Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM Lens

[DrPizza]

Just purchased this lens; got what appears to be a decent deal, after looking at the prices from the major sellers. (Adorama, $349 with $89 off, for 260 + NY's tax.)

So, will I have buyer's remorse? I wanted to buy the Tamron 150-600mm lens, but a certain wife said, "no." Though, I've got her kind of close to allowing me; maybe at the end of the school year, before I go on vacation.

Anyway, review is forthcoming.

 

[TerryMathews]

At that f-stop range you'll almost always have to have a tripod.

I prefer two lenses for that reason: a wide to mid and a mid to tele. Canon's "cheap" IS lens tops out at f/5.6 at 250mm.

 

[iGas]

They are 2 complete different focal length and classes of lens.

Sigma 18-250mm vs. Tamron 150-600mm -- mouse over for sharpness comparison.

The Sigma 18-250mm is a general purpose lens that was designed as a 1 size fit all from landscape to sport photography, however as we all know 1 size tend to fit nothing because manufactures have to sacrifice quality and speed for zoom range.

The Tamron 150-600mm (an exceptionally good lens at focal length and price) is designed as a wildlife/birding/outdoor sport lens. At f/6.3~8 it is sharp enough for most tasks, however one will tend to crank the ISO up to 800~1600 (which is acceptable with modern sensors) to shoot at 1/1000-1/2000s in bright outdoor or slightly overcast.

 

[fralexandr]

dpreview
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-18-250mm-3p5-6p3-os-hsm-macro

the 18-250/18-270 lenses tend to be versatile, but have issues with distortion on the wide end, and softness on the long end. These characteristics will be more pronounced than on kit lenses.
nikon makes a spiffy 18-300; over 16x zoom wooo.

 

[disappoint]

I just ordered the highly acclaimed, yet cheap Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS aka the "nifty two fifty"

only $147 + tax.

I'll let you know how it fares after it gets here and I have some time with it...alone...in a secluded yet brightly lit area....:$

What I've seen in sample pics around the innernet look good for the price. But if you really want to get serious reach you need a 400mm prime 5.6 and be willing to spend the cash. Nothing beats a prime for sharpness. No zoom will match it's image quality.

Nifty two fifty random samples (not my image):

 

[TerryMathews]

I just ordered the highly acclaimed, yet cheap Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS aka the "nifty two fifty"

only $147 + tax.

I'll let you know how it fares after it gets here and I have some time with it...alone...in a secluded yet brightly lit area....:$

What I've seen in sample pics around the innernet look good for the price. But if you really want to get serious reach you need a 400mm prime 5.6 and be willing to spend the cash. Nothing beats a prime for sharpness. No zoom will match it's image quality.

Nifty two fifty random sample (not my image):

There are three (cheap) Canon lenses that should be in everyone's bag:

-18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS
-55-250 f/4-5.6 IS
-50 f/1.8

 

[iGas]

I just ordered the highly acclaimed, yet cheap Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS aka the "nifty two fifty"

only $147 + tax.

I'll let you know how it fares after it gets here and I have some time with it...alone...in a secluded yet brightly lit area....:$

What I've seen in sample pics around the innernet look good for the price. But if you really want to get serious reach you need a 400mm prime 5.6 and be willing to spend the cash. Nothing beats a prime for sharpness. No zoom will match it's image quality.

Nifty two fifty random samples (not my image):

Canon 400L f/5.6 vs. Tamron 150-600mm @ 400mm & f/5.6

I wouldn't be too quick to claim prime 400mm is sharper than zoom @ 400mm. The link that I provided shown that the Tamron zoom pretty much match the Canon L prime wide open and so as closing down to f/8.

Modern 70-200mm f/2.8 lens design are just as sharp or sharper than 85mm, 100/105mm, 135mm, and 200mm f/2.8 primes from a decade ago (from Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax/Minolta/Zeiss), except for the 135L Canon, and other Canon/Nikon/Zeiss ultra fast & ultra expensive lenses.

 

[iGas]

There are three (cheap) Canon lenses that should be in everyone's bag:

-18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS
-55-250 f/4-5.6 IS
-50 f/1.8

I agree with the 18-55mm and so as the 50mm, but I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the relatively inexpensive 28mm, 35mm, 85mm, and 100mm.

 

[disappoint]

Canon 400L f/5.6 vs. Tamron 150-600mm @ 400mm & f/5.6

I wouldn't be too quick to claim prime 400mm is sharper than zoom @ 400mm. The link that I provided shown that the Tamron zoom pretty much match the Canon L prime wide open and so as closing down to f/8.

Modern 70-200mm f/2.8 lens design are just as sharp or sharper than 85mm, 100/105mm, 135mm, and 200mm f/2.8 primes from a decade ago (from Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax/Minolta/Zeiss), except for the 135L Canon, and other Canon/Nikon/Zeiss ultra fast & ultra expensive lenses.

It's close. The prime is a hair sharper and has less CA, especially in the corners, though that might not matter to some. I was looking at that right after I posted my post as well. Thanks for the link to that lens comparison site, it's pretty useful.

It's close enough to say that is an exceptionally good zoom lens.

 

[destrekor]

That Tamron 150-600mm (Nikon mount) is my next lens, for sure. I desperately need that reach, but cannot yet afford the quality telephotos that cost twice as much and yet don't even come close to the total reach.

After that, a zoom in the mid-range will be on the need list. 16-28mm, 50mm, and 85mm is what I can do at the moment.
I really want the Sigma 35mm or 50mm F1.4, but dammit, I need zooms to be more effective.

