Sigma 18-200mm V 18-250mm

[Angelhales]

Hey guys and girls.

I did a forum search but couldnt find anything relating to this.

I'm currently looking at getting a new lense. I mainly shoot people, both at events etc and portraiture, its still very much a hobby although people tell me I should make more of myself.

I'm looking at both the Sigma 18-250 and the 18-200 now obviously theres around a £100 price difference for 50mm more, I dont have a great deal of experience with zooms and lenses etc so wondered if anyone could help me here. Will an extra 50mm be beneficial? Or is itjust a waste of money can I get just as good from the 200?

Thanks.

[leeristol33]

Hi - I have the Sigma 18-250 which recives good reviews. It is a superzoom and so the image quality isn't up to that of a good walkaround lens. I am selling my lens on ebay after 5 months and hoping to replace with the Canon 15-85mm.

Have you considered something like a 70-300mm rather than a superzoom - might find the image quality to be better?

[GeoffWessex]

For "people, events, portraiture" I wouldn't recommend a long zoom at all - the best aperture you'll get would be f/4 (at the wide end) - not great for portraits. Better to get a used 50mm prime, with a wider aperture, like f/2.

[greenwing]

I'm with Geoff on this. Maybe something like a 24-70 f/2.8 is worth thinking about. The superzooms are all very well, though they sacrifice image quality for the convenience of range. You probably don't need the 18-24 or 100-250 range very much for portraits, and you'd be better looking for quality rather than range..

Angel, what lens do you currently have, and have you analysed your use of it to see where it's falling short of your needs?

Chris

[Angelhales]

I've currently got a standard 18-55mm and a 50mm too. I shoot a great variety of subjects and have found that I'm lacking in terms of zoom sometimes which is why I was considering these lenses. I've only got about £500 at a push to use really so want to get the most from my money.

[chris-p]

Well, the image quality is better from the 18-200 but they're both pretty poor. Your 18-55mm is actually better.

If you want a longer zoom for £500 get a 70-300mm to complement the lenses you've already got.

[greenwing]

Another one to consider is the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. Not so long, but a nice aperture for limiting DOF. A bit over budget.

Chris

[GeoffWessex]

"Another one to consider is the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8."...... That looks like a perfect lens for Angelhales's people, events and portraiture. Might even be considered a "good wedding camera". I must check that one out myself.

[edit] Just checked the Sigma UK site - it's 715 pounds - not at all cheap, but something I may just try to save for [/edit]

[Angelhales]

Originally Posted by chris-p

Well, the image quality is better from the 18-200 but they're both pretty poor. Your 18-55mm is actually better.

If you want a longer zoom for £500 get a 70-300mm to complement the lenses you've already got.

Hey Chris,

So is a sigma 70-300mm a good idea? What brand? I'm also thinking of a motorsport shoot I'm going to be attending at Top Gears track later in Sept and obviously I doubt I'll be able to get that close to the track so a zoom would be ideal.

Are there any sites that compare image qualities of different lenses at all?

[chris-p]

Personally, I rarely see the point in overlapping focal lengths. If you've got the 18-55mm range covered, why by another lens that covers the same range unless it's much better quality? Thats why I would go for a telephoto zoom rather than a super zoom.

If you've got up to £500 to spend then the best long lens you'll get for your money is the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.
Of course, that requires you to have a Canon camera, which I think you do?

There are other options for these lenses, such as the Sigma ones and the Canon 55-250mm, but this one is pretty much the best one for Canon cameras that costs less than a grand.