Bookmark and Share



Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS  Hot PDF Print E-mail
Lenses Sigma
User rating
3.9
out of 5
Editor's rating
1.0
out of 5
avatar image
Reviewed by:
Editor
Sunday, 03 February 2008
Average user rating: 3.9 
113 User reviews
View details
Read editor review
Read user reviews
Write review
image
Camera Gear Rentals
User Images
Lens Summary

Overview

Digital Camera Lens
18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS

11.1x high zoom ratio lens designed exclusively for digital SLR cameras and incorporating Sigma’s original OS (Optical Stabiliser) function.

- - -

Sigma’s unique OS (Optical Stabiliser) technology
This lens is equipped with Sigma’s own OS function. This function uses two sensors inside the lens to detect vertical and horizontal movement of the camera and works by moving an optical image stabilising lens group to effectively compensate for Camera shake. It also automatically detects movement of the camera and compensates for camera shake when shooting moving subjects such as motor sports.

Excellent Optical Performance
A Special Low Dispersion (SLD) lens and three aspherical glass elements provide excellent correction for all types of aberrations and produce a high level of optical performance throughout the entire zoom range. The super multi-layer lens Coating reduces flare and ghosting. It also produces an optimum, neutral colour balance.

Close-up photography
This lens has a minimum focusing distance of 45cm (17.7”) throughout the entire zoom range and a maximum magnification of 1:5.3, making it very convenient for taking close-up pictures.

Inner focusing system
An inner focusing system provides high performance and convenience. The non-rotating lens barrel perfectly suits the matched petal-type lens hood (supplied) and circular polarising filters.

Zoom lock switch mechanism
A zoom lock switch mechanism is provided to prevent the lens from creeping due to its own weight.

Lens Specifications

Generic Lens Specifications
Lens Type: Zoom
IS / VR / OS: OS
Min Focal length (mm): 18
Max Focal Length (mm): 200
Number of Elements: 18
Element Groups: 13
Max Aperture: 6.3
Minimum Aperture: 22
Diaphragm Blades: 7
Closest Focus Distance (m): 0.45
Maximum Magnification: 0.39
Filter Diameter (mm): 72
Diameter at widest (mm): 79
Lens Length (mm): 100
Weight (g): 610

Details


Lens Construction
 
18 Elements in 13 Groups
Angle of view (SD Format)
 
69.3 - 7.1 degrees
Number of Diaphragm Blades
 
7 Blades
Minimum Aperture
 
F22
Minimum Focusing Distance
 
45cm
Maximum Magnification
 
1:3.9
Filter Size
 
72mm
Dimensions
 
Diameter 79mm x Length 100mm
Weight
 
610g
SRP
 
£439.99

18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS
 
SIGMA
   
CANON
18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM
 
NIKON (D)

 

 

18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS
Lens Hood
Front and Rear Caps
Instruction Manual
1 Year Warranty Card

 

Price Tracking

USA Lens Price History

UK Lens Price History

Field of View of this lens

Visualise the Field of View of this lens

Help and Feedback on the FOV tool here

Amazon Price US

Amazon Price UK

Editor review :  Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS
Overall rating (weighted)
1.0
Sharpness
1.0
Build Quality
1.0
AF Speed
1.0
Value for Money
1.0
Editor review following shortly
Why should you care what I think?
My relationship with this item: Editor review
Conclusions at a glance
Would you recommend this Item: Undecided

User Lens Reviews

Average user rating from: 113 user(s)

Overall rating (weighted)
3.9
Sharpness
3.9
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
3.9
Value for Money
3.9
 

Add new review


0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Very pleased, Saturday, 21 August 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
So far I'm quite pleased with the lens. I have not conducted extensive tests but based on the photos I've made so far, I like it.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Excellent...But..., Tuesday, 10 August 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
4.0
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
3.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
5.0
I ordered this lens for a trip to Alaska; I wanted something with a wide range so I could avoid swapping glass every time I turn around. At about 1/2 the cost of the Nikon version, this looked like a winner. It did everything I wanted, quick steady focusing, sharp pictures with good color but it weighs a ton! Reviewers bash the Nikon plastic DX lenses but when it's slung over your shoulder all day... My other complaint is that the focus ring is way too wide and in the way for an AF lens. Whilst reaching for the zoom, I would grab the focus and "zip" the gears (hope I didn't break anything!!!). Other AF lenses sport an atrophied focus ring and this lens would benefit from a similar design.
Overall, an excellent value and well recommended if you don't mind the weight.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Fantastic until it broke, Monday, 02 August 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
3.0
Sharpness
3.0
Build Quality
2.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
3.0
The zoom range for this lens makes it a great all purpose "non-pro" lens. Perfect for travel as it goes from nominal wide-angle to telephoto. That's the good news.

