This high zoom ratio lens is exclusively designed for digital SLR cameras and capable of covering a wide range of focal lengths from wide-angle to telephoto.
--
SLD an Aspherical lenses Two Special Low Dispersion (SLD) glass elements and two hybrid aspherical lenses offer the utmost correction for distortion and all types of aberrations.
Multi Layer Lens Coating This lens uses a special coating which reduces flare and ghosting, a common problem with digital cameras and also creates an optimum colour balance.
Compact and Lightweight Design This extended range super zoom lens is housed in a compact and lightweight construction of 70mm in diameter and 78.1mm in length, and weighing just 405g.
Minimum Focusing Distance of 45cm This lens has a minimum focusing distance of 45cm at all focal lengths and has maximum magnification of 1:4.4.
Inner Focus The lens design incorporates an Inner focusing system, which prevents the front of the lens from rotating, making it particularly suitable for using circular polarising filters and petal shaped lens hoods. The overall length of the lens does not change during focusing, ensuring convenient handling and ease of use.
Zoom Lock A zoom lock switch eliminates ‘zoom creep’ during transportation, a convenient addition when traveling.
This is the most useful T.C. to use. I use it only on the Sigma 300mm f2.8 lens and the Sigma 500mm f4.5 lens. It AF is fast and accurate and If used on a tripod or monopod I get some really good images. I really would not recommend this for anything slower than f5.0. Only my personal opinion. Good piece of glass. It is spectacular on the 500mm f4.5 lens. Sharp as a tack.
So I dont have too much experience with camera lenses but I just love this one. I originally had a my standard 18-55mm kit lens for my canon xsi and a standard 50 mm f1.8 and I felt like I was in the need of some zoom. I was kinda looking at 50-300 lenses but I felt like I'd hate to have to keep switching lenses since I usually take pictures on the go in the outdoors. I shopped around a Bit then picked this one and I just love it. From what I can tell the picture quality is pretty good and I just love the general feel of the lens. It's just perfect for on the go and I have no complaints especially for the price I got it for. Just a great traveling lens. I highly recommend it!!!
perfect for a large range, Wednesday, 03 February 2010
Overall rating (weighted)
4.0
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
4.0
I had this lens for one week, and it is perfect for travel, and when you don t know what where you are going to take pictures,
the built quality is excellent (as sigma does usual) and it is very compact and light for a large range lens.
just not very sharp pictures at 18mm, but with this kind of lens it is well known and it is still better than the kit-lenses 18-55mm that I have.
if you see the concurrence : bigger, more bulky, sometime the telephoto-lens increase by itself if you chose the wrong position... and it can resist if you want to change focal between 18 and 200mmm, with this one: you have NOT these problems !!! of course there you can find more rage (18-270 for example), but for me 18-200 is enough and also it is more compact, there is no stabilization and ultra-sonic focus but, first, the stab is not needed if you have a Pentax SLR, and second, the ultrasonic-focus is more expensive and not always needed and increase the size of the lens.
for me this lens is excellent with my Pentax K10D and my Pentax k-x .... and by the way, this lens is not expensive at all.
Easy for a beginner to use, Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Overall rating (weighted)
4.5
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
I am very new to digital SLR photography, and I got this lens just a few days before going on a trip overseas. Even with virtually no practice with this lens and little experience with SLRs at all, I ended up getting really great pictures. The zoom was powerful (for the money) and it also gave me good detail and texture shots close up. I brought another lens on the trip, but after the second day it stayed in the hotel and I used this one exclusively. It was easy to learn and simple to use right away, and I'm looking forward to learning more about its capabilities as I gain more experience with SLR photography. It was a fantastic purchase for me, and I'd get it again with no hesitation.
I've been using this converter for a couple of years now, on my sigma 100-300mm f4, 120-400mm 4.5/5.6, and recently on my new Nikon AF-S 300mm f4. Works great on all of them. Fast auto focus (maunal on the 400mm sigma) sharp as the original lens. The only downside is on the Nikon AF-s the readout says f4 when it should say 5.6 and the data says 300mm focal length instead of 420mm.(its not designed for this lens but produces shots as sharp as the 300mm without the converter) It auto focuses accurately and light meters correctly . Considering you can pick these up for less than half the price of a nikon tc its a steal, Just make sure you get the DG model which is optimized for long telephotos.
Sigma 18-200, One of Several Very Good, All Purpos, Wednesday, 06 January 2010
Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
4.0
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.
Surprise with Sigma teleconverter, Monday, 28 December 2009
Overall rating (weighted)
3.3
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
3.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
3.0
I bought the Sigma APO teleconverter 1.4 (Nikon mounting)via Amazone. I like Amazone, but the converter was a surprise to me. It didn't work at all with the Nikon 18-200mm. Bad surprise. It works very well with the Sigma 150mm macro 2.8. Good surprise, as I expected. It works with the Sigma 150-500mm, but with losing autofocus, so not very usefull. It works, but very slow, with the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8. Be aware: good information about teleconverters and their possibilities is hardly available.
I have the Sony/Minolta compatible version of this lens, so the lack of image stabilization in the lens itself does not affect its performance. Despite the common perception that super-Zoom lenses give up too much image quality in order to achieve their flexibility, I found this lens to be quite usable. The only quirk of this lens I have seen is that focusing affects the zoom. As you focus on a nearby object, the lens also appears to zooms out a bit.
