[Diasfu]

Hi to all..

I would like a suggestion from you all.
Which one you think is better all purpose zoom lens:

SIGMA 18 - 200mm f3.5-6.3 DC

or

Sigma 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 DL IF

Now, I know both lenses are good for general use, but which one is better?
I know the 28-300 is an older model, it has a bigger zoom range, but as a wide lens it's missing 10mm. I would not really mind that.
The price difference is 60 pounds between the 2, with the 18-200mm being more expensive.

What I would like to know, which one would take a better picture, and which one has a faster auto focus?

As well I was looking at the pentax 18-250mm, but that would be 150 pounds more expensive, so I'm not really sure about that one. Please give your opinions, or if someone had a chance to try them..

Thanks

[Marc Sabatella]

I know the 28-300 is an older model, it has a bigger zoom range, but as a wide lens it's missing 10mm. I would not really mind that.

Do you have enough experience with other lenses in that range to know this for a fact? I think for most people shooting on digital, the 18-28 focal length range (28-42 in 35mm equivalent field of view) would be used *much* more often than the 200-300 range, unless you're specifically getting the lens for wildlife photography. If you *know* from previous experience with other lenses that you'll get more use out of the 200-300 range than the 18-28 range, by all means, get the longer lens, but that's not going to be true for 90% of people.

Aside from the difference in focal length, neither has a great reputation for IQ (by all account considerably worse than the DA18-55), and being quite a bit larger than the 18-55, they'll be correspondingly slower to focus. I doubt there's a nickel worth's of difference between these two lenses in either of these departments - compared to the difference in focal length range at the wide end, which is *huge*. But I don't own either lens, so I can't say from experience.

[PFH]

I use the Sigma 18-200 DC as a walk around lens on my K20D. I must admit that I´m very happy with the IQ, considering the range and the price.

Here´s an example at 200mm

[simonkit]

I don't own any of the lense so can't comment from a user perspective, I have read quite a lot on the "all in one" lens as i was considering that route a while ago... without doubt the 18-250 is the best choice for IQ, I know the Tamron version is significantly cheaper than the Pentax "clone" here in the UK

simon

[Diasfu]

Do you have enough experience with other lenses in that range to know this for a fact? I think for most people shooting on digital, the 18-28 focal length range (28-42 in 35mm equivalent field of view) would be used *much* more often than the 200-300 range, unless you're specifically getting the lens for wildlife photography. If you *know* from previous experience with other lenses that you'll get more use out of the 200-300 range than the 18-28 range, by all means, get the longer lens, but that's not going to be true for 90% of people.

Aside from the difference in focal length, neither has a great reputation for IQ (by all account considerably worse than the DA18-55), and being quite a bit larger than the 18-55, they'll be correspondingly slower to focus. I doubt there's a nickel worth's of difference between these two lenses in either of these departments - compared to the difference in focal length range at the wide end, which is *huge*. But I don't own either lens, so I can't say from experience.

Hi,

well, I'm not an expert, but I know a bit. I know it's a huge range, and the pic. will not be sooooo great, and the focus slow, but I was just asking..from the two, which one is that little bit better?

And I'm the kind of person..if I go out with that lens (ether the 18-200 or 28-300), I would use the whole of the range..for taking all sort of pic.

Thanks PFH for your pic.

[Marc Sabatella]

And I'm the kind of person..if I go out with that lens (ether the 18-200 or 28-300), I would use the whole of the range..for taking all sort of pic.

Well, sure, but the question I am asking is, if you had the 28-300, how often would you be saying to yourself, "damn! I wish this thing went wider"? For most people, the answer would be, about ten times more often than they'd think "damn! I wish wish this thing went longer" while using the 18-200.

That is, I think you're making a mistake in assuming that any tiny difference in image quality is more important than the *huge* difference in focal length range. And the important difference in focal length is the missing wide angle on the 28-300. 28mm was wide angle with film, but it isn't on digital. Unless you have enougn experience to know you never shoot wide angle, I think you'll be frustrated with the 28-300 in way you wouldn't be with the 18-200, because one does wide angle and the other doesn't.

[Diasfu]

Well, sure, but the question I am asking is, if you had the 28-300, how often would you be saying to yourself, "damn! I wish this thing went wider"? For most people, the answer would be, about ten times more often than they'd think "damn! I wish wish this thing went longer" while using the 18-200.

That is, I think you're making a mistake in assuming that any tiny difference in image quality is more important than the *huge* difference in focal length range. And the important difference in focal length is the missing wide angle on the 28-300. 28mm was wide angle with film, but it isn't on digital. Unless you have enougn experience to know you never shoot wide angle, I think you'll be frustrated with the 28-300 in way you wouldn't be with the 18-200, because one does wide angle and the other doesn't.

Oh, now I get you..and to think of it, you're right..oh well..it looks like I'm getting the 28-300, but it ain't sure yet. Will know tomorrow. For wide I'm going to get the sigma 10-20mm I guess. I got to try it in a shop, and it was great. The ring was a bit stiff for me, but I don't think I would mind that.

Regards