 |
|
|
Mark Leeman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 1, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Large zoom range, not to expensive, pretty sharp (if focused properly).
|
|
Cons:
|
Unreliable AF at the wide end of the zoom range, further none for the price and zoom range.
|
|
|
I bought the lens with my Canon 350d (rebel xt) to be used as the "standard" zoomlens.
On most points the lens performs about what you probably would expect for the price. The lens has some CA, and at wide open shots vignetting is often clearly visible. AF is quite noisy (not a real problem to me), and not very fast, but often good enough.
The only really poor thing here seems to be the AF accuracy at the wide end of the zoom range. The lens is acutually pretty sharp at all focus lengths, but due to bad focusing, wide angle shots are almost always soft when autofocus is used. If you have the time; use manual focus, or otherwise zoom in a bit, take focus, zoom out an get the shot. This ofcourse, is not always an option.
So, overall I'm pretty happy with the glass, except for the bad focussing accuracy at the wide end. Sometimes it can be resolved, it also can be very frustrating.
|
|
 Apr 1, 2006
|
|
Mark Leeman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 1, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Large zoom range, not to expensive, pretty sharp (if focused properly).
|
|
Cons:
|
Unreliable AF at the wide end of the zoom range, further none for the price and zoom range.
|
|
|
I bought the lens with my Canon 350d (rebel xt) to be used as the "standard" zoomlens.
On most points the lens performs about what you probably would expect for the price. The lens has some CA, and at wide open shots vignetting is often clearly visible. AF is quite noisy (not a real problem to me), and not very fast, but often good enough.
The only really poor thing here seems to be the AF accuracy at the wide end of the zoom range. The lens is acutually pretty sharp at all focus lengths, but due to bad focusing, wide angle shots are almost always soft when autofocus is used. If you have the time; use manual focus, or otherwise zoom in a bit, take focus, zoom out an get the shot. This ofcourse, is not always an option.
So, overall I'm pretty happy with the glass, except for the bad focussing accuracy at the wide end. Sometimes it can be resolved, it also can be very frustrating.
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2006
|
|
Mark Leeman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 1, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Large zoom range, not to expensive, pretty sharp (if focused properly).
|
|
Cons:
|
Unreliable AF at the wide end of the zoom range.
Further none for the price.
|
|
|
I bought the lens with my Canon 350d (rebel xt) to be used as the "standard" zoomlens.
On most points the lens performs about what you probably would expect for this pricetag. The lens has some CA, and at wide open shots vignetting is often clearly visible. AF is quite noisy (not a real problem to me), and not very fast, but probably good enough for most users.
The only really poor thing here seems to be the AF accuracy at the wide end of the zoom range. The lens is acutually pretty sharp at all focus lengths, but due to bad focusing, wide angle shots are almost always soft when autofocus is used. If you have the time, get manual focused, or otherwise you zoom in a bit, use AF to focus, zoom out an get the shot. This ofcourse, is not always an option (especially for action shots).
So overall, I really like the lens, except for the bad autofocussing, which can sometimes be very frustrating.
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2006
|
|
alanpriest
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 30, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Looks good, feels good, works well. First impression is good.
|
|
Cons:
|
Just a little vignetting but no major problem
|
|
|
First Impressions - quality look and feel. Focusing seems spot-on so far. A little vignetting but with RAW and Photoshop you can remove this quite successfully. Who said they didn't like the zoom ring ? It feels not too loose like to Canon 18-55 kit lens and not stiff at all - it is smooth and easy to control. Great value for the only lens available of this specification. It should proove to be a great walk around lens.
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2006
|
|
selwynroberts
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 18, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $199.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
light weight
zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
soft images
noisy slow af
|
|
|
Used this lens extensively whilst touring south america with a 350d.
Performs ok in good light but is weaker at longer focal lengths and has a very slow and noisy af. Its ok as a travel and walkabout lens but is markedly inferior to my efs 60mm and my 17-40 lenses.
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2006
|
|
JTitor
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 17, 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2006
|
|
CrissX
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 29, 2004
Location: Romania
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Dec 3, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
It look nice on a 350D, , is included lens hood
|
|
Cons:
|
Very..very soft at all apertures and focal lenght.Distortion,very loud AF, chromatic aberation,hunting focus at infinite.
|
|
|
I tested 3 days this lens, nothing to make me to buy-it.It worst a lot than EF-S 18-55. Corner soft, chromatic aberation inacceptable, noised zoom. Not my choise.
|
|
|
Dec 3, 2005
|
|
--Daito--
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 28, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Nov 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $173.75
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice range, small, light and cheap (compare to the 18-85mm IS).
In the 24-85mm range with this lense is a very good performer.
|
|
Cons:
|
The super negative point is the focus noise, even 10$ motorized toy feels/hear less cheaper.
Flare and goshting isn't a strong point either. The Hood is essential.
|
|
|
I needed an all-purpose lens. I wanted nice range, small, light and cheap on a 300D for light travel trips
I’ve done some tests VERSUS the Canon 18-55mm (nothing scientific-and one copy of each) indoor and outdoor like on wall and landscape.
a)@18mm I’ve found my 18-125mm is less sharp than the 18-55mm at all f-stop, center to corner.
b)@ 24 and 55mm I’ve found the 18-125mm is sharper than the 18-55mm (18-125mm f5.6 nearly as sharp as 18-55mm at f8).
c)The 18-125mm focus is slow and very very noisy compare to the 18-55mm
d)@ 105mm the 18-125mm is soft and @125mm it is worst.
e)The color is warmer than the 18-55mm but the contrast is good.
