answers: 48

  1. Bright
    26.12.2017

    Probably such a fu lens, not worthy of such a wow review. But on the other hand, how else to find out that the lens is not ice.

    Reply

    • Mikhalych
      27.12.2017

      for its price this station wagon is very ICE! show me a lens with about the same characteristics that you can buy in a store for about the same money, WHICH WILL BE BETTER!

      Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        27.12.2017

        Tamron 18-200 VC (B018) at about the same cost and in some ways could be better.
        But in general, cheap superzoom with a stabilizer is really very small.

        Reply

  2. Ilyas
    26.12.2017

    not bad, thanks.

    Reply

  3. Aleksei
    26.12.2017

    Great and thorough review! thanks

    Reply

  4. Eugene
    26.12.2017

    His wife has been working with travel zoom for 12 years. First with D40, then with D3100
    With him she graduated with honors from the Moscow FSH (when she was still a muscle brother)
    They didn’t expect miracles from him, especially since there are 2 cameras and Zhmen nikonovskih lights.
    In equal hands, it’s just like a zoom zoom with some kind of macro that has the right to life for little money.
    Now, of course, there is more choice ...

    Reply

    • Denis
      27.12.2017

      you are closer to Moscow. from Siberia I would not have thought of going to some Moscow photo school

      Reply

  5. Sergei
    27.12.2017

    the fact that the lens is "so-so" say people who have not used and have not seen it even once. the cost of "sigma 18-200 C" is 3 times less than the original "nikon 18-200", and the quality of the picture as a travel camera of the amateur photographer (who spanks everything on the car) is simply excellent, always good in the center. Yes - an audible focusing motor, but Nikon has no silence either. They focus and hold the subject the same way, according to subjective sensations sigma is better, because performed well at the “wide end” indoors under artificial lighting, and indeed sigma is more colorful ... who needs a universal travel or just a universal for a modern Nikon camera D3200,3300,5200,5300,7100,7200 or D200 then “sigma 18- 200C ”is preferable with other older cameras like d80,90 etc. you need to try (one of the d90s turned out to be nonsense)
    PS any lens behaves differently on different cameras, it's a great success if the lens and the camera are "related".

    Reply

    • Alexey Shch
      27.12.2017

      There are RAW files to “have a look”. After viewing which you don't want to contact this glass even for free.
      Although, probably, it will do for an undemanding traveler. They are on the sidelines for quality - they do not hand over material to magazines. For 10x15 photos in a family album, it's the most))

      PS The camera has nothing to do with it. The lens is objectively weak and the price is not an excuse. After native versions or at least the last Tamrons to old film (the letters DC in the name are for burp) Sigma is no longer willing to change :)

      Thank you for the review. Arkady does not spare himself.

      Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      27.12.2017

      The 18-200 C (Contemporary) is a truly worthwhile lens.

      Reply

  6. Onotole
    27.12.2017

    Eh, all dark zooms and dark zooms ... but I really want a review of some good fix)))
    Well, thanks for that - thorough analysis.

    Reply

  7. Dmitriy
    27.12.2017

    Great review! For a beginner, it's generally a good practice to choose a lens. Of course I will not buy one myself, it is better to use something fast used in the range of 24 (28) - 70 (75) mm. + Sigma 70-300 DG OS. For money somewhere it will come out

    Reply

  8. Rodion
    27.12.2017

    However - I like his bokeshka) Apparently, there are enough aberrations to give a little flavor to such a seemingly “artless” lens.

    Reply

    • Eugene
      28.12.2017

      it is warm in shades, it is also necessary to consider.

      Reply

  9. Eugene
    28.12.2017

    Denis, there was a beautiful correspondence FS, somehow tied to the Academy of Fine Arts or something like that.
    And if you study honestly, then not a damn thing is not an easy task ... tasks are quite difficult and not for dummies. If done with heart - you deserve a comment, if not - offset / not credit. And offering to teach your own course is worth a lot, right?
    it’s not Siberia, it’s desire. (and a little money;))

    Reply

  10. Ivan
    29.12.2017

    Arkady will shoot better on a bucket with a hole than we do on this lens ...

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      29.12.2017

      If there is enough time, we can all shoot something qualitatively on any lens.

      Reply

    • rudzil@yandex.ru
      29.12.2017

      An overview of the bucket with a hole, by the way, already exists :)

      Reply

      • Ivan
        29.12.2017

        The review is good. As well as the object itself. The build quality was very good, the construction was also good - I know what I'm talking about, I took it apart for cleaning. As it is right here they have been taking care of for 10 years and does not get sick, unlike disposable tamrons. According to the picture of the norms - no worse than the original from the first generation Nikon 18-200is. Unlike the previous junk on Arcadia's review, it's just a song. The review is interesting - before the New Year, the author clearly rallied himself and issued a worthwhile material. Hello.

