Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Sigma 18-250mm thoughts

profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
Reviews on the internet are pretty mixed, any users or photography experts have any input on this lens? I can pick it up for $400 used from Henry's which is pretty good, doesn't bother me if it's used if it's up to par with Henry's.

I'm using a Canon T2i/550d if anybody was wondering


+k to responses, thanks!
Jun 13 2011 7:41PM
0 0
profile picture
michelle
Posts: 6290 - Karma: 428
Don't buy it, it's not even worth the 400 bucks. Anything with that much range isn't worth shit.
Jun 13 2011 7:45PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
Yeah I've heard this. But i don't want to buy many lenses, or have to change between lenses frequently.
Jun 13 2011 7:48PM
0 0
profile picture
@ScubaSteve
Posts: 378 - Karma: 822
yea, it gives u an awesome focal length to work with, but it sucks!
my school has this lens, and its garbage. makes the images look like poo.

the only sigma lenses I would ever get are the 10mm f/2.8 & 30mm f/1.4
Jun 13 2011 7:56PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
Are there any similar lenses that do the job a bit better?
Jun 13 2011 8:01PM
0 0
profile picture
@ScubaSteve
Posts: 378 - Karma: 822
the canon version.
Its a little more, but worth it
Jun 13 2011 8:03PM
0 0
profile picture
.Ian.
Posts: 1568 - Karma: 72
If you are looking for a zoom lens around 200mm I would suggest the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I love mine, I got it used on craigslist for a great deal too and the guy only used it once. The only reason I suggest the sigma is because the Nikon or Canon version is around double the price of the Sigma. I've never used the Nikon 70-200 so I can't compare but the Sigma definitely gets the job done great for me.

As stated before something with that much range must be crappy. I've never used one with that much range but I've heard not so good stories.
Jun 13 2011 8:13PM
0 0
profile picture
solitaryman
Posts: 3578 - Karma: 123
You're in luck! Canon released the Mk II of the 55-250 today.

Jun 13 2011 8:15PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
You mean the L series lens? and +k to all
Jun 13 2011 8:31PM
0 0
profile picture
@ScubaSteve
Posts: 378 - Karma: 822
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/582444-USA/Canon_2752B002_EF_S_18_200mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html
Jun 15 2011 5:48PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
Dont cheap out on lenses, both the sigma and the 55-250 mentioned above are both pretty garbage lenses. Save up a little more and get a 70-200 L series for a few hundred more. You could even get one used for that price of the sigma.
Jun 15 2011 6:00PM
0 0
profile picture
DrZoidberg
Posts: 5675 - Karma: 4,268
Exactly.If you see something like 15-300 it's not gonna be good, unless it costs so much that you could get a 15, 28, 50, 100, 200 and 300 for the same or less. And such a lens probably has a stupid variable aperture throughout the zoom range. Soon they'll be promising a 15mm fisheye through 500mm f2.8...
Jun 15 2011 10:43PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
What?

My meter must be broken..
Jun 18 2011 12:49PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
Bump, because I'm getting a new lens soon and am not sure what to get in the telephoto area.
Jul 6 2011 11:08PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61590 - Karma: 122,949
These kinds of lenses do exist, but they are cinema/tv lenses. canon makes like a 7.5-200 f1.4, but they cover like 1/2 of a dslr sensor. Hell, my HVX "lens" is a 4.2-55 1.4 lololol.
Jul 6 2011 11:12PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
It would be rad a fuck if in the future this focal length range could be possible for DSLR's.
Jul 6 2011 11:16PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61590 - Karma: 122,949
I mean, they do exist already. Zeiss makes a 16.5-110 f2.6 that would cover a 1.6x crop thats around 40 grand and is really compact!!
Click for larger image

Cooke make a cine zoom thats 20-100 f3.1 thats only 14 grand and i think that will cover a 1.6x crop.

Of course, for all of these you'd have to get your 7d PL adapted, but hey, why not!!
Jul 6 2011 11:29PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
Although thats rad, I am still in a personal predicament as to what lens would be the best for what I want. Without costing a few g's and being bigger than Ron Jeremy's wang
Jul 6 2011 11:35PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61590 - Karma: 122,949
hah yeah, the canon 70-200s are all very solid lenses, the tamron 17-50 is also very nice. canons 17-55 is decent but expensive and there are a few other ones here and there but the 70-200 is the classic tele for canon.
Jul 6 2011 11:37PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
How is the 70-300 compared to the 70-200, and the other lenses I don't have as much interest in because I have the kit lens.
Jul 6 2011 11:42PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61590 - Karma: 122,949
well, the 70-300 has variable aperture and isn't L glass. because of this, the glass isn't as good and there is alot more of it going through the lens. Ive seen some shots from it, its not terrible but youre better off geting a 70-200 and the 2x tele converter for like 200 bucks and have a 140-400 thats nice glass.
Jul 6 2011 11:44PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
Yeah that's true never really thought of that, does the 2x converter cause any funky bullshit to happen?
Jul 6 2011 11:46PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61590 - Karma: 122,949
you loose light, 2 stops but i just looked it up, the canon 2x tele converter is 300 bucks, not a bad deal. You might loose a little bit of quality, but nothing that would be noticeable with video.
Jul 6 2011 11:50PM
0 0
profile picture
steezysteeze
Posts: 1739 - Karma: 1,012
yeah thats pretty sick, if i were to pick one up I would probably just get it used anyways. Fucking L series is costly haha. Thanks for the help though, i would give you karma but i already have you at 10.
Jul 6 2011 11:53PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
L series glass is very much worth it. I'd rather spend more money on glass than the body itself.
Jul 7 2011 12:38AM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
You're getting what you pay for though
Jul 7 2011 4:27PM
0 0
profile picture
S.C
Posts: 3068 - Karma: 2,285
yea i just got a 70-200 f4L for $485 used in great condition, and im amazed with how sharp it is. definately go for the L glass, and if you arent on a tight budget for sure upgrade to the IS or f/2.8
Jul 7 2011 4:40PM
0 0
profile picture
.Ian.
Posts: 1568 - Karma: 72
Ya, you're probably right, I've never used the Nikon version like I said so I can't say. I would've bought the Nikon Version but I mean the guy was selling the Sigma that he used once (it looks like it too) for 500 bucks... so I thought why not buy it? I'm not dissapointed either plus in the future If I really think I need the Nikon version I'll pick that up.
Jul 7 2011 6:09PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61590 - Karma: 122,949
the nikon 80-200 2.8ED is anywhere from 500-800 bucks, just saying
Jul 7 2011 6:38PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
No doubt. You can pick up the old push/pull version without the tripod mount for pretty cheap now. Glass is probably the same and if you're using it for sports photos, you don't really need the tripod mount.
Jul 7 2011 7:14PM
0 0
profile picture
.Ian.
Posts: 1568 - Karma: 72
Ya I know. A bunch people said check that out too but at the time when I was going to buy the 70-200 I couldn't find any of the 80-200's for that cheap.
Jul 7 2011 9:10PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)