Overall : This lens, at least my copy, is nicer than expected. If you get in mind the 6.95 ratio versus the 3.05 ratio of the 18-55mm, the 18-125mm sigma is a well better lens. If you want 8x10 or higher prints, you have to be in the 24-85mm range which this lense is a very very good performer.
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2005
|
|
Radeon-888
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 9, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 27, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
good focal range
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor AF, inconsistent, soft images
|
|
|
Good range but produces soft images. Good build quality. AF performance mediocre
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2005
|
|
ilind
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Nov 14, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $269.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid build quality, reasonable images. Low price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very stiff zoom ring, and zooming is not smooth. Generally soft images.
|
|
Overall, I would rate this lens as "adequate".
It isn't a great performer, but not terrible. Taking into account it's low price and moderate reach, it's a reasonable addition to the amateur's camera bag. If you want more (quality, speed, etc.) you'll have to pay for it. This lens gives me a chance to see how much use I will actually make of the longer focal lengths.
I've posted more extensive comments and a few sample photos at:
http://ilind.net/reviews/sigma18-125a.html
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2005
|
|
aVOLanche
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 174
|
|
Review Date: Nov 10, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $269.00
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
wide range
build not bad
|
|
Cons:
|
horribly inaccurate focus
loud
much better lenses available for the $$
|
|
|
I got this lens instead of the kit(after reading lots of posts).Many described intermittent focus issues.They were right.Above 70mm this lens hunted and hunted and hunted some more.At least 25% of the shots showed visible focus problems.I've used slrs for 30+ years,so it's not operator error.I compared it to my neighbors kit lens and the kit was sharper and focused well.Then I compared it to Canon's 28-105f3.5.HUGE difference!And the canon cost less.So I now have the Canon kit and 28-105 to replace the sigma.It's nice to get properly focused images.The Sigma has an inexcusable flaw with this focus issue.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2005
|
|
DavidJB
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 31, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 483
|
|
Review Date: Nov 3, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
nice range (18-125) for 1.6 crop DSLRs
|
|
Cons:
|
soft at wide angle, focusing difficult at long angle, washed out colour
|
|
|
At first I was very happy with this lense, it provided the range I needed and seemed destined to be a great walk-around lense. Price for performance, on paper, was best-in-class.
After several months of usage however, I came to the conclusion that the sweet spots I was expecting never quite arrived. Very soft at the wide angle, the midrange was average performance but not exceedingly crisp, and once you get to the upper third of the zoom, autofocus becomes a challenge. The knock on this lense is that it has a tendency to backfocus, which I have also experienced consistently.
The size is decent, the 'feel' is not as cheap as you'd expect. The motor is noisy, but not excessively so -- as long as you're not expecting USM you'll be fine.
For me this lense was a compromise between some higher end L or I/S lenses; in the end the $200-400 I saved was a false economy since I'm ultimately disappointed with the trade off. At this point my $100 50mm f1.8 EF II prime sits on my camera 90% of the time until I can replace the 18-125.
Whether Q/A failed and I have a bad lense, or this is the expected overall performance I cannot say. I would not buy this lense again, and if pressed would say that my original 18-50mm 3.5-5.6 DG Sigma performed better in the range it covered.
|
|
|
Nov 3, 2005
|
|
sammaverick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 26, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: Oct 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $220.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very good all purpose, walk around lens for the price. Sharp when stopped down.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus is a bit slow at sometimes.
|
|
|
Good walk around lens for the price. I realized that I needed the wider end so chose this lens over the 28-135mm. When stopped down a bit, it delivers pretty good quality pictures.
The focus can be slow and a bit noisy at times, not a lens you want to use in low light conditions.
But overall I am very satisfied with this lens, if you just started out or are a student on a budget and need a "jack of all trades" lens, this lens is a good choice.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2005
|
|
deepakvrao
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 21, 2004
Location: India
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Oct 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Great walk about range, light weight, sharp at f/8
|
|
Cons:
|
AF not bang on sometimes, slow lens,
|
|
|
If you use this outdoors in good light its OK or as I do indoors with a flash at f/8 its OK but dont expect better. I have an occasional focusing issue so am planning the Tamron 28-75 2.8 instead.
It well served its purpose though as a regular walk around lens when I needed a 18mm and better reach at the same time for things like a kids party.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2005
|
|
juberisk2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 500
|
|
Review Date: Sep 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $270.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, good value for versatile walk-around lens that includes petal hood
|
|
Cons:
|
focus speed, only for DSLRs
|
|
|
This is my first post. I felt a little compelled to boost the average score this lens is getting here because from my point of view, it's an underrated lens. Ran some tests, and I was surprised by the results. This lens, at least my copy, is sharper than my 85/1.8 until f8, but even after that point the difference in sharpness is marginal, as is the difference in color/contrast. I had planned to purchase the 28-135 IS, but a merchant recommended this lens instead. I was wondering whether I had made the right choice by listening to him, and now I know I did. I'm not a big fan of wide-angle shots, so I don't own any special wide-angle lenses. If you're like me, then it's also nice that this lens can serve in a pinch as a decent wide-angle.
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2005
|
|
smaniscalco
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 11, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 748
|
|
Review Date: Sep 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, range, versatility.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus speed.
|
|
|
Good value for the money. Capable of some really excellent results within its limitations.
I shot a lot of close ups with a Nikon 6T attached. Great results.
I disagree that this lens cannot produce larger prints. I've printed and sold 11x14s that customers were very happy with.
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
58
|
201671
|
Aug 30, 2008
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
76% of reviewers
|
$241.20
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.17
|
8.13
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