        Reply

  11. R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№
    30.12.2017

    Everything, a photo site was blown away, overgrows with mold and moss! It remains only occasionally to re-read the old archives, the new-standing less and less. There is no review of the most popular and interesting device, like the Canon 5D Mark II!

    Reply

    • Alexey Shch
      30.12.2017

      The most popular is just 5DM3))

      Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      30.12.2017

      I’ve heard about this for about 5 years :). It's not about driving

      Reply

    • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№
      30.12.2017

      For beginners, he will not be blown away, but we just read what was interesting to us.

      Reply

    • Stepan
      31.12.2017

      Hm. The world photo industry is not coping, it is not in time with new supplies for viewing. I think so. The site is an excellent reference tool, both for reading and for counseling, and for some to argue in search of truth.

      Reply

    • corsair
      07.01.2018

      There are enough of them. Arkady simply is not able to acquire photographic equipment just to “make you interesting” for the sake of one review. Send optics photos and so on for review, do not press. And there are enough clever entertainers here without you.

      Reply

  12. Stepan
    31.12.2017

    Happy New Year everyone!

    Reply

  13. anonym
    31.12.2017

    Happy new year friends!!!

    Reply

  14. Andrei
    05.02.2018

    I have been using this lens for years ... I don’t remember when I bought it.
    In addition to the described shortcomings, I would like to note the backlash that appears when lengthening the trunk (when zooming). Even from a tripod but at the slightest breeze - soap. He himself would not have understood what was the matter in life, but a friend with the same suggested what was the matter. When it was new it was not.
    I also disagree about focusing - often by, especially now, with years of use.

    From a friend who used the same: "up to 135mm FR, in principle, you can make good shots, but it must be borne in mind that the periphery will be at least secondary"

    Reply

  15. Vladislav
    18.04.2018

    Hello, Arkady. A simple specific question for you. It is possible to inexpensively buy a lens for Nikon D40. The choice is this: presented by Sigma Zoom DC 18-200mm 1: 3.5-6.3 II HSM OS and the famous Nikon 18-135. Which of these 2 do you recommend?

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      18.04.2018

      Definitely Sigma, followed by a set of focal and stabilizer.

      Reply

  16. Vladislav
    18.04.2018

    Adding - the difference in focal length is not of interest, only in the quality of the picture.

    Reply

  17. Vladislav
    18.04.2018

    Thank you.

    Reply

  18. Oleg
    16.02.2019

    Good afternoon!
    Please tell me about Sigma Zoom DC 18-200mm 1: 3.5-6.3 II HSM OS
    1) is it worth taking a used one if everything is in perfect condition, except for the presence on the outer lens of a deep scratch 3-4 mm long at the very edge of the lens somewhere 2 mm from the edge. During a trial amateur photographing, there are no artifacts in the photo, but doubts are plaguing that in some cases it will appear. Taking a new one for the money is not an option, but here, in addition to a scratch, is new, but at a price four times cheaper than a new one. In general, the ball is complete but a scratch ... ((Also on the internet I saw the advice of experienced Soviet photographers to carefully cover the scratch with black paint like gouache in order to exclude scattering of light and glare and not bother. Is it real?
    2) on the same lens when testing photos on the Nikon D5100, zooming only works when you rotate the zoom ring on the lens, even when AF is on. And whether it is necessary to turn off the AF in M ​​mode when flipping the zoom ring. If I turn on the AF when the AF is turned on, will I not ruin the motor in the lens?
    The questions are related to the fact that I am completely unfamiliar with the SLR camera. I just pick myself up on the basis of what I read and look in the direction of a used one as a cheap training ground.
    Thank you.

    Reply

    • B. R. P.
      17.02.2019

      The zoom ring is not connected to the motor, so twist on health. As for the scratch, if the photo is not affected and the price is free, you can take it.

      Reply

  19. Alexey
    20.05.2019

    I bought it recently. Before that, there were such bundles:
    350 with a whale object 18-55 without stub
    500 with tamron (bought at 350) 18-200 without stub
    550 with the same tamron. Tamron 18-270 was later taken with a stub
    600 with the same tamron 18-270. And now this sigma is bought.
    Yes, I know that many will now spit that the entire list is zooms and most of the ultras. But most of the photos I have taken are hiking, mountains, seas, meadows…. The entire list is quite suitable for filming in any conditions except, probably, premises and at night. But of the whole bunch, I can confidently say that this one is the most comfortable and gives the best image quality.
    I will describe here my impressions of everyone - can anyone help.
    By weight, the whale and sigma are the lightest. And this is clearly +. Also, both the movement of the zoom (trunk) is the easiest and smoothest. Tamrons are heavier. 270 that one generally in the middle straight almost gets stuck (the wife can’t push, I also feel dull).
    tamron 270 and sigma due to the stub allow a little stir, but the picture quality of sigma is clearly better. But after 270 there is not enough range. In general, from the whole heap, I decided to attach just the sigma. By the way, I had 50 1,8. According to him, I realized that fixes are not mine)))

