[ChrisRabior]

I'm looking to consolidate my gear a bit. The first two zoom lenses I could call my own were the 18-55 kit lens and the 75-300mm non-IS. I'm looking at replacing them with Sigma's 18-200mm lens.. and hit a bit of a dilemma. Which version?

There are two available..
1. Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC ($330)
2. Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS ($475)

As far as I can tell, the original one fits full frame and crop sensor, and the OS one is limited to APS-C sensors and smaller. Not a big deal, as the most I'll probably ever upgrade to is 20/30/40D (or whatever else they toss into that series).

If anyone has any experience, please do share. I don't have any experience with IS or OS or any kind of stabilizers.. so anything you guys can offer up in those terms would be sweet.

[danpen]

Chris,

Both of these lens are for the cropped sensor only - from the Sigma Site:

DC (DC Lens)
These are special lenses designed so that the image circle matches the smaller size of the image sensor of most digital SLR cameras. Their specialized design gives these lenses the ideal properties for digital cameras, the compact and lightweight construction is an added bonus! including compact and lightweight construction.

I've never used either of these lenses nor have I ever used a Sigma OS Lens so take this with a pinch of salt. Generally a lens with an 11x zoom range is unlikely to be excellent at any point and quality may drop significantly at one end of the range or another, have a think about whether you really need all of that in one lens.

Looking at your kit list, you've got all the range covered now so there's no point buying one of these as a "stop gap" it's unlikely to give better quality than you have now. Unless the convenience of a single lens is really important then I would say have a think about the range you use most and get some better quality in that area. That Tamron 28-70 gets good reviews, the 50mm will be great. If it were me I'd be tempted to either replace the kit lens with a Sigma 18-50mm f2.0 EX or replace the 70-300 with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

That would give you good coverage with three not too big, not too heavy, pretty good lenses.

Cheers

Dan

[silkstone]

OS/IS is a great idea for telephotos, but does add to weight, size and cost. It depends on priorities.

I have the Tamron 18-200 which is extremely useful as a 'travel' lens and for situations where I don't want to do a lot of lens-swapping because of dust etc. It complements, rather than replaces, other lenses and is used in different circumstances. If you have the same requirement, an all-in-one lens like the Tamron or Sigma could be just the ticket, but they do have limitations in terms of maximum aperture and absolute image quality.

Are you happy with the kit lens? The quality of these seems to vary, and some examples are better than others. If you have a good one, it may be better to add a super-wide (Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22, etc) which is good for interiors, landscapes and architectural shots.

Your 75-300 isn't the very best of lenses, but the newer Canon 70-300 IS is extremely good IMO. That would be on my shopping list as a replacement.

If you'd like to replace the kit lens, in addition to Dan's suggestions you could look at the Canon 17-40L which is good value and will also suit full-frame if ever you go for that.

HTH.

[ChrisRabior]

Dan,
I've got the plastic fantastic 50mm f/1.8 and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens. I'm eventually looking to get into some L glass for my 70-200 range, and possibly a very wide angle lens (10-22 or so).
This lens would be purely a convenient replacement for the 18-55 kit and 75-300 lens so I have more of a point and shoot type lens.

Silkstone,
I considered the 75-300 IS, but if I'm going to spend that much, I think I'm going to go the extra mile and pick up an L-series. I do a considerable amount of low light shooting, so the 70-200mm f/4 (and likely a future upgrade to the f/2.8) would be on the list instead of the 75-300.

I don't have much experience with OS/IS, and was just wondering if it's worth spending the extra money on it.

[silkstone]

Originally Posted by ChrisRabior

Dan,

Silkstone,
I considered the 75-300 IS, but if I'm going to spend that much, I think I'm going to go the extra mile and pick up an L-series. I do a considerable amount of low light shooting, so the 70-200mm f/4 (and likely a future upgrade to the f/2.8) would be on the list instead of the 75-300.

I don't have much experience with OS/IS, and was just wondering if it's worth spending the extra money on it.

It's your call obviously, but there is little or no difference in speed between the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f/4L, and even the f/2.8 is only one stop faster which equates to using ISO 100 instead of 200. In other words, not a huge difference except in cost, size and weight.

I have the 300mm f/4L which I bought before the new 70-300 IS came out, and I doubt if I would consider it worth the difference now. The 70-300 IS is surprisingly sharp even wide open. I'd give it some more thought because, although L-series lenses are generally very good, their size and weight can be a drawback especially for hand-held shots.

[ChrisRabior]

As mentioned above, the 18-200 upgrade is more in terms of convenience. The 18-55 and 75-300 have that slight gap between 55 and 75, and I've yet to be disappointed with Sigma lenses.

Kinda flew off topic with the telephoto talk. I'm planning on going the route of the 70-200mm f/2.8. Not yet positive whether I'll do the canon f/4 and eventually up to f/2.8, or if I'll just go straight to sigma's f/2.8. With the awesome resale value of canon lenses, I have to think I'll get the f/4 and a 1.4 TC to complement it.

Back to my original question.. if you were looking to pick up either the OS or non-OS version of the 18-200, would the OS be that big of an upgrade? I guess I'm looking more for people's experience with stabilized lenses. Is it really a worthwhile function? Do any of you actually use it/swear by it? Just trying to get some help in deciding whether it's worth the extra bit to do OS.. but as it is $140 more, I certainly wouldn't mind saving that up for a super wide angle or my 70-200 goal if OS isn't that big of an upgrade.

[silkstone]

OS/IS is definitely worthwhile for hand-held shots. It doesn't freeze the subject of course, but it helps to freeze you.

The 70-200 f/2.8 is a great lens but pretty large and heavy. Think about whether you really need that extra stop because the f/4 version is a lot lighter and cheaper.

[Sonsey]

Originally Posted by ChrisRabior

I guess I'm looking more for people's experience with stabilized lenses. Is it really a worthwhile function? Do any of you actually use it/swear by it? Just trying to get some help in deciding whether it's worth the extra bit to do OS..

I use a Canon 100-400L IS and find the Image Stabilisation to be a feature I now couldn't do without. I guess I don't have the most steadiest of hands and don't like to be restrained by using a tripod so it's due to this that the IS is a real advantage for me.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Sonsey

I guess I don't have the most steadiest of hands ...

I see the cider is catching up with you

[Sonsey]

I guess so, unfortunately the Gin caught up and overtook me several years ago!

[ChrisRabior]

Mmmmm.. cider =)

This is exactly the type of thumbs up/thumbs down response I was looking for. Looks like I'll be making a move for the OS version as soon as I can off the other two and get paid for the last few gigs.

Oh, and Silkstone.. the weight doesn't bug me about the bulkier lens. For sports, I'll have it on a monopod, and for concerts, I really only have to worry about shooting the first few songs anyways.

Even though it's really only the difference between one ISO setting to another, since I'm shooting in 1600 most of the time I'd want f/2.8, it should make a big enough difference from the f/4 to justify itself.