Also desperately "in need" of a Macro and perhaps even a PC lens. Ugh... stupid photo bug/glass itch.

 

[DrPizza]

The Sigma 18-250mm is more or less for my wife. Our old point and shoot camera had 20 or 24x zoom on it. It took a bit of explaining to get the wife to understand that she wasn't going to be able to zoom in like that on the nikkor 18-55mm that came with the camera. (Nikon D3200)

The Tamron 150-600mm is for me; I love to shoot wildlife, especially birds. And, I'm tired of taking dozens upon dozens of photos of birds, simply because I can't take the photos of them in flight when they're far away, and need them in really close. When they're 20 feet away and flying every which way, panning and getting good focus is a pita; or rather, it was with my old P&S camera which probably doesn't focus as fast. But, far too often, I encounter eagles, etc., that I wish I could really reach out to. Hence, I want a new toy to play with.

 

[disappoint]

Tony Northrup's recommendations for wildlife and sports photography for Canon platform users:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqc5jwR0uuw

 

[blastingcap]

I have a Nikon V1, am trying to get a FT-1, and have both a Nikon 70-300VR and Tamron 70-300VC on hand. FX equivalent focal length = 2.7 x 300 = 810mm on the long end. Give this type of setup some consideration if you need 600mm+ of reach.

 

[iGas]

I have a Nikon V1, am trying to get a FT-1, and have both a Nikon 70-300VR and Tamron 70-300VC on hand. FX equivalent focal length = 2.7 x 300 = 810mm on the long end. Give this type of setup some consideration if you need 600mm+ of reach.

How the AF-S (Continuous Servo) and shutter speed with the V1 & 70-300mm Nikkor/Tamron?

The OP mentioned bird in flight is a requirement, therefore AF tracking is very important.

IMHO, the 18-250mm will satisfy DrPizza wife, but she may not like the larger/heavier camera and lens. And, the 150-600mm will take sometime to get use to because of the extreme long focal length and relatively slow fstop (f/6.3) at the long end (most bodies AF do not work beyond f/5.6 and only a few pro bodies AF functioned up to f/8).

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

There are three (cheap) Canon lenses that should be in everyone's bag:

-18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS
-55-250 f/4-5.6 IS
-50 f/1.8

Or in my case, the only lenses in my bag. Usually have the 18-55 on. 55-250 for kids sports. And the 50 rarely. Granted, the 50 is a great tool to learn about F stop with.

 

[TerryMathews]

Or in my case, the only lenses in my bag. Usually have the 18-55 on. 55-250 for kids sports. And the 50 rarely. Granted, the 50 is a great tool to learn about F stop with.

I use the 50 for video

 

[DrPizza]

Preliminary results: wife is quite happy with it. That's the lens that stays on the camera now. I'll take some pics later.

 

[CuriousMike]

Preliminary results: wife is quite happy with it. That's the lens that stays on the camera now. I'll take some pics later.

Wife happy? Say no more. Winner.

 

[blastingcap]

How the AF-S (Continuous Servo) and shutter speed with the V1 & 70-300mm Nikkor/Tamron?

The OP mentioned bird in flight is a requirement, therefore AF tracking is very important.

IMHO, the 18-250mm will satisfy DrPizza wife, but she may not like the larger/heavier camera and lens. And, the 150-600mm will take sometime to get use to because of the extreme long focal length and relatively slow fstop (f/6.3) at the long end (most bodies AF do not work beyond f/5.6 and only a few pro bodies AF functioned up to f/8).

I don't have the FT-1 yet. Prior to the FT-1's firmware update that gave it the ability to AF-C (center point only) with lenses, it was a poor combo. AFTER the FT-1 AF-C update, I am hearing that it's a lot more usable now, but I don't know how it compares to using a 70-300 Nikkor on DSLR.

Btw I was looking into a Sony a6000 but that's apparently not going to replace a high-end DSLR anytime soon for fast action, due to EVF lag. I have noticed it slightly impacting shots with a V1 + 30-110 lens, but the 30-110 focuses so fast (perhaps due to how small glass requires less effort to move around) that it doesn't matter TOO much. Apparently the a6000 has similar issues, though if you take large enough bursts you may get some keepers anyway:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a6000/sony-a6000A.HTM#SR2

 

[iGas]

I don't have the FT-1 yet. Prior to the FT-1's firmware update that gave it the ability to AF-C (center point only) with lenses, it was a poor combo. AFTER the FT-1 AF-C update, I am hearing that it's a lot more usable now, but I don't know how it compares to using a 70-300 Nikkor on DSLR.

Btw I was looking into a Sony a6000 but that's apparently not going to replace a high-end DSLR anytime soon for fast action, due to EVF lag. I have noticed it slightly impacting shots with a V1 + 30-110 lens, but the 30-110 focuses so fast (perhaps due to how small glass requires less effort to move around) that it doesn't matter TOO much. Apparently the a6000 has similar issues, though if you take large enough bursts you may get some keepers anyway:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a6000/sony-a6000A.HTM#SR2

From my limited experience, a non native lens with converter at best AF speed would greatly slowdown and perhaps to the point of unusable beside manual focusing.

The first 1-2 shots in bust mode for sport or wildlife photography is very important because it is where you get most of the keepers, unless you are well verse enough to predict the movements then keeper shots may extend from 1-2 to 1-3 shots. Therefore, AF tracking and lock for the first few shots are much more important than how many shots you can get off in bust mode. That said, the A6000 is a mirror less body that wasn't design for quick action like the D4s is, and every lens AF speeds are different as well.