Is the price just for the name?

[tasmo2]

Hey guys! I am wanting to sell my 18-55 and 55-200 and just get the 18-200 since I am ALWAYS changing lenses and it drives me crazy.. LOL! So I was looking and the nikon one is 760.00 and the sigma is 370.00 which is a HUGE difference!! I can't afford the nikon lens, so I am wondering is the sigma just as good?? The reviews on both are good. Is the main price difference name or is there something I am missing? I really want to be able to sell the ones I have, buy the sigma and a 35 1.8 and be done buying for a while. Right now the only other lens I have other than the two mentioned above is the 50 1.8. So what do you guys think?

[Almond.Butterscotch]

Keep one thing in mind: the 18-55 + 55-200 combo will give you less distortion and better overall optical performance than either 18-200mm will. The 18-200mm offers convenience, not quality.

That said, I can't really comment on the performance of either. I just know that Nikon's 18-200mm has some funky mustache distortion going on and Sigmas in general don't really have as high a standard in terms of quality control and overall quality tends to vary from lens to lens (not just model to model, but actual physical lens to lens) and you may have to try a couple before you get a good copy.

[tasmo2]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

Keep one thing in mind: the 18-55 + 55-200 combo will give you less distortion and better overall optical performance than either 18-200mm will. The 18-200mm offers convenience, not quality.

That said, I can't really comment on the performance of either. I just know that Nikon's 18-200mm has some funky mustache distortion going on and Sigmas in general don't really have as high a standard in terms of quality control and overall quality tends to vary from lens to lens (not just model to model, but actual physical lens to lens) and you may have to try a couple before you get a good copy.

Thanks for the input! From what I read, the distortion is mostly in the middle.. is that what you have heard as well? I mostly shoot all the way 18, or all the way 200 on those lenses.. LOL If I want middle ground I use my 50 prime. (love it!)
I just realized, I didn't say what I mostly shoot... But for the 200, its tball action shots, or running toddlers.. always outside. Anything I shoot indoors is almost always my 50. And I am wanting to also get the 35 1.8... I see you have that one also... how do you like it?

[OsmosisStudios]

Based on what youre saying, you should actually stay with your 2 lens kit.

[tasmo2]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Based on what youre saying, you should actually stay with your 2 lens kit.

What makes you say that?

[OsmosisStudios]

you shoot at either end of the spectrum, but very little in the middle. Thats what two dedicated lenses is designed for. Hell, you could probably trade the 18-55 for a 10-24 and the 55-200 for a 70-300 and just throw a 50mm or something similar into the works and be covered.

The thing with an 18-200 is that it gives you a single-lens solution for ALL that range, not just the ends. If you know, looking at a subject, which lens to use, then you can put the right one on.

There are lots of compromises to be made with a superzoom like the 18-200 group. There's a reason I sold mine (a Nikon 18-200) for a dedicated telephoto lens.

[tasmo2]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

you shoot at either end of the spectrum, but very little in the middle. Thats what two dedicated lenses is designed for. Hell, you could probably trade the 18-55 for a 10-24 and the 55-200 for a 70-300 and just throw a 50mm or something similar into the works and be covered.
aahh.. I see what you mean.. you also have the 35 prime right? I am wanting to add that one, mostly because I LOVE my 50, but I find myself backing up all the time to get what I want in the shot. I *think* a 35 would be perfect! But im just not sure!

The thing with an 18-200 is that it gives you a single-lens solution for ALL that range, not just the ends. If you know, looking at a subject, which lens to use, then you can put the right one on.
True.. but I do like to have the option of using in between during Tball season. Not really for portraits because I know what I want before hand, but during Tball all those kids on the field, I like to be able to zoom in to get the batter, then zoom out to get another one running the base .. so I say I don't use the in between, but once the season starts back up, I may. I have just been doing more portraiture work lately. (which is why I am thinking 35 1.8 would be a good add as well!
There are lots of compromises to be made with a superzoom like the 18-200 group. There's a reason I sold mine (a Nikon 18-200) for a dedicated telephoto lens.

What did you end up with? My fear is choosing the wrong one... again! LOL! I guess I could always sell it later if I change my mind again!

[OsmosisStudios]

but I do like to have the option of using in between during Tball season.

Remember that you're still getting ALL the focal lengths between 18 and 200, you're just going to have to choose one lens over the other. For T-Ball (and most sports) you'll want the 55-200.

[tasmo2]

That's true.. I did mostly use that one.
So tell me about the 35

[Shokinen]

Originally Posted by tasmo2

So tell me about the 35

I really love mine and it is a focal lenght I really like / use a lot (even with my 16-85mm). It has a bit distortion over 50mm, but that's exactly what I like.

If you want many examples, go see Almond.Butterscotch Photostream on flickr. He do most of his pictures with that lens. I also have a few examples on mine.

While it may be nice for indoor portrait if you want to include everyone in the picture, I find it a bit short for close-ups. You have to be comfortable getting close of your subject.