Opinions on the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 lense

[ontario_slacker]

I'm looking into buying a new zoom lense. I would like to use it for nature photography (is 200mm enough? how close do you have to be to get a good shot?) as well as sports. Has anyone had any experience with this lense. I have looked at the sigma 70-200mm f/ 2.8 as well but it may be a bit pricy. This is more in my price range for right now. Let me know what you think about this lense I have read some mixed reviews some good some not as good but it seems it is a decent lense so far. If any one thinks otherwise let me know or give me some other suggestions for a zoom lense in the same category as this one. Thanks

[lidarman]

Well I can't say I own a lens like this but I own a 70-200 Nikon lens that cost me a bundle. But then, I want fast glass and 6.3 is damn slow IMO.

This lens is probably f3.5 at 18mm and rapidly decreases to f6.3 before 200 mm. Thus at 200 mm, you are shooting at f6.3. This is ok for a lot of shots but in low light, it will kill you when you use the 1/fl exposure rule (exposure should be a min of 1/fl) thus you will need a min of 1/200 sec to get a shot. Also, I find I only want large DOF when I shoot with short FL lenses and long FL situations, I want a short DOF...this lens is contrary to my shooting style.

When I do sports shooting, I don't always use f2.8 due to short depth of field but I don't much go past f/4. I want to blur the background as much as possible to lock in the subject. f/6 might add a lot more distraction in the background. Also in lots of sports shooting, you need a lot of zoom unless you are in the action.

Usually it's better to stick with mutliple 3x lenses and swap or change shooting position rather than trying to get a do-it-all 10x lens. But that is my style.

But if you can live with the slower lens, that might a be a great option.

It's hard to make a fast lens with that much dymanic range in zoom and thus, why they cost so much.

I hope this helps and doesn't discourage you ...

[mwfanelli]

I'm looking into buying a new zoom lense. I would like to use it for nature photography (is 200mm enough? how close do you have to be to get a good shot?) as well as sports.

Regarding the focal length, if you mean wildlife, birds, etc. 200mm won't do it at all. Even 300mm is not long enough for most subjects. You will need at least 400mm.

[cyberlord]

I've got the Tamaron 75-300 LD and even in my back yard it's not enough to get close shots of most of the birds. It's a decent lens to learn with if thats what you want without spending an arm and a leg. It is a bit soft at 300mm though. I dont have a tripod yet to see how sharp it could be. I like it for what it can do and the price I paid for it, but it's not a serious nature lens by any means.

If you are serious about a nature lens you are going to have to save up and get some glass. Period. If you settle for less you will be dissapointed and have lost that $$.

The Sigma 50-500 seems to be a great lens though not a 2.8 piece of glass. Then again your only paying 1/4 as much as a 2.8 piece of the same focal lenght.

Take a look in the galleries/nature for shots done by wposloski to get an idea what this lens can do.

If you are thinking of using an extender/teleconverter it will only slow the lens more and soften the image.

Bottom line is you get what you pay for. How serious you want to be with your photography will determine how much you will spend on glass. Any camera will take the photo, but the camera will only capture what it sees through the lens.

Tim

[ontario_slacker]

allright thanks guys. i'm kind of leaning towards the sigma 70-200mm f2.8. i think i can get a used one for a decent price. I am looking at doing some nature shots but I don't think I take enough nature shots to need a lense that would be used just for that. Any of the nature shots I would take I would be relatively close the birds around here are pretty brave. I just want a bigger lense than what I have now so I can close in on things more. Is the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 worth the extra money? It would definately be a good lense for darker situations.