Pros - Solid construction for a non-EX Sigma lens - Light weight - Good center sharpness - Lens does not extend when focusing - Supports ADI flash units
Cons - Corners are soft until F8 - Visible Chromatic aberration away from center, even stopped down - Focus hunts when subject is close - Front element rotates when focusing
This is an excellent lens to use on an everyday shoot. This is the lens I have attached to my camera about 98% of the time. It has good DOF great lighting capability, sturdy, and great for portraits. I would be careful about using the 150-200mm range without a tripod. The lens tends to move in your hand at this range and the picture comes out blurred. If you absolutely cannot travel with a tripod, I would go the extra $200 and purchase the image stable lens in this rang that Sigma also offers. If you don't want to spend that much more for the lens, use a tripod for the telephoto, or try to hold the lens while supporting your arm on something stable. Otherwise, it's an excellent all encompassing lens.
I have the Sony/Minolta compatible version of this lens, so the lack of image stabilization in the lens itself does not affect its performance. Despite the common perception that super-zoom lenses give up too much image quality in order to achieve their flexibility, I found this lens to be quite usable. The only quirk of this lens I have seen is that focusing affects the zoom. As you focus on a nearby object, the lens also appears to zooms out a bit.
Pros - Solid construction for a non-EX Sigma lens - Light weight - Good center sharpness - Lens does not extend when focusing - Supports ADI flash units
Cons - Corners are soft until F8 - Visible chromatic Aberration away from center, even stopped down - Focus hunts when subject is close
I've been using this teleconverter with my Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens, and it works like a charm, exactly as advertised with, as far as I can tell so far, no degradation in image quality. I'm sure there is some (don't think you could get it to zero), but it's not noticeable to my eye, and I've been known to do some pixel peeping. The build quality is solid, as with all my other Sigma lenses. Just don't forget that this adds a stop to your lens, so my 2.8 is a 4 with it on. Also, be SURE to check compatibility charts at Sigma before you buy it!
Sigma and Canon -Bad Combo, Thursday, 26 November 2009
Overall rating (weighted)
3.3
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
2.0
Value for Money
3.0
In 25 years of using many cameras and lenses it always seems that Sigma and Canon have issues when paired together, this lens is no exception. The Sigma electronics on this and the 18-125mm DC have problems focusing accurately at most focal lengths on Canon bodies. Especially at 18mm forget even trying, instead you must zoom first and then zoom back out. The 18-200mm can be sharp at 18mm IF you get the correct sample (Some are terrible, bad quality control) AND you get the correct focus. The lens is sharp enough up to about 80mm, beyond that it becomes quite soft.If you take the chance on one Look for a cheap one branded under Quantaray on Ebay, you can pick one up for around $100-$115. The lens really isn't worth any more than that.
Great alternative to extend the reach of your Sigm, Tuesday, 03 November 2009
Overall rating (weighted)
5.0
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
I get the Sigma Teleconverter 1.4X especially for outdor sport games. I have Nikon D700 & D90 and Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM. I feel that 70-200mm f/2.8 is too short on D700 (full frame) and D90 (1.5x crop), therefore i get this teleconverter. It is a good alternative because it is much cheaper than buying 300mm f/2.8 or 100-300mm f4 lens. Build quality
Build quality is the same as typical Sigma EX (professional line lens) and very well match with Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM.
COMPATIBILITY
Sigma teleconverter 1.4 only works with Sigma lenses. There are about a dozen compatible lens, but only a few retain auto focus function. There are: Sigma 180mm macro f/3.5 EX HSM, Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX HSM, and Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM.
AUTO FOCUS PERFORMANCE
I don't feel any difference in auto focus performance, so it remain excellent.
IMAGE QUALITY
It loses a bit of Contrast and sharpness, but generally still very good. Check out sample images from my web blog. You can get the address from my Amazon profile.
CONCLUSION
Sigma teleconverter 1.4x is a great affordable alternative for Sigma telephoto lens' user, especially for those who need extra reach. It does not sacrifice auto focus performance and only degrade a little bit of image quality. But remember that the maximum aperture will be smaller by one stop. So it might not be very good alternative if you shooting in low light like night sports.
Disappointed/cheap quality, Friday, 16 October 2009
Overall rating (weighted)
1.3
Sharpness
1.0
Build Quality
1.0
AF Speed
1.0
Value for Money
2.0
I purchased this TC to go along with a Sigma 150-500mm. First off I noticed there was movement in the construction of the TC, there is a seam where the TC was put together and it had lots of flex. This is not my first multiplier and I have never seen such a condition. I returned it for a refund. Also I was disappointed to find out this TC doesn't offer the auto focus feature to work when mated with 150-500mm lens. This is the way it is designed, not a defect. IMO I will spend an extra $250 and go with a Nikon TC. I tried a Nikon 1.4xTC and the auto focus feature worked when hooked up with my Sigma 150-500mm lens, but costs almost $500. I will say in all my years buying from Amazon this was my first return ever, and their return policy was stellar. I like Amazon with how there return policy is handled.