    Reply

  20. Alexey
    20.05.2019

    Oh and yes ... 18-55 is clearly not enough range (IMHO of course). The picture quality is weak while the zoom is weak. It seems that it is not a zoom (almost not felt) and it seems not a fix. In general, this is exactly the option on which you can understand where it is better to dive - into fixes or into hyperzuma.
    At 18-270, the trunk is clearly falling out. Even taking into account that it barely crawls there (you need decent efforts to scroll), if you turn it with the lens down, it immediately crawls out. Therefore, it is already a habit to put on a stop after any picture (and this often fails when you need to take a very quick picture - a badger in the forest, a squirrel on a branch, a bird, etc.). That the tamron, that the sigma, the fall out is noticeable if you turn the camera with the lens down and at the same time stomp ... Slowly (slowly, not like 270) the trunk will move out. Inconvenient, but bearable. That is, if the path lies through the territory where it will be necessary to click the frame, you can hang the camera down and not worry about the stop - unlike 270, these do not outweigh the camera and remain hanging as it should be for the camera (from 270 the camera is slowly turned upside down by the lens under the weight of one) ... Well, the hand does not fall off - 18-270 weighs much more. Also, when the trunk is pulled out, you have to grab the front of the lens - otherwise it is difficult to hold the camera. Hands get tired under the weight of the object and the frame starts to slide down.

    Reply

  21. kolodiazniy
    05.04.2020

    Arkady, where on the lens
    Did you see the ZOOM sign?

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      05.04.2020

      Here

      Reply

  22. Alexander
    04.02.2021

    Hello. Tell me what kind of lens hood comes with? Like the older MACRO model - LH676-01 and are there any analogues?

    Reply

  23. Arthur
    10.09.2021

    Good afternoon. I bought this lens in 2014. Before buying, I read your complimentary review. Now I am reading your article, but 2017, the exact opposite. I don’t understand, was the first article ordered?

    Reply

    • Oleg
      10.09.2021

      I a priori do not remember the laudatory odes for lenses with a similar range of focal lengths, you can refer to

      Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        10.09.2021

        easily - https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-300mm-vr.htm
        … This lens is an easy recommendation. There is nothing on Earth like this lens ...

        Reply

      • Oleg
        10.09.2021

        Ah, but I thought this:

        Reply

      • Oleg
        10.09.2021

        My experience
        The Sigma 18-200mm f / 3.5-6.3 did not give me any emotions or impressions. This is a dark standard zoom lens with mediocre image quality and the 'sigma' characteristics of older Sigma lenses. As usual, in this case, I have to write 'maybe I had a bad copy on the review'. I'd rather use the shorter Nikon 18-105 / 3.5-5.6 VR than spend my money on the Sigma 18-200mm f / 3.5-6.3. By the way, I did not find a 2014 review of these lenses, I even looked at the 18-250 review

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        10.09.2021

        By the way, Sigma Contemporary 18-200 is significantly better

        Reply

  24. Artyom
    21.09.2022

    Hello gentlemen! Let me add a few words about the lens under discussion.
    I got it today in perfect condition. A new, solid thing is pleasant to hold in your hands. This is where the review can end.
    But I will add a couple of words: the lens proved to be not what it claims to be: at a focal length of the so-called 200 mm, it barely demonstrates 150. I compared it with the Nikkor 18-135 and Nikkor 55-200 VR II. So, at the long end, it is slightly longer than 135 by 18-135, but much shorter than 200 by 55-200. This fact disappointed me greatly. There can be no talk of any macro. Despite its smaller MDF, the picture at 55-200 is much denser even when shooting on MDF.
    Compared to the Nikkor 18-135, the distortion at 18 mm on the Sigma is more pronounced, the sharpness is comparable, but the color is somewhat warmer, the exposure is lighter with the same settings. Yes, and 18-135 by 18mm gives a slightly wider coverage. So, I think, there are not 18 for Sigma, but somewhere around 20-22.
    In focusing, it behaves uncertainly, prowls and twitches: in the end, it is difficult to achieve a clear frame.
    I'm sure my copy is correct. But now I am also confident in the quality of this model as such - mediocre. Very mediocre.

    Reply

    • B. R. P.
      21.09.2022

      A typical situation for such lenses. Nothing surprising.

      Reply

    • Viktre
      21.09.2022

      What kind of macro are we talking about on such lenses, God bless you))) If you want macro, you need to buy a macro fix, in extreme cases, macro rings.

      Most old sigmas turn yellow, a well-known fact. Here is the discrepancy between the focal lengths, of course, an unfortunate fact, when purchasing 18-200, you expect to see exactly 200.

      Reply

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer