Help...Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM worth buying?

D

dragion

Senior Member
I'm planning to take a family trip to DisneyWorld this Summer and was thinking if buying a super zoom lens...would it be a wise choice?
I want to bring the most simple camera set up as possible...trying to avoid too many or none at all lens changes.

I'm interested in either the Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM or maybe Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 DI-II VC PZD.
Budget is tight so Nikon 18-300mm is out of my reach. Trying to keep it under $400.

Located an used Sigma for under $320 Sigma DC 18 250 mm F 3 5 6 3 OS HSM Lens for Nikon 0085126880552 | eBay
Good buy? Might place an offer of $300 and see if seller excepts.

I'm asking for advice on either positive or negative regarding making this purchase decision or just bring what lenses I currently own(?)

The question is...buy super zoom and which one if yes or don't buy and just bring current lens(es)...and which ones should I bring?

Any suggestions/feedback will be appreciated.


THANKS! :D
 
D

DraganDL

Senior Member
If you think the 18-105mm wouldn't do, then Tamron 18-270mm. I've heard Sigma's AF is kinda less accurate (and that it "hunts" more often than Tamron's).
Personally, I would never buy a lens with a focal length range so "expanded" (Nikon 18-300mm and these, they all suffer from disgustingly huge amount of distortions and the difference in sharpness between the center and the edges at full aperture).
 
Last edited:
D

dragion

Senior Member
DraganDL said:
If you think the 18-105mm wouldn't do, then Tamron 18-270mm. I've heard Sigma's AF is kinda less accurate (and that it "hunts" more often than Tamron's).
Personally, I would never buy a lens with a focal length range so "expanded" (Nikon 18-300mm and these, they all suffer from disgustingly huge amount of distortions and the difference in sharpness between the center and the edges at full aperture).
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response.

Will the Nikon 18-105mm be good enough...don't really want to bring the 70-300mm and be swapping lenses for more reach.
I've never been to Disney, so this is the reason I'm asking.
 
D

DraganDL

Senior Member
I think, yes, it's gonna be good enough. You'll be taking lots of portraits and scenery, using mostly 18-50mm, maybe 70mm. Bring at least 1 spare battery (or a grip) with you...
 
J

john*thomas

Senior Member
If you look you can find the Sigma for $300 new. I don't know but I wouldn't think you would need this big of range at Disneyworld. At the low price I have one for general walking around. I'll live with some limitations as opposed to tramping around in the woods with a $1000 lens. I also hate swapping a lens while out.

It is slow to focus on fast moving objects. For normal focus I've noticed no difference than any other lens. It's actually better than I expected in low light.
 
G

grandpaw

Senior Member
When I researched before my last trip to WDW I found that almost all pictures were taken from 18mm to 40mm. After making my trip down there I found this to be very accurate. You will need a wide angle and faster lens for inside and after dark MUCH MORE than you will need anything long. You can check out my gallery of WDW pictures HERE. These were taken with my D7000 and a Sigma 17 to 50mm F2.8 lens. You might consider just renting a lens for ths trip instead of purchasing anything.

I might add that I now own a D600 full frame camera and will be taking one lens with me when I go back to WDW this Thanksgiving and it will be the equivalent lens for the D600 which will be the Tamron 24-70 F2.8.

On any pictures in my gallery that you want to know the EXF data just put your pointer towards the top right hand side of the bigger picture to the right and click on the little blue box with the "I" for info in it and you can see what each one was shot at.
 
Last edited:
W

weebee

Senior Member
Unless you go to the Animal Kingdom anything over 70-75mm is not really needed. When I went through the animal kingdom I would love to have had a camera with 300mm or a super zoom bridge camera.
 
G

grandpaw

Senior Member
weebee said:
Unless you go to the Animal Kingdom anything over 70-75mm is not really needed. When I went through the animal kingdom I would love to have had a camera with 300mm or a super zoom bridge camera.
Click to expand...

I did take my long lens the day I went to animal kingdom. I had the wide Sigma on one camera and the long lens on the other one but the way the driver drove the vehicle I spent most of my time trying to keep my cameras from bouncing off things and getting broken. I might add I did have all six of my lenses available at the condo so I could take one the following day if needed but with the exception of animal kingdom I never needed them and the way the driver drove I didn't get to use it there.
 
J

Jonathan

Senior Member
DraganDL said:
If you think the 18-105mm wouldn't do, then Tamron 18-270mm. I've heard Sigma's AF is kinda less accurate (and that it "hunts" more often than Tamron's).
Personally, I would never buy a lens with a focal length range so "expanded" (Nikon 18-300mm and these, they all suffer from disgustingly huge amount of distortions and the difference in sharpness between the center and the edges at full aperture).
Click to expand...

