| Introduction | Standalone measurement results | Comparison, Sigma vs Nikon | Comparison, Sigma vs Canon | Conclusion |
With DxOMark scores of 11 and 12 points, respectively, the two mounts are identical. (The difference in scores reflects a slight difference in sharpness at 18mm.) Overall, the image quality score is quite low. Unfortunately, super-zooms are not noted for optical quality and this Sigma 18-200 is no exception. Note that the DxOMark score indicates only the maximum score that you can obtain with this camera-lens combination under relatively low-light conditions (150 Lux, 1/60s).
If you look more closely at the bar graphs indicating the minimum and maximum scores attained, you may well be concerned about the overall image quality for this lens. And indeed, such fears may seem justified, given that as soon as one makes use of focal lengths greater than 85mm, the score drops to less than 5. But this phenomenon holds true for most super-zooms, so don’t dwell too much on this point — just keep in mind, again, that super-zooms and high image quality rarely mix.
The strong points of the Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 II DC OS HSM:
The weak points of the Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 II DC OS HSM:
Over the course of 7 years, Sigma has brought out three different versions of its 18-200mm lens, reflecting a fairly significant ergonomic evolution each time:
We also note that the diameter of the filter port changed between the two first versions. This third version returns to the original port filter diameter.
Evolution of the Sigma 18-200mm (from F3.5-6.3 DC to F3.5-6.3 DC OS):
Evolution of the Sigma 18-200mm (from F3.5-6.3 DC OS to F3.5-6.3 II DC OS HSM):
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.
|
Sigma announced this new version of its very large focal range zoom at the beginning of October 2011. Let's see how this new version compares with its predecessors and competitors. |
|
Not too long ago, people assumed that choosing a micro 4/3 camera was the same thing as choosing a more versatile compact camera. Then the happy owners would start thinking about getting a zoom lens for this small camera and discover that… the zooms were nowhere near as compact as their camera. What they ended up with was not as pocketable as they hoped, but unfortunately, there are scientific optical laws that can’t be changed. The lenses tested here are good examples of just how compact lenses with large focal ranges can be. |
|
After the Tamron 18-270mm and Sigma 18-250mm reviews, the DxOmark team offers you a series of short reviews for the 18-200mm lenses tested on our website:
For summer 2011, DxOMark delivers its super-zoom, all-in-one selection for Canon and Nikon. |