The bad news is after two years of not-too-frequent use, I turned the zoom ring and something snapped inside. The lens is toast -- I can physically move the lens barrel in and out for zoom, but the focus doesn't seem to work -- auto or manual. It's headed back to Sigma for repair.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

pictures are not consistent, Saturday, 24 July 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
3.3
Sharpness
2.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
4.0
i have been using this lens for a little while and its mix reaction let me make clear i am not a pro or advance photographer but average Joe i am speaking in plain language it takes a beautiful pictures and not so beautiful pictures i am taking about sharpness some pictures are very sharp and great looking and some feel like they are out focus or fuzzy just a little Bit i was planing to use this lens at wedding of my cousin thats why i bought this lens but i think i am going to use Nikon 18-55 just to be safe and use this only if i need it on camera LCD Display it looks fine but when you see in computer thats when you see very clearly and this is not an issue all the time but its their i just take lots of pictures so in case pictures that you want is not so clear you have many choices to chose from would i recommend this lens that depends on your budget if you can't spend lots of money on lens like me and you have budget of 350 to 375 this is a very good lens Nikon 18-200 is 950 and this is around 360 which is little more then 1/3 the price but its not 1/3 the quality i don't have Nikon 18-200 but i have seen picture posted by users on amazon and they look very good this lens takes very good pictures most of time it some pictures i am not happy with focus wise they feel soft then again Nikon lens user may get those pictures but they are not going to post them on amazon but you have to have 18-200 lens and don't have money to buy Nikon or canon i would definitely recommend this lens
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

A good lens..., Wednesday, 21 July 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
5.0
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
A fine lens. I have used this lens on both a Nikon D3000 and D90 with good results.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Does not work on a canon 5D MarkII, Wednesday, 14 July 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
1.5
Sharpness
2.0
Build Quality
2.0
AF Speed
1.0
Value for Money
1.0
Always make sure the Lens will fit your camera. This one did not and the buyer did not note this when advertising its use for Canon digital Cameras.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

SigmaAF 18-200 with opitical stablizer, Thursday, 01 July 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
5.0
Great lens for the money.Outperforms my Nikon 55-200 in the areas of sharpness and Contrast. The stablizer works great.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

Good value for my general purposes, Friday, 25 June 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
4.3
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
5.0
Added to my new Rebel T2i for general, non pro, picture taking. 18 to 200 very nice range. Zoom stiffens a little mid range but seems to be smoothing out with use. For the $$$ a no brainer and due to my inexperience with dslr (my pro gear all video) any lens shortcomings vs a more expensive version, do not bother me.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

SIGMA 18-200, Monday, 21 June 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
4.3
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
4.0
The picture quality is good... the vividness is not so good.... The control for apareture and shutter is very easy with Nikon D40..... I am using it for quite some time.... and the performance is good..... Its a good buy....
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Low quality if you are anything more than a hobbyi, Thursday, 17 June 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
1.0
Sharpness
1.0
Build Quality
1.0
AF Speed
1.0
Value for Money
1.0
I wanted to like this lens. The quality just wasn't up to par. Actually, it was pretty horrible. I am a professional just starting out, and thought I could cut corners and save a little cash with an off brand lens. However, after trying out the lens for one event, I had to return it due to it's very disappointing quality. Zoomed in, the pixels look muddled, and at times, the shadows look... choppy. I don't know the best way to explain it. If it helps at all, my camera is a Nikon D300s. I have never seen the type of results this lens produced from any other images/lenses.