I have the 18-300 on my D7100 and I'm loving it. Horses for courses, of course, but I cannot detect the distortion and variation in sharpness you mention. However, that's possibly because I don't know what to look for! I very much appreciate it's sheer flexibility.
 
W

weebee

Senior Member
grandpaw said:
I did take my long lens the day I went to animal kingdom. I had the wide Sigma on one camera and the long lens on the other one but the way the driver drove the vehicle I spent most of my time trying to keep my cameras from bouncing off things and getting broken. I might add I did have all six of my lenses available at the condo so I could take one the following day if needed but with the exception of animal kingdom I never needed them and the way the driver drove I didn't get to use it there.
Click to expand...

Lol, I do recall the roads being a "tad" bumpy. :)
 
D

DraganDL

Senior Member
Jonathan said:
I have the 18-300 on my D7100 and I'm loving it. Horses for courses, of course, but I cannot detect the distortion and variation in sharpness you mention. However, that's possibly because I don't know what to look for! I very much appreciate it's sheer flexibility.
Click to expand...

Heavy "barrel" distortion, that amounts to 3.67% at 18mm (for the sake of comparison, Nikon 18-135mm distorts up to 3.35% at the same focal length).
Take a look at this ("real photo") example and the laboratory analysis: Nikkor AF-S DX 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR - Review / Test Report - Analysis :friendly_wink:

Now, compare it to 16-85mm (yeah, I know it's range is way too narrower, but that's exactly the point - to avoid such "extremes" or not) probably the best Nikon DX all-around zoom ever: http://goo.gl/g5wRqK

At 16mm it produces significantly lower amount of distortion than either of these at 18mm (!): 18-55mm, 18-70mm, 18-105mm, 18-135mm, 18-140mm, 18-200mm, 18-300mm.
But, the quality comes at a price...
 
Last edited:
J

Jonathan

Senior Member
Thanks for all the info, very kind of you, but, to be honest, I'm not going to read any of it. I've already bought the lens and, as I say, I'm loving it so the last thing I want to read are reports telling me it's no bloody good!

<Sticks fingers in ears>

Lalalalalalala
 
D

DraganDL

Senior Member
Oh, c'mmon Jonathan, don't jump to the conclusion - it DEFINITELY is NOT a bad lens. All this is just a question of "good, better...even MORE good...yet a notch better, do I hear the BEST?! No? Whoa! Just what I expected...". Etc., etc...and one more time: etc. Please, don't hate me (I just LOVE not to be hated). Joke, joke, pun, my dear colleague. But REALLY, seriously: you've got a good camera and the versatile lens, and it can be seen in your photos, too. So, are we still friends? (colleagues?:cheerful:)

(And, keep in mind that signature of our colleague Marcel:listening_headphone)
 
Last edited:
P

Philnz

Senior Member
Jonathan said:
I have the 18-300 on my D7100 and I'm loving it. Horses for courses, of course, but I cannot detect the distortion and variation in sharpness you mention. However, that's possibly because I don't know what to look for! I very much appreciate it's sheer flexibility.
Click to expand...
If you go to 1.3 crop setting on the D7100 you will get even more reach.
 
P

Philnz

Senior Member
Jonathan said:
Thanks for all the info, very kind of you, but, to be honest, I'm not going to read any of it. I've already bought the lens and, as I say, I'm loving it so the last thing I want to read are reports telling me it's no bloody good!

<Sticks fingers in ears>

Lalalalalalala
Click to expand...
Did they touch in the middle? :cool: Hope you can get them out again.:tears_of_joy:
 
J

Jonathan

Senior Member
DraganDL said:
Oh, c'mmon Jonathan, don't jump to the conclusion - it DEFINITELY is NOT a bad lens. All this is just a question of "good, better...even MORE good...yet a notch better, do I hear the BEST?! No? Whoa! Just what I expected...". Etc., etc...and one more time: etc. Please, don't hate me (I just LOVE not to be hated). Joke, joke, pun, my dear colleague. But REALLY, seriously: you've got a good camera and the versatile lens, and it can be seen in your photos, too. So, are we still friends? (colleagues?:cheerful:)

(And, keep in mind that signature of our colleague Marcel:listening_headphone)
Click to expand...

Philnz said:
If you go to 1.3 crop setting on the D7100 you will get even more reach.
Click to expand...

I have yet to explore that (and many other aspects of this great camera), but thanks very much for the reminder.
 
Top