Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS - Soft

[Loopy]

Anyone have any experience of Sigma lenses being soft?

I recently took delivery of above lens and canon 50D. I have not been a happy bunny.

Finally got time to do a proper test tonight. 50D v 20D with Canon 28-80 USM lens, Tamron 18-50 f2.8 lens and above Siggy.

Will post results when I've had my tea, but it is very evident. Bought them both from Warehouse express. So 2 questions really.

Are the Sigma lenses known for the occasional soft one.

Has anyone had any problems returning things to warehouse ex?

Cheers
L

 

[Lostgear]

I had one of the 18-200 DC OS's on a 400d, it turned out to be a very soft lens. I got rid as soon as possible

 

[DekHog]

I've owned many Sigma's and always been more than happy with them, but never went the 'superzoom' route - the 18-250mm got a very good write up in a group test on Photoradar this month... known to be quite a variance in quality across all Sigma's though, so it might just be a case of swapping it for another one, or maybe you're just expecting too much from a 'do it all' lens of this range alongside something like the 18-50mm which is always going to be superior in every way?

 

[Loopy]

So am I being too picky with this being a 'superzoom'?

All taken using same settings.

f9 1/320 ISO100
All lenses set to 35mm
interfit flash head set to 1 through white brolley

Tripod mounted, remote shutter release.

All cropped 100%


I'd appreciate it if anyone has any other tests I could/need to do before I phone Warehouse express.

Tamron

Canon

Sigma with Optical Stabiliser switched off

Sigma with OS switched on

 

[trencheel303]

Well, im on an ipod touch and i can see that the canon is best quality, and that sigma is soft. That said, tamron isnt far behind it!

 

[evo456]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Sigma is softer, however ultimately you are comparing 2 3X zooms with a 13X zoom. I suggest going into another retailer and test another copy of the lens.

 

[fracster]

May I ask what you really expect from any lens with such a zoom range?

 

[Loopy]

Well, I guess I'm expecting it to be sharp, hence the question 'am I being too picky?'

I realise that this is a zoom, that's why I tested it at 35mm and not the extreme of the zoom. I don't expect to get 100% sharp images at 200mm hand held. But for a lens that is supposedly good for close up work (and I know that it's not a proper macro lens) should it not be sharper?

The reason for purchasing a 'superzoom' was so I had a decent walkabout lens for holidays and days out so I don't need to keep changing lenses. This lens seemed to get the best reviews for quality and value.

So, does anyone else have one of these? Are the images/quality comparable?

 

[DekHog]

To be honest, I can't see much in it between the Sigma and the Tamron.... I'd find it acceptable for the type of lens it is.

 

[Loopy]

Okay, I'll admit to expecting too much from the lens.

I've done some more test images and it seems a lot sharper towards the 200mm end, but not great at 28ish. Which kind of defeats the purpose.

The good thing is that warehouse ex have said that there is no problem with either returning it or getting a replacement to see if that is any better.

But, before I decide what to do, can have a slice of humble pie with some advice please.

I can either resign myself to the quality that a superzoom gives for the convenience of only carrying one lens, or I can do what I should have probably done in the first place and get a 2nd lens.

The sigma was £400 and I can probably push the budget a bit further but not hugely. I'd still like a bit of flexibility with the zoom, rather than a fixed focal length. Is there a lens that anyone could recommend?

The Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM is in my range but without the IS - will this make a huge difference.

Sigma have the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM, but with this range am I going to get the same problem?

My heed is done in at the moment. I really want to make a good decision.

 

[Loopy]

When you look at the tamron and sigma side by side they are quite different.