I've learned my lesson. I invested in a more expensive, Nikon lens. The quality problems have disappeared. Save your money or look else where if you are anything more than just a hobbyist.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Good looking, not a performer, Sunday, 30 May 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
2.8
Sharpness
2.0
Build Quality
3.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
3.0
I'm not sure if the lens that I got was just defective or representative of the product as a whole. I will say that this lens is in the process of being returned and replaced with another brand. It was nice to think that one lens would answer all of my needs but there is a reason to go with a DSLR and that is the ability to change lenses for varying circumstances. This lens performed average at most focal lengths but as I approached 200mm the quality dropped off to a very unsatisfactory level. I will put in a plug for Amazon, they worked with me to return the product within their return policy so when I ordered another lens I went back to Amazon.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

OS jitters very bad, Wednesday, 12 May 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
2.0
Sharpness
3.0
Build Quality
2.0
AF Speed
2.0
Value for Money
1.0
I purchased this as a lower cost alternative to the Sigma 18-250 for use on my Canon Xsi. Construction quality and optics seemed to be fine. The optical stabilization was something else completely. At anywhere past 1/2 zoom to full zoom, the OS caused the image in the viewfinder to jump very noticeably. I was using the lens for a lot of sports photography, so the zoom was very important. The jitters of the image at mid to high zoom were so bad I could not use the lens. Maybe I just got a defective lens asI had not seen any reviews noting this kind of issue previously. I have returned it and am rethinking whether to try the 18-250 as I had originally planned.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful

Ideal lens, Saturday, 20 March 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
4.5
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
This Sigma lens, which I have had since November 2008 has been great from the very beginning. I paid around $370 for the lens, compared to over $600 for the equivalent Canon lens. Even though price was a consideration when buying this lens, I first looked up different lens reviews in magazine and at internet sites. Most of the reviews concluded that the Sigma lens was, for the most part, equivalent, or even better than the Canon lens. I photograph portraits and weddings all year long and I have always been very satisfied with the sharpness and the color hues in this lens. Many people believe that a brand name lens (Canon, Nikon) is always better and more rugged than an independent brand. Judging from my experience with this brand, SIGMA lenses (I have three Sigmas) have always been of top quality.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

0 of 0 people found the following review helpful

Buyer beware, Thursday, 11 February 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
2.0
Sharpness
1.0
Build Quality
3.0
AF Speed
2.0
Value for Money
2.0
I was so eager to get a multi range lens(sort of a everyday carry around)that would keep me from constantly changing lens between shots, but I quickly found out that this lens was not for me. The shots were very soft focused and often presented some Vignetting and dark spots. Also the lens seemed to have a hard time finding it's focus. I just was not happy and did not want to be stuck with this lens. I simply did not think it was a good investment, so after three weeks, I decided to contact the seller for a refund. The seller was not at all happy about refunding my money. He sent me a "not so pleasant" email which I thought was totally unnecessary. I had to get Amazon involved to get my money back and of course I paid the cost of the return shipping. I will make sure I stay away from this particular seller and lens in the future.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful

Sigma 18-200 OS, One of Several Very Good, All Pur, Thursday, 07 January 2010


Overall rating (weighted)
5.0
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and so, I think, is one's opinion of a camera lens. I've learned over the years that lens reviews are helpful, but they are just opinions. Yes, for sure, you generally get better optics with more expensive lenses, but it's certainly not a guarantee. And for reasons one can only wonder about, oftentimes two copies of the same lens will produce very different results. For example, my friend Sara, who is as nuts about buying (we're like compulsive buyers) and using Canon lenses as I am about buying and using Nikon ones, has a Canon EF-S 18-55 kit lens that produces images so tack sharp through its whole range that would make you cry.

And so it goes with super zooms, these wonderful lenses that go from pretty wide to very long. If you look at the reviews of any of them, some people claim horrible results, while others scratch their heads, because they're just loving them to death.

My first superzoom was a Sigma 18-200 which I got about five years ago and I was blown away with what I could do with just one lens. Plus my shots were pretty darn sharp. The lens was more expensive then, than it is now. It's still a good lens, it weighs a couple ounces less than a pound and if I only could have been satisfied, I'd have saved a bundle of money. Ah well. Anyway, I had an opportunity to try out the Tamron 18-200 as well back then, but I decided on the Sigma. It was a coin toss. At the time I thought both lenses would be good general, all purpose, walkabout lenses. They wouldn't be as sharp or fast as primes and wouldn't be as light as shorter zooms, but heck, one lens which went all the way from 18 to 200mm (okay 27 to 350mm in the real world), such a deal.

