Image Stabilisation and Picture Quality: Canon 18-200mm IS vs Sigma 18-250mm OS HSM

Forums › Digital Imaging › Image Stabilisation and Picture Quality: Canon 18-200mm IS vs Sigma 18-250mm OS HSM

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#57466 14-Feb-2010 20:20

I am an amateur novice budget photographer.
Using Canon 400D

I have googled and it seems to say
1) the sigma has better build but is heavier
2) the sigma has lower chromatic abberation and barrel distortion

but

3) the canon is sharper

can anyone confirm the above?

oh dear!

i think it all comes down to the image stabilisation question
- the sigma takes one second to image stabilize
- how long does the canon take???

both are $700+ on einfo.co.nz

marmel

1924 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#299113 15-Feb-2010 15:28

Have you checked www.dpreview.com

Both lens are reviewed there, both are recommended with reservations.

I think in this price bracket there are always compromises to be made with long zooms.

What about the 70-200 F4L? Unless you need the wide end or image stabilisation this would be a huge improvement over both of the lens you mentioned, maybe around $300 or so more but money well spent in my opinion.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#299131 15-Feb-2010 15:57

unfortunately wideangle is what i'm after. *sigh, why dont i just get a point and shoot fuji f70! the good lenses are at least 2x the price of my 400d!

Disrespective

1925 posts

Uber Geek

#299301 15-Feb-2010 21:27

www.fredmiranda.com is also a very good review site to peruse when looking for new glass.

From my experience with the Nikon equivalents sharpness can in most cases be fudged in post processing, but so can fixing of CA and distortion with less effort.

In reality the Sigma will probably cost less (without actually checking) and has a better/heavier build quality which would sell it for me.

A lens like that will end up being purchased as a jack of all trades so might be prone to a little more abuse than a less used piece of glass so build quality is a big deal.

I can't comment on the stabilization time but if you're taking a shot that needs it you've probably got more than a second to frame it and have everything ready but i don't know what you'll be using it for i guess.

Do you live near a camera store with them both in? Take your body down there and try them out. It's really the only way to get a full feel for the lens itself.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#299313 15-Feb-2010 21:46

i have decided on the sigma
- the barrel distortion is minimal (1.9%), whereas the canon has 4%, and i predominantly use the wide angle part
- in terms of pixel quality, even though the canon is superior, really we're talking about 2 hopeless piece of equipment for pixel, so "superior" is still crap. i can't afford the 17-55mm f/2.8 USM at just under 2 grand a pop! i'm saving up for a 5d mark 2 ... hopefully it'll get a clearance once the 'new' model (?mark 3??) comes out.
- it's a bit cheaper
- whatever it is hopefully it's a lot better than my non IS stock 18-55mm poo poo plastic

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#304246 4-Mar-2010 00:59

so a run down on the sigma:

Cons:
very front heavy now. zoom twist a bit stiff. lense hood loose-ish.
barrel distortion is complex at wide angle, but mild.

Pros:
definitely sharper and focuses quicker/more accurately than my original lens
great shots possible (if i don't shake - even with image stabilization) due to the zoom
no need to change lenses between shots
great match for the humble 400D - both budget, both living happily ever after

great if you're not fussed! no complaints.