nikon 18-200 vs sigma 18-250

[tkinnj]

Hi,

I'm down to my final choice on lenses with a D90. Buying the nikon 18-200 with the d90 as part of a kit, it's about the same price as the d90 with the sigma 18-250. The reivews on the Sigma 18-250, which is new, are pretty good, the only downside appears to be the zoom rotation which I could live with.

Which is the better lens and why? I do a lot of pictures with the kids at events so the extra 50MM on the sigma would be nice but not a real absolute need to have. I'd appreciate feedback from anyone with experience with both lenses

Thanks,

TK

[OsmosisStudios]

Neither. Seriously.

The 18-2xx lenses are great if that's the only lens you'll ever buy. That and a fast 50 and youre set for most consumer uses. If youre going to get into photography anymore than using the D90 as an advanced P&S, save your (many, many) pennies and put them towards considerably better gear.

The D90 comes with the 18-105 most commonly here: that's a great combo.

[GadgetRick]

I made a similar decision recently. I bought the Sigma 18-200mm (with optical stability) over the Nikon. The biggest reason was cost as the Nikon was significantly more expensive. Been shooting with the Sigma for about 2 months now and I love it. It's my walking around lens. It's not perfect (none of these kinds of lenses are) but it's does most things extremely well.

[sk66]

Don't know about the Sigma 18-250, but love my Sigma 18-200 OS.

Ignore Osmosis, he's a lens snob...

[tkinnj]

Ignore Osmosis, he's a lens snob...[/QUOTE]

LOL, Osmosis, I believe, has consistently not liked lenses in this category. I've been following this board for a couple of months as I've done my research/agonizing and I always read Osmosis' posts because they are very informative but sometimes can be very dismissive. I asked him on a different thread why he didn't like the Nikon 18-200 and his reply was very helpful. My thought was to go broad with a "do everything walk around lens" - which is the most common description I've heard of the 18-200, 18-250 lenses and then invest in more specialty lenses as I learn the limitations of the larger lens. I was interested in Osmosis' feedback for two reasons, he is one of the few vocal detractors of this lens and I saw the value in many of his other posts.

My direction has changed, I did buy the Nikon d90 and I've inherited a 28-300 and a 105 Macro sigma lenses from my uncle so I'll be playing with them for awhile and will be looking for something to fill the lower gap later. Suggestions would be appreciated.

Osmosis, the one thing I was surprised at was your recommendation of the 18-105 lens. While the reviews of the 18-105 kit lens have been good overall (I can't quote them verbatim) but the one thing that stuck with me was the constant criticism of the plastic mounting bracket - which made me think the lens wouldn't last long term.

Thanks for the help everyone.

TK

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by tkinnj

Osmosis, the one thing I was surprised at was your recommendation of the 18-105 lens. While the reviews of the 18-105 kit lens have been good overall (I can't quote them verbatim) but the one thing that stuck with me was the constant criticism of the plastic mounting bracket - which made me think the lens wouldn't last long term.

Thanks for the help everyone.

TK

18-2XX zooms are great for certain people and certain uses. Travel is one of those uses. As a proper image quality lens, however, they lack considerably. As I said, they have their uses, and I was very happy with the versatility of mine when I had it. I just cant say that it was worth the money.

The 18-105 is a great lens - optically. I vastly prefer the 18-135 and 18-70 (also, the 18-200) for their build and other features, but for the range (18-105), optics and the VR, it's a great little lens. Plastic mounts are fine for general use, but not my cuppa. I've seen too many sent in for repairs because the mount shears.

All my lenses are of the "prosumer" section: the 10-24 is a metal mount with focus scale and the 2-ring design. 18-70 is the same, as is the 70-300. my 50 1.8 is the only that isnt quite up to par: the 50 1.4 would be the prosumer equivalent.

I've never liked the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses: too light, too plasticky. They didnt feel like proper tools.

[kirbinster]

All things considered I think you are better off with the Nikon. I have used both Nikon and Sigma lenses and have found the Nikons to be sharper. I had a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 lens and sold it when I got a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 AFS - you cannot compare the two, but the Nikon costs 3X to 4X more.

I have a Nikon 18-200VR and am very pleased with it as a general walk around lens. But it is nowhere near as sharp at 200mm as my 70-200 f/2.8. Bottom line, you pay for what you get.