Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro HSM Lens on D90

M

Mr Mike

Messages
1,018
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
No
I recently upgraded to the D90 body only which leaves me with my sigma 10-20, Nikon 55-200 vr and 50mm F1.8. Obvious im now missing 20-55 range and looking for something to fill the gap.

The top on my list at the moment is the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro HSM, still researching but so far this ticks all the boxes, my budget is around £300.

Oh and if you ask what i will be using it for i dont actually know, it would be the lens i take if i were to only take one and had nothing planned other than a walk about.
 
I have this lens on my D40 and it's superb. Sharp throughout the range and has excellent bokeh. The 1:3 macro is great for flower detail etc and the HSM motor is as quite as Nikon AF-S.
You won't be disappointed.
 
Good choice.. I have one and would agree with many reviews which claim it it one of the best lenses of it's class. As an all rounder it is great, in fact if I had to choose just one lens this would be it.

I am waiting to get the adaptor to try it on my GF1, I am not intending to make a habit of it because it's size will defeat the whole reason for going 4/3 but it will make a nice combination to play with..

Brian
 
BrianT said:
Good choice.. I have one and would agree with many reviews which claim it it one of the best lenses of it's class. As an all rounder it is great, in fact if I had to choose just one lens this would be it.

Brian
Click to expand...

Scotty B said:
I have this lens on my D40 and it's superb. Sharp throughout the range and has excellent bokeh. The 1:3 macro is great for flower detail etc and the HSM motor is as quite as Nikon AF-S.
You won't be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Cheers for your opinions on this, i think my mind is made up.

No other input from anyone? I actually thought this would turn into a thread with many other options to consider which was kinda the point :thinking:
 
Ok now replying to my own threads lol

After reading more it appears the Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD is the better buy, i have browsed the flickr groups on both lens and the tamron wins without a doubt, its so much sharper and i prefer the colours going by the examples i have viewed so i think i have changed my mind to the Tamron.

Any body have any further comments?
 
I've the non HSM version and it's a good lens. I think it's a bit soft wide open and hunts a bit on low light. I plan to swap it for the Tamron, which I understand to be sharper.
 
The tamron does get reviewed as better than the sigma but if I was buying I would want to ho somewhere that I could put both on my camera.

I've not seen the tam but I did try the siggy with someone else and was very impressed. Very sharp, good colour and unlike most macro badged zooms, will get you close enough to be useful.
 
davekiddle said:
I'm selling a Simga if you're interested. Linky.
Click to expand...

Posted in your linky

The23rdman said:
I've the non HSM version and it's a good lens. I think it's a bit soft wide open and hunts a bit on low light. I plan to swap it for the Tamron, which I understand to be sharper.
Click to expand...

Matches the reviews, you have one and want shot of it, that says a lot

dazzajl said:
The tamron does get reviewed as better than the sigma but if I was buying I would want to ho somewhere that I could put both on my camera.

I've not seen the tam but I did try the siggy with someone else and was very impressed. Very sharp, good colour and unlike most macro badged zooms, will get you close enough to be useful.
Click to expand...

I would like the same but nowhere has both these lens available to try side by side. Well until today i was happy with what i seen but comparing the two lens via flickr has swayed me towards the tamron. Of course theres nothing to say the tamron users are the better photographers giving the impression the lens is best when really its the ability to use it that i have reviewed :thinking:

neil_g said:
im more than happy with my sigma (non-HSM canon mount)..

examples in here from me:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=113499&highlight=sigma+18-50
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=120029&highlight=sigma+18-50

razor sharp in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the info and links Neil, i agree that they look very sharp and appear to works well in low light conditions, nice colours too
 
My Siggy is razor sharp throughout it's range.

The HSM Macro version is improved over the older non HSM version.
 
I would advise you to stop reading reviews/opinions in flicker and such other places. Try Photodo for instance and read that well respected reviewers report. There you will find scientifically conducted test, professionally carried out.

Of the Sigma he states:

This is where this lens really proves its worth! It's outstanding and the sharpest lens I have tested to date, which includes some top glass from leading camera manufacturers
Click to expand...

But he also test the Tamron so perhaps if you read his full report it might help

Of the Tamron

With modern lenses, standards are rising all the time and this lens has managed to keep up. The resolution is quite good, especially when closed down by a stop and it is fairly consistent across the frame and, surprisingly, throughout the zoom range with neither one end or the other being noticeably better than the other.
Click to expand...


Brian.
 
There appear to be 3 versions of the Sigma lens - the original f2.8 version, then the Macro version and then the latest Macro HSM version.

