very pleased with all my test shots and look forward to taking it on my next outdoor adventure. This "super zoom" lens has great range, appears to have fairly sharp edges, low barrel distortion, and low bokeh effect. It is a good, solid lens with minimal zoom creep, and consistent feel throughout the zoom range. It focuses fairly quickly with the Hyper Sonic Motor (HSM), and the vibration reduction system (OS) comes in handy on those long range shots. This lens will probably spend 95% of it's time on my Nikon D60 camera. When combined with the Sigma 10-20mm, almost all my lens range needs will be met in a 2 lens kit.

Just got the Sigma 18-250mm and am happy with it so far. Tried a variety of indoor/outdoor shots, and all are very sharp. See no difference in sharpness compared to my Nikon lenses. Focuses very fast, feels very solid. Was worried it would be heavy (it is heavier than the Tamron 18-270 and Nikon 18-200, according to specs), but it barely seems heavier than the 18-105 lens that came with my D90. Not much bigger, either. I tried it on my D60, and with that smaller camera, the lens made the whole camera feel unbalanced (lens-heavy). But with the D90, it feels balanced. Notice very slight zoom creep in the 80-135 range so far, but no big deal. Hope I will still be happy with it after my upcoming travels.

Decided on this lens (vs. Tamron 18-270 or Nikon 18-200) because of price, and also because the Sigma has less distortion at 18mm than the others. So far it seems like a great deal, especially given its price relative to the Nikon.

If you have a D40 or D60, besides the unbalance issue mentioned above, be aware that if you use this lens with the built-in flash with a focal length of 18 to about 22mm, the lens will cast a weird shadow in your images. The D90 -- to my surprise -- does this too, though it is not nearly as bad and could be cropped (at 22mm it is very slight). This same problem would happen with the Tamron and Nikon with the D40/60, but not sure about the D90. The Nikon is about .2 inches shorter than the Sigma, and I bet this makes a difference.) Anyway, chances are, you will not be using this lens at 18mm with the built-in flash very often. If you use an external flash, then there will be no shadow.

Do research, and you'll find that the Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron all have their strong points. For me, the distortion of the Nikon and its much higher price, as well as some negative reviews about the focusing of the Tamron, made me choose the Sigma.

The first thing I noticed is that the sigma is much heavier than other comparable lenses (like the Tamron). Nikon owners should know that the barrel is large enough that it will cast a shadow when using the popup flash on a D40 and it zooms with an opposite twist than the Nikon lenses. The zoom action is fairly stiff (hard to turn) and I didn't experience any lens creep unless I shook the camera fairly hard as it was pointing down.

Compared to Nikon 55-200mm VR: The Sigma lens focuses faster and quieter than the 55-200. It seems the OS is more effective as well. However, the Nikon image quality is far superior throughout the range. Chromatic aberrations from the Sigma are very noticeable compared to the Nikon. The Nikon seems a bit brighter. If you don't need the 18-55 range or macro, the Nikon is by far the better lens (and 1/2 the cost).

Compared to the Nikon 18-200mm VR: Sigma is quieter and heavier. Image quality of the Nikon is similar to the 18-105 (below). On image quality alone, Nikon wins here. On value - it is too close to call.

Compared to the Nikon 18-105mm VR: First impression is that the center sharpness is better on the Sigma from 18-35mm or so, but the Nikon is better from 55mm to 105mm. Both seem to focus at about the same speed, but the Nikon is a tad more accurate. Both are quiet and built solid - the sigma like a tank. Geometric distortions are similar. Chromatic aberrations may be a little worse on the Sigma (the Nikon isn't too good either), originally I called it a draw overall, but after shooting some more I found I rarely had sharp shots with the Sigma. I believe it is partially the focus compounded with the soft optics since static scenes were a little sharper. The Nikon is almost always spot on. Winner was clearly the Nikon. I'd change the Sigma rating to 3 stars... but Amazon doesn't allow it. I've sent the Sigma back.

We got the Sigma 18-250mm lens for our Nikon D40 and it works great without any problems. It is a great all-in-one lens that can go wide and zoom pretty far in, has optical stabilization features, and even has a zoom lock function that isn't even on Nikon's current 18-200mm lens (the replacement model has one, though). Focusing does not rotate or extend the barrel of the lens so it won't throw off polarizing filters or accidentally hit objects that are close to the lens like when taking pictures through a window. While its visual quality won't match that of the more expensive Nikon lenses, you do get more bang for your buck and you probably won't even notice the difference. The only drawbacks I see with using this lens are that it is a little on the heavy side, and that its length will create a shadow when using your SLR's built-in flash at the widest focal length, but zooming in to at least 24mm or using an external flash will solve that problem. The f/6.3 aperture at maximum zoom might also cause problems for some, but it's a compromise you have to live with given this lens' price.

I purchased this lens after much research after comparing it to the Nikon 18-200 equivalent. I finally decided on it after seeing the Nikon's prices continuing to shoot upwards and being unable to get a used one off ebay for a reasonable price. I've been using this lens for a week now in various environments and plan to keep the lens.

Overall, I've found this lens to be a good buy- I bought it to replace two lens that covered a shorter range. So far, the images are sharp enough for me, with the caveat that I am not a pixel peeper. I immediately crop and reduce the size of my pics once I get them on my computer. I was worried when I zoomed in on the pics in my camera that they wouldn't be sharp, but they look great on my smallish computer screen, for the most part. The lens feels good in hand and I enjoy the heft, especially since it balances out my D80 with battery pack and external flash. No lens creep yet.

