Many of you will remember my enduring dilemma while choosing a camera - and a super zoom lens. During that time, I received a mix of advice from 'don't do it, they're crap' to 'well, it depends'.
For anyone on the receiving end of this confusing debate - I though I'd help you out by posting my take after a few months playing with the Sigma 18-250 (and Canon 600d) after months of deliberation.
It is TRUE that some cheaper, third party super zooms are absolute rubbish, particularly the older Sigma and Tameron models (older 18-200s for example).
It is also TRUE that any super zoom will not produce the same optical results as top of the line professional equipment, which is why pro photographers and semi-pros tend to hate them. Which if photography is your profession and you've got big money to spend, is perfectly understandable.
It is NONSENSE that if you are just starting out and you've opted for a Super-zoon, it has to be a Canon or a Nikon! They are far more expensive and as a beginner you really won't see the difference.
The Sigma 18-250 HSM Macro model is, for £350, an absolute beauty. It's very fast (other than in very low light). Considering the saving, sharpness is superb. Distortion is minimal (unless you are putting images under a microscope). I tent to avoid going wide open at 18mm as that's really the only time my images have looked any less that satisfying. At 20mm plus they are as good as the photographer behind the camera. At the long end they are still good, even when compared to much more expensive lenses I've tried so far. It's also light, robust and of course, one lens does it all (which makes it a truly awesome travel lens, even for the enthusiast).
Now that I've gained a bit of experience, I agree with all those on here who told me that good photography is much more about technique than equipment. You can take a stunning picture with any lens if you know what you're doing. You just learn to work with the limitations of what you've got, and when you can't do that and it really counts, you buy something better.
A point worthy of special mention is the Macro is astoundingly good, if you consider that we are talking about an 18-250 zoom lens!
So if you've been agonizing with the super-zoom debate, fear not. For all but pixel peepers and serious professional photographers, The Sigma 18-250 really does it all!
Here's some example shots:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o9p5n0043za0vl7/bird-1.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eotfuxtpmbum1ia/IMG_6244.JPG
For anyone on the receiving end of this confusing debate - I though I'd help you out by posting my take after a few months playing with the Sigma 18-250 (and Canon 600d) after months of deliberation.
It is TRUE that some cheaper, third party super zooms are absolute rubbish, particularly the older Sigma and Tameron models (older 18-200s for example).
It is also TRUE that any super zoom will not produce the same optical results as top of the line professional equipment, which is why pro photographers and semi-pros tend to hate them. Which if photography is your profession and you've got big money to spend, is perfectly understandable.
It is NONSENSE that if you are just starting out and you've opted for a Super-zoon, it has to be a Canon or a Nikon! They are far more expensive and as a beginner you really won't see the difference.
The Sigma 18-250 HSM Macro model is, for £350, an absolute beauty. It's very fast (other than in very low light). Considering the saving, sharpness is superb. Distortion is minimal (unless you are putting images under a microscope). I tent to avoid going wide open at 18mm as that's really the only time my images have looked any less that satisfying. At 20mm plus they are as good as the photographer behind the camera. At the long end they are still good, even when compared to much more expensive lenses I've tried so far. It's also light, robust and of course, one lens does it all (which makes it a truly awesome travel lens, even for the enthusiast).
Now that I've gained a bit of experience, I agree with all those on here who told me that good photography is much more about technique than equipment. You can take a stunning picture with any lens if you know what you're doing. You just learn to work with the limitations of what you've got, and when you can't do that and it really counts, you buy something better.
A point worthy of special mention is the Macro is astoundingly good, if you consider that we are talking about an 18-250 zoom lens!
So if you've been agonizing with the super-zoom debate, fear not. For all but pixel peepers and serious professional photographers, The Sigma 18-250 really does it all!
Here's some example shots:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o9p5n0043za0vl7/bird-1.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eotfuxtpmbum1ia/IMG_6244.JPG
Last edited:
