The older I get, the more I find myself looking for a smaller, lighter travel kit. I think I have finally found one I can be very happy with.
I just received my Sigma 20-200mm lens. I admit that I was skeptical about how satisfactory I would find it to be, as I am ridiculously picky about IQ and not generally happy with superzooms. As it turns out, I find this lens to be fairly amazing.
I just ran it through all my sharpness and de-centering tests on my “travel” camera, my A7CR. In the center, this lens is critically sharp in the center area of the frame. Toward the 20mm end, it is a bit softer in the corners, but we are talking about the extreme corners and this is something I can live with.
There is also a bit of field curvature and a slight bit of de-centering on my copy at the 20mm end, which goes away between 35mm and 50mm. For most shooting, this should not be an issue (a couple of my Sony GM lenses have been worse). The corners are always very sharp when that is the point of focus, which negates the field-curvature. The IQ (mainly contrast) drops a bit between 140mm and 200mm, but is still very good (amazingly so).
Color me very pleased. Sigma knocked it out of the park, IMHO with this 10:1 technical marvel.
I have a European trip coming up. I’ll probably pair this lens with my GM 16-35mm f2.8 II and Viltrox 50mm F2 Air. I might even consider just pairing it with the GM 24mm f1.4 or GM 35mm f1.4 for an even simpler kit.
I just got mine today and haven't done more than a few test snaps, but I'm also very pleased. On my copy 200mm seems very sharp. The corners are definitely a bit less sharp at 20mm than on my 20-70, but the added reach and the center sharpness make this a winner, I think. I'm also amazed at the size--while it's a bit longer than the 20-70 it's a bit narrower and it actually looks and feels smaller (even though it weighs a bit more).
Pairing this with my new Viltrox 14 and I'm pretty well set for my hiking set up.
kevphoto wrote:
I just got mine today and haven't done more than a few test snaps, but I'm also very pleased. On my copy 200mm seems very sharp. The corners are definitely a bit less sharp at 20mm than on my 20-70, but the added reach and the center sharpness make this a winner, I think. I'm also amazed at the size--while it's a bit longer than the 20-70 it's a bit narrower and it actually looks and feels smaller (even though it weighs a bit more).
Pairing this with my new Viltrox 14 and I'm pretty well set for my hiking set up....Show more →
I’m actually considering this same setup. I currently use the Tamron 28-200 and Samyang 18mm, but the 18 isn’t quite wide enough sometimes. I think 14 plus 20-200 would be awesome.
I'm always in a hunt for a little compact and multitask travel optics,but so far all superzooms have let me down.I'm gonna try this sigma out as soon as I can though.Miracles happen sometimes...
kevphoto wrote:
I just got mine today and haven't done more than a few test snaps, but I'm also very pleased. On my copy 200mm seems very sharp. The corners are definitely a bit less sharp at 20mm than on my 20-70, but the added reach and the center sharpness make this a winner, I think. I'm also amazed at the size--while it's a bit longer than the 20-70 it's a bit narrower and it actually looks and feels smaller (even though it weighs a bit more).
Pairing this with my new Viltrox 14 and I'm pretty well set for my hiking set up....Show more →
Thanks for this, your observations about sharpness in comparison to the Sony 20-70 seem to be consistent with online reviews so far. Can you comment on contrast, colour, CA (especially LoCA), and general AF accuracy/snappiness compared to the 20-70?
Thanks for sharing the review, overall it did better than I expected. Seems like the weak spot may be vignetting on the wide end.
I am tempted to give this lens a try for situations where swapping lenses or cameras is not really an option.
Overall, I have been happy using my Nikon 28-400mm as an f8 zoom, when light allows. It looks like the sigma might work very nicely as an f6.3, maybe even 5.6 zoom. 20mm is much wider than 28mm, f6.3 / f5.6 will help vs f8 in less light. The Sigma may be a bit weak on the wide and long end, but so is the Nikon. The Nikon does have stabilization, which is helpful, which the sigma does not.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Thanks for sharing the review, overall it did better than I expected. Seems like the weak spot may be vignetting on the wide end.
I am tempted to give this lens a try for situations where swapping lenses or cameras is not really an option.
Overall, I have been happy using my Nikon 28-400mm as an f8 zoom, when light allows. It looks like the sigma might work very nicely as an f6.3, maybe even 5.6 zoom. 20mm is much wider than 28mm, f6.3 / f5.6 will help vs f8 in less light. The Sigma may be a bit weak on the wide and long end, but so is the Nikon. The Nikon does have stabilization, which is helpful, which the sigma does not. ...Show more →
I've currently got the 20-200 and Viltrox 50/2 out for a real test run on a trip, and will post some results here. Sony is still missing a superzoom that takes us into proper telephoto-wildlife range like the 28-400 (the Tamron 28-300 is the closest we have); curious how you find the Nikon 28-400 at 400 and f/8 in terms of sharpenss and AF speed? If you have good light, can you do some light wildlife and birding with it - including BIF?
I am also debating of which zoom lens to get w/ my a7c2,
I currently have a 2nd hand 20-70 f4, and have not really tested it yet.
It is really tough when there are so many good choices,
Obviously the length has to be at 110 mm range or shorter, and should be 5xx grams at the most, has to be at least 24 (or 25) mm wide... etc..
there are soo many choices,
samyang 24-60 f2.8
sigma 20-200 f3.5-6.3
sony 20-70 f4
sony 24-50 f2.8
tamron 17-50 f4
tamron 20-40 f2.8
tamron 28-200 (28 mm a bit too narrow)
tamron 25-200 (a bit too long, length being 121.5 mm)
I wonder how others have selected their travel lenses...
