![]() |
| Author | Message |
Leon
34 posts |
#8158 2006-07-30 17:44 GMT |
|
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_al...302&navigator=6
I'm thinking about getting this Sigma lens. 18-200mm lenses have become popular because of the wideangle-tele range. Is it any good? I would've preferred Nikkor AF-S DX VR 18-200mm, but it's too expensive. |
|
Feathers
43 posts |
#8159 2006-07-31 05:06 GMT |
|
I don't have this Sigma, though i have 2 others, 18-50 and a 70-200, (on the canon DSLR's this is a 110ish to 450mm). i think the sigma's are great for the price, the other lens i use are the Canon Ultrasonic drive. The sigma's aren't just as fast to focus as these but are about the same a a normal canon lens drive....Simply, for the price the Sigma lens are very good.
Adam |
|
Lombi
Administrators
1977 posts |
#8160 2006-07-31 06:02 GMT |
|
I'm not sure if I could really recommend the Sigma over the Nikon (I own the Nikon in question). Even though the fact is that the sigma costs half the price you get these (very important) features in the Nikon:
- sharper images - silent wave motor (MUCH faster and quieter) - image stabilization My 2 cents would be to save your money and wait until you can afford a Nikkor lens. |
|
|
Siggie!
|
|
Leon
34 posts |
#8161 2006-07-31 12:57 GMT |
|
Thanks for the input. I think I'll reconsider then.
|
|
RollTheStones
113 posts |
#8276 2006-08-27 16:23 GMT |
|
I want one!
|
|
Leon
34 posts |
#8729 2006-10-20 16:45 GMT |
|
I've decided to get the Nikkor AF-S DX 18-200mm VR, but it's easier said than done : )
The lens is extremely popular and the wait-list is looong. |
|
Lombi
Administrators
1977 posts |
#8745 2006-10-23 10:58 GMT |
|
I can definetely say it's worth the wait
But on the other hand, there is a new sigma out which also has image stabilization... |
|
|
Siggie!
|
|
Leon
34 posts |
#9205 2007-02-21 18:34 GMT |
|
I got the Nikon 18-200VR yesterday
It suits the D50 pretty good. The next equipment I'm planning on getting now is a 72mm polarizing filter and a decent tripod. |
|








