Sigma 50-200 f4-5.6 DC OS HSM

skysailor

Sigma lists this lens as "new" on their web site. B&H sells it for 199$. f/4 is a wee bit on the slow side...but the price is right.
Thoughts? Lyle

ziggy53

Amazon reviews look OK. I suggest you also look at the Nikkor 55-200mm, f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR. Not much more money and probably better dealer network if you should need service. It gets similar reviews to the Sigma. Both are good "value" zooms.

skysailor

How do you feel about the Sigma 18-200 vs. the Nikon 18-200?

ziggy53

skysailor wrote:

How do you feel about the Sigma 18-200 vs. the Nikon 18-200?

If you compare the Sigma AF 18-200mm, f/3.5-6.3 DC OS vs the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm, f/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR II DX (both are stabilized designs) they are somewhat similar with the Nikkor having rather extreme barrel distortion at the wide end but better resolution at the 200mm setting. I also believe that the Nikkor will autofocus a little better than the Sigma.

I am not a fan of either lens and, unless you just want snapshots, there are much better (although more expensive) 2 lens solutions.

skysailor

Thanks for that. Your recommend would be, to take which path?
Lyle

ziggy53

At the low end in Nikon I suggest that the older Nikkor 18-70mm, F/3.5-4.5G ED IF AF-S DX is somewhat better than the non-VR version of the 18-55mm "Kit" lens. Otherwise the Nikkor 18-55mm, f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR for the standard zoom is an upgrade over the non-VR version.

A Tamron SP 17-50mm, F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF) (with motor) is much better still and gets you into a more professional capable lens. Nikon would like you to buy the Nikkor 17-55 mm, f/2.8 G ED-IF AF-S DX and it is a splendid, but expensive, standard zoom for the Nikon DX cameras. The Tamron is nearly as capable for a lot less money.

For the telephoto end the Nikkor 55-200mm, f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR is the entry level zoom I would recommend. It would be most capable as an outdoor lens but still serviceable indoors with a flash that has an AF assist light.

The Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR is not bad especially if you consider it a 70-200mm, f5.6-f8. (In other words if you stay in the 70-200mm range and stop down a bit it shines.) Likewise for the non-VR version. Again, this makes these lenses most suitable for good light situations.

A much better choice would be the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG HSM II Macro, Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED or Nikkor 70-200mm, f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR or Nikkor 70-200mm, f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR II, in roughly that order. Yes, they are expensive and yes, they are worth it IMO.

skysailor

Thanks for the input. I'm going to look at the Sigma. I've never been an "entry level" kind of guy. Next trip stateside. I have my 10-20 and my 35 prime. Think I'll skip the standard zoom and go right into the 70-200 Sig. Meanwhile, my 28-105 MF will just have to get the job done.
Lyle

ziggy53

skysailor wrote:

Thanks for the input. I'm going to look at the Sigma. ...

Do make sure to test the lens immediately and purchase from a source that has good return/exchange privileges.

I had tried 2 of the previous versions of the Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8 HSM (before the "Macro" version) and both did not meet my needs. I wound up going with another lens instead.

I am not against Sigma and I have a "very" old Sigma 70-210mm, f2.8 APO that I love, even though it's not terribly compatible with my cameras. My church also seems to have a good copy of the Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8 HSM Macro and they use it a lot.