Both lenses were five star lenses as far as I was concerned, both still are, because they are what they are, a very good compromise. If you're expecting a lens that will reach out across a dark night and grab a shot of lovers making out by the beach, then you don't want these lenses, but if you're looking for a good general walkabout lens, both will suit you and they won't break your bank.

But they don't have image stabilization and when Sigma came out with it, I had to have it. So I shelved the Sigma zoom I had, (thankfully I didn't sell it) and bought the Sigma 18-200 OS and Sigma's Optical Stabilizer worked great. I got sharper handheld shots in lower light, but they came at a price, almost half a pound. It doesn't sound like much, eight ounces (7.6 to be exact), but try carrying it around on your shoulder all day long. I really noticed the difference, especially when I was shooting.

I probably wouldn't have gone to that auction site with my fairly new lens, if it hadn't been for Tamron. They came out with their Tamron 18-250 and I had to have it. A bigger reach, the heck with image stabilization. Not only could I go all the way from 27 to 375mm in the real world, but I got back a bit over six ounces, the lens was lighter. So now I had two super zooms, which was good, because I go out people shooting with my sister a lot.

So one would think I'd be satisfied, but when the Nikon 18-200 came out, well Nikon optics in a superzoom. I had to have it, so the Tamron went up for auction (because I just loved the Sigma, even though it didn't reach as far). The Nikon lens focused faster, but not that much faster then the other two, had image stabilization and was faster at the long end and it took great shots, but it weighed more than the other lenses, coming in at a whopping 20 ounces and it was creepy, creepy, creepy and with no zoom lock. The other lenses had almost no zoom creep and they had a zoom lock, which I never used. Very annoying the zoom creep was, still, great shots from a great lens.

Satisfied, well for awhile, then came 2008 and the Tamron 18-270 with their VC version of image stabilization and up for auction went my expensive Nikkor lens. Yeah, I still hung on the my first super zoom, the Sigma. For sure the Nikkor was a five star lens, but a girl can't justify more than two super zooms at any one time.

The Tamron lens actually weighed a fraction less than the Nikkor it replaced. It was a bit slower on the long end, was a bit stiff in the zooming, but easy to get used to and almost no, sometimes no, zoom creep and it has a lock. It's just simply one heck of a lens. Sometimes it's a bit slow to autofocus in lowlight, but still I think it finds its focus faster than I would, but not as fast as the Nikkor.

I should add here that Nikon has upgraded their 18-200 adding a zoom lock. I've played with one and not only have they added that zoom lock, but it doesn't seem to creep nearly as much, but that could just be the copy I used. I should also mention that Sigma has come out with their Sigma 18-250 OS which I was lucky enough to use for a month. That is just one super fine lens. It focuses fast and I think it finds its focus better in low light than the Tamron 18-270. Also this new Sigma has a super quiet motor, though I've never really been bothered by the sound of a focusing lens.

By reading other reviews of these lenses, I've learned that they are all subject to zoom creep, so I suppose in the main, I've been lucky. All of these lenses are very good, at least all of the copies I've used. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend any of them. However, if you go with Nikon, you're going to be paying an awful lot more. You get a slightly faster lens on the long end and you get Nikon quality, but Sigma and Tamron give quality as well and Tamron warranties their lenses for six years, so they're pretty confident that they're building a great product (and now they're part of Sony).

So through my whole super zoom experience, which one do I wind up using the most? You guessed it, that Sigma I bought five years ago. Like the proverbial Timax, "It takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'." If the day is bright and I'm going people shooting it's the one I put on my camera, because it's light and it's images are true.
Was this review helpful to you? yes     no

View all user reviews
 
< Prev   Next >
[ Back ]

News | Forum | Lens Reviews | Teleconverter Reviews | About Us | Contact Us | Glossary | How To
Lens News | Lens List | © 2008 Lens-reviews.com