I'd say the most frustrating thing with the camera is the way that it searches when it is focusing at the far zoom range. (UPDATE: I found out that most of the focus issue was because I made an incorrect setting on my camera- its focusing fine now) Colors appear to be appropriate, perhaps a little muted, but when I compared to my 50 mm 1.8, it was about the same, so it was probably a camera setting. There have also been a couple times where it seemed to "lock" up at the far end of the zoom. You have to go to manual and then back in order to get it go back to normal. Annoying, but its only happened 2x so far.

I really enjoy the flexibility of having this kind of range in my camera. I used to fumble around so much with my lenses and now I can just shoot. There was very little distortion that I noticed. Vibration reduction has been really helpful to me and I find myself getting a sorts of shots without my flash that I hadn't been able to get before. According to the reviews its not as good as the Nikon, but its fine for me. Bokeh (that blur in the background) looks plenty good enough for me.

All in all, this lens is all about compromise. It sacrifices a little bit of everything in order to be a lens that you don't have to think too much about. In the end, I'm keeping mine. My feeling on it is, that for 60% of the price of the Nikon, this camera is definitely 85% of the lens, with a little more reach at the end. Highly recommended by this cheapskate photag :).

I bought this lens to use as a walkaround lens with my Nikon D5000. It does that job quite well and is very sharp when not used wide open at the extremes of its zoom range. After several months of regular use I have had none of the malfunctions nor the lens creep that others have mentioned. So, it stays on my camera most of the time when I am out walking during lunchtime and while traveling.

Many have commented that it lacks low-light performance and that is to be expected in an f3.5-6.3 lens. It obviously does not do as well as my 35mm f1.8G prime but that is to be expected when comparing a zoom to a prime lens. However, during the Christmas season, I used this D5000/Sigma 18-250mm combo to shoot pictures at a school musical. With only stage lighting and no flash, I was able to get very good shots of the performers onstage. All were shot from a balcony with the camera on a monopod, and used aperture-preferred mode with max aperture opening at focal lengths of 90mm to 250mm. Shutter speeds were 1/40 to 1/120. These photos look quite crisp and well-focused when blown up to full-screen on my 22 inch monitor. Sure, they are not all portrait quality for enlargement printing but most are pretty darned close. I could not be happier with this performance!

So no super-zoom lens you buy is going to be as good as any comparable prime lens. With this is in mind, I compared this lens to the Nikkor 18-200mm. Some reviews on the web will compare a Nikkor 50mm prime to the Sigma's 50mm setting...of course the Sigma will lose (just about anything will lose, in my opinion).

The question became for me: does the picture quality between the Nikkor and the Sigma justify the cost differential. I bought both and compared the shots side by side, and I gotta say the Sigma holds up just fine. Sure, the Nikkor gets a little bit brighter colors if you zoom things up to 200 or 300%, but does this matter? This lens is for walking around and taking nice pictures. You're not going to do studio work with it...of course.

The extra zoom is nice. The build quality is fine. The optic stabilization is OK, but I like the stabilization in the Nikkor better (but if you're shooting in bright conditions or have a decent flash, this doesn't really matter).

The only bone I have to pick is that the zoom ring turns the opposite way that I'm used to, so sometimes I've missed the shot of my kids running around cuz I zoomed in when I meant to zoom out. This may just be due to my own mental shortcomings, but it's annoying nonetheless.

Bottom line: buy the Sigma (shoot, buy the Nikkor too -- and return it when you agree with me!)

After tons of browsing reviews for superzooms from Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron, I took a gamble on the Sigma for reasons I found all over the reviews: low distortion, HSM (focus), and bokeh. And below is what I found after using it for a while:

Pros:
1. The most surprising factor on a D90 body is that it is only slightly bigger than D90's kit lens 18-105mm VR, and therefore IT DOES NOT BLOCK THE FLASH (except at 18mm, which is the same for the 18-105. So no complain)! I was almost ready to squeeze some money for an external flash, but it was put on hold because the camera flash can work fine.
2. Virtually no lens creep (and there is a lock button in case it happens). Quality construction that is.
3. Nice bokeh, as usual Sigma lenses have creamy bokeh, which is a big plus for such zoom lenses.
4. When in manual focus, the focus ring is very smooth

Cons:
1. The biggest problem for me is no manual overriding the focus. Auto focus would lock the focus ring on the lens, and the ring actually would rotate when it is focusing. Only when switching to manual focus can I turn the focus ring.
2. As indicated in most reviews, the sharpness may not be optimal (I can only compare it to Nikon 18-105mm). BUT it is not that bad, even for a pixel peeper like me, I am fine with its sharpness most of the time when looking at it @100%.
3. OS functions kind of oddly (to me). The Nikon 18-105mm turns VR on only when I half-press the shutter, otherwise it is off. But Sigma 18-250mm seems to have it on for a certain time. When the camera is idle for some time, OS is then turned off, and you can hear it from the lens. Wondering if this is wasting more battery. Also as indicated in the reviews, the OS doesn't seem to be as solid as Nikon's or Tamron's stabalization. But of course, it's no big deal when you have a steady hand.

Overall, it's a 5 star for me. Good features, quality, price, and some minor cons. I was worried the most about its sharpness, but it turned out satisfactory. So I am very happy with it.