I may consider selling 20-70 f4 to get the sigma 20-200.. (for versatiliy) OR samyang 24-60 f2.8 ( for aperture + range)
Interesting review from Lenstip - shows that this lens has (expectedly) copy variation.
Most reviewers say that the wide end is the weakest spot, especially in the corners.
Lenstip says that 20mm is great, but 200mm leaves something to desire.
Seems one has simply to try 1 to 3 copies and see whether one gets a decent one which fits the personal preferences 😎
TravelinBriNY wrote:
I've currently got the 20-200 and Viltrox 50/2 out for a real test run on a trip, and will post some results here. Sony is still missing a superzoom that takes us into proper telephoto-wildlife range like the 28-400 (the Tamron 28-300 is the closest we have); curious how you find the Nikon 28-400 at 400 and f/8 in terms of sharpness and AF speed? If you have good light, can you do some light wildlife and birding with it - including BIF?
I have been happy with the 28-400 for stationary subjects at 400mm, including sitting birds. I haven't really been in a situation to try it for BIF, as usually, if I am expecting BIF I take my 200-600mm. My gut is that for predictably moving birds that fill a good amount of the frame, it will probably do decent. If you are trying to capture small, unpredictable birds, your proabbly better off with something like a 100-400mm. If you want a lens that can occasionally take a bird photo when out walking around, the 28-400mm can fill the role, much better than say a 24-105mm lens, but if you wanted a dedicated bird lens, there are better options, like a 100-400mm or the 50-400mm Tamron.
As for sharpness on the long end, I would say it's adequate. If you are expecting razor sharp images across the frame, you will probably be disappointed, but I have yet to take a good photo with it that I feel is unusable due to IQ issues. My gut is it's probably better in IQ than quite a few long zooms we used in the DSLR days, but I have not done side by side comparsions. Something to keep in mind is that at f8, you're already losing peak IQ on a high res cameras due to defractions, which already gives a 100-400mm f5.6 an IQ advantage when looking at comparisons.
At the end of the day, there is no other single lens that covers 28-400mm. So I mainly use it when I need that flexibility. The photo you missed from not being able to switch lenses is completely gone. But when I don't need that flexibility, I would rather use something like that 24-120mm f4 S, which is much more forgiving of lower light, and has higher IQ (the 24-120 at f4 is similar to the 28-400 at f8).
hasenbein wrote:
Interesting review from Lenstip - shows that this lens has (expectedly) copy variation.
Most reviewers say that the wide end is the weakest spot, especially in the corners.
Lenstip says that 20mm is great, but 200mm leaves something to desire.
Seems one has simply to try 1 to 3 copies and see whether one gets a decent one which fits the personal preferences 😎
I think something to keep in mind, and you do see in the Lenstip reiew is that the wide end has high levels of distortion and vignetting. If you don't apply a correction profile, the IQ on the wide end is going to have issues, and applying a correction profile will probably degrade pure sharpness a bit, with how strong the corrections need to be. You can see it too in the corrected vs uncorected saple photos.
It's probably not the best lens for IQ if you are mostly going to use it on the wide or long end. But a 24-105, can't zoom out to 20mm or zoom into 200mm if it means getting the photo or not, which is where I see the most value in these super zoom lenses.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I have been happy with the 28-400 for stationary subjects at 400mm, including sitting birds. I haven't really been in a situation to try it for BIF, as usually, if I am expecting BIF I take my 200-600mm. My gut is that for predictably moving birds that fill a good amount of the frame, it will probably do decent. If you are trying to capture small, unpredictable birds, your proabbly better off with something like a 100-400mm. If you want a lens that can occasionally take a bird photo when out walking around, the 28-400mm can fill the role, much better than say a 24-105mm lens, but if you wanted a dedicated bird lens, there are better options, like a 100-400mm or the 50-400mm Tamron.
As for sharpness on the long end, I would say it's adequate. If you are expecting razor sharp images across the frame, you will probably be disappointed, but I have yet to take a good photo with it that I feel is unusable due to IQ issues. My gut is it's probably better in IQ than quite a few long zooms we used in the DSLR days, but I have not done side by side comparsions. Something to keep in mind is that at f8, you're already losing peak IQ on a high res cameras due to defractions, which already gives a 100-400mm f5.6 an IQ advantage when looking at comparisons.
At the end of the day, there is no other single lens that covers 28-400mm. So I mainly use it when I need that flexibility. The photo you missed from not being able to switch lenses is completely gone. But when I don't need that flexibility, I would rather use something like that 24-120mm f4 S, which is much more forgiving of lower light, and has higher IQ (the 24-120 at f4 is similar to the 28-400 at f8)....Show more →
Agree 100%, I would never look at this lens for dedicate birding, but for me the advantage of it going to 400 - as opposed to superzooms that go to 200 - is for wildlife popping up that may disappear before I get out a larger lens; or when I am hiking and want to shoot wildlife, but dont want to bring a 1KG+ dedicated birding lens. Thanks - very clear summary
TravelinBriNY wrote:
Agree 100%, I would never look at this lens for dedicate birding, but for me the advantage of it going to 400 - as opposed to superzooms that go to 200 - is for wildlife popping up that may disappear before I get out a larger lens; or when I am hiking and want to shoot wildlife, but dont want to bring a 1KG+ dedicated birding lens. Thanks - very clear summary
I think you would be happy with it for those use cases. That's very similar to how I use mine.