I read and read and read reviews and opinions and it appeared to me that original version of the Sigma lost out to the Tamron slightly on sharpness. When the Macro version came along the IQ was reported to be better and was considered by most as a hairs breadth between it and the Tamron.

I have the Macro non-HSM version Sigma and love it. I felt the Sigma was built better than the Tamron and it does have a useful "Macro" facility (not true macro though) but the zoom operates the opposite way to most Nikon lenses, whereby the Tamron doesn't. You get used to it, but it is annoying.

I don't think you'd be unhappy with either to be honest :thumbs:
 
Paul,

A very solid reviewer, certainly to be taken seriously. A close reading of this and Photodo convinced me to buy the Sigma, no I didn't even look at the Tamron. Only because being human I would only ended up confused. All I really know is that I and my technique/ equipment are not capable of using this or any other lens to it's ultimate. Only the impartiality of an optical bench in a laboratory could achieve that.

Well put Jus,

Mine is the HSM version............just hoping the adapter arrives this morning............to try it on a GF1, should be fun.

I drive a little Mini Cooper ..........lots of guys out there with pedal cars could run rings round me. ;)

Brian.
 
And just to confuse you a little more:naughty: if you have the funds and don't need the f2.8 the Nikon 16-85mm VR is a excellent lens, i had one when i had my D300 and the IQ is right up there with the Nikon 17-55mm.

BrianT - you'd be surprised the Canon 50D sensor needs all the help it can get .
 
I certainly . know IQ stands for intelligence quotient . But something like
and the IQ is right up there
Click to expand...
has me floundering, yet it is becoming quite common. How can an inanimate object have intelligence, or is this another example of the corruption of a once wonderful language?

So, help me out, what does it mean?

Brian.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Have you seen these reviews Sigma and Tamron. I have the Tamron in Canon mount and it is a very good lens , sharp with good colour and contrast.
Click to expand...

Yeah i have, thanks for posting them though

justinitus said:
There appear to be 3 versions of the Sigma lens - the original f2.8 version, then the Macro version and then the latest Macro HSM version.

I read and read and read reviews and opinions and it appeared to me that original version of the Sigma lost out to the Tamron slightly on sharpness. When the Macro version came along the IQ was reported to be better and was considered by most as a hairs breadth between it and the Tamron.

I have the Macro non-HSM version Sigma and love it. I felt the Sigma was built better than the Tamron and it does have a useful "Macro" facility (not true macro though) but the zoom operates the opposite way to most Nikon lenses, whereby the Tamron doesn't. You get used to it, but it is annoying.

I don't think you'd be unhappy with either to be honest :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I did noticed the various versions which initially made everything even more confusing :thinking: Thanks for posting

BrianT said:
I would advise you to stop reading reviews/opinions in flicker and such other places. Try Photodo for instance and read that well respected reviewers report. There you will find scientifically conducted test, professionally carried out.

Of the Sigma he states:



But he also test the Tamron so perhaps if you read his full report it might help

Of the Tamron




Brian.
Click to expand...


Yeah ive read that one too, i tend to read as much as possible when it comes to buying something


Thanks all for the input on this topic, i think im being swayed to the sigma, i have a 3 months old sigma 10-20 and love the build and solid feel of it along with very sharp pictures that really put the d40 kit lens to shame. Helps having some sort of first hand experience

Mike
 
I dont know if it helps but i have the macro version for canon and it's superb.:thumbs:
 
Did you know that the Tamron 17-50 comes in a VC (VR equivalent) version too? Just to confuse you further.:p
 
Mr Mike said:
I do now and it explains the crazy high price warehouse express is asking for it because it is the new VC version....argh which one :bang::bonk::thinking:
Click to expand...

I can only tell you from my experience - I researched the Sigma 17-70 vs the Tamron 17-50 vs the Sigma 18-50 and found public opinion to lean heavily towards the Tamron. If you search, you can even find people who have upgraded from the Sigma 17-70 to the Tamron.

I then couldn't decide between the VC and non-VC versions of the Tamron (no point searching for comparisons because there aren't many people who have used both - there is one website that has compared the two but it looks like they received a bum copy of the VC lens).

I tried them both in the shop and found the VC to be quite useful. Non-VC was £315 and VC was £405 and I decided that £90 was not worth me asking myself "what if" for the next few years.

So went ahead and bought the Tamron. I must admit I've only had it a few days now but I like what I see so far.

Bear in mind that I am a Canon user and all this is from the Canon point of view, although I can't see it being much different for Nikon users.
 
Btw, a little tip - I wouldn't go to Warehouse Express for the cheapest prices ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top