 |
|
|
aquiles83
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 29, 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 23
|
|
 Mar 29, 2009
|
|
tonyat
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 23, 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 26, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $109.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fairly sharp, inexpensive, compact.
|
|
Cons:
|
Need to be careful mounting hoods, filters, etc, can damage focus motor unless swithed to Manual Focus.
|
|
|
I have had this lens for about 2 years now. Picked it up because my trusty Canon 28-105 wasn't always wide enough on 1.6x bodies. I have to say that it exceded my expectations. I compared it side by side to a friend's Canon 18-55 (non-is) and my Sigma is sharper. I also like the fact that is has a usable manual focus ring. The zoom ring is quite smooth for such a low cost lens.
I bought it to "hold me over" til I could afford something else, but when I look at the tests on Photozone, etc I can't find anything head and shoulders above it when you look at distortion, CA, edge sharpness, etc. Guess I will keep it till it breaks then buy another.
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2008
|
|
hakli
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 11, 2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
F8 aperture produces sharp images. Good extra weight for fishnet ;)
|
|
Cons:
|
Wide open at 18 mm focal lenght looks really terribble! CA is major problem. Colors looks pretty dull, like a half color information is muted someway.
|
|
This is common kit lens at Finnish DSLR-kits. And resale value is ten to twenty euros.
Usable at aperture F8, but that is too dark for dark seasons, here in Finland, at December: sunrise 9.45 AM, sunset 3.00 PM. Usually cloudy weather and usually no snow at December  yes, northern longitude is between 59-70 degrees, polar night starts from 66 degrees.
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2008
|
|
graemeak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 30, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 313
|
|
Review Date: May 30, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Fairly wide angle, very light, good minimum focussing distance.
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisey AF, not very fast (f3.5-5.6), no IS, bad build, very soft photos wide open, bad lens hood.
|
|
|
A very good lens if you want a cheap starter lens. The build quality isn't very good, but its quite possible to take good photos with this lens, just make sure you don't do it at too wide open apertures. Recommended for anyone with a low end SLR (300D, 400D) and who doesn't want to spend much on a wide angle zoom.
|
|
|
May 30, 2008
|
|
charliebrown34
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 7, 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, light weight, better IQ than the Canon EF-S 18-55 3.5-5.6 II, comes with hood
|
|
Cons:
|
Pictures are very soft wide open, noisy AF isn't reliable in low light conditions
|
|
|
I had this lens for about half a year until I decided to go for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which is more expensive but produces much better IQ than this Sigma. It's definitly better than the old, not stabilized Canon 18-55 mm lens.
So if you are looking for a cheap wide angle lens consider first the more expensive Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS (of which many say it would be far better than the old one).
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2008
|
|
450yamaha
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 19, 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 22, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $80.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice IQ when stopped down to f/8, cheap, light, well built (better than canon or nikon kit lens), comes with hood, metal mount, 58mm
|
|
Cons:
|
big CA, bad IQ when not stopped down to f/8, noisy and hunting AF
|
|
|
as I've written in cons, it has a really bad IQ when isn't stopped down.
Its build quality is quite well for the price, once it fell down mounted on my nikon D70s from 1.3 meter, nothing happened.
What can I say, that lens is quite good for the price. I would recommend it as the first lens for people, who are starting. It can show who you need, wide angle or telezoom, for a small price.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2007
|
|
UltraVal
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Nov 11, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $60.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Pretty good lens. Fast AF. Built better than Canon EF-S 18-55.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft on certain settings
|
|
|
This is a follow up on another review I wrote of this lens. If I could rate this lens again, it would be higher. I'd give this lens a 7. The comparison test I gave it with a Canon 18-55 may not have been a fair way to test it.
I've used this lens on many outdoors shots in sunny weather and got fairly good results.
I don't think it's a better lens than a Canon 18-55 EF-S lens but it's not a bad lens. the Canon seems to get a tad better IQ.
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2006
|
|
UltraVal
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Nov 8, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Built well; feels tougher than a Canon 18-55 kit lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality is not good at all
|
|
|
I don't know if I got a "soft copy" of this lens or what but this lens I have is not a good one. I bought it based on reviews here and elsewhere that say it's better than a Canon kit lens. I compared the two yesterday, side by side and the Canon won by a longshot. The Canon was sharp. This lens is not, even when it's stopped down. My first experience with a Sigma lens was not a good one.
|
|
|
Nov 8, 2006
|
|
normski
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 24, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 414
|
|
Review Date: Sep 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap, light, metal mount, better build than canon kit lenses, comes with dedicated hood, sharp pics, good colour, no nasties.
|
|
Cons:
|
tricky getting hood on and off - switch to mf otherwise you turn the af motor. lens turns with focusing = more hassle with polarising filter.
|
|
|
It's the best bang for the buck if you want a cheap light walkaround w/a zoom for the Canon 10D which doesn't take ef-s lenses. I'm very impressed with the results - and I'm fussy! In the real world (forget Ls - they're in a different league) this is amazing for the price. it's better built than the canon cheapo ef-s kit lens. And it produces noticeably sharper pics with better colour. (One English photo mag this month gave it a much higher rating than either the canon or nikon cheap kit lenses - so I am not alone in my views) One caveat: do check the lens before you buy. One I encountered had something which looked like a twig in the elements when viewed through the lens off-camera. Another had a rough zoom ring which tightened midway through the action. The third is a gem. Typical Sigma!!
|
|
|
Sep 5, 2006
|
|
shsh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 6, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Weight, size, wide-angle (for a crop sensor), metal mount (unlike the competition), manual focus ring superior to other cheapies, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Rotates when focuses, noisy AF
|
|
|
I'd like to make clear that this review (and the rating) compares the Sigma to it's competition - that is Canon 18-55mm "kit lens" and other brand equivalents.
The Sigma has a metal mount (versus plastic on all other cheapies), a far superior manual focusing ring being much larger than the pitiful attempts on Canon and Nikon kit lenses, with a much nicer feel to it than one would expect from a £70 lens. There is some barrel distortion at the wide, but photozone tests show it doing better than the other kit lenses.
The Sigma is small, light, cheap, and wide on crop sensors. If these are the criteria you are looking for, the Sigma is probably the best thing in anywhere near this price range. The next step up would probably be the F2.8 EX Sigma of the same focal length, or a Canon 17-85mm.
|
|
|
Jun 6, 2006
|
|
hewcanon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 26, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 3, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide angle and price
|
|
Cons:
|
Everything else
|
|
|
I bought this lens in search for a cheap wide angle for my 10D. I read some "Average" reviews, and because of my NOT-SO-BAD experience with a 28-300mm Sigma, I decided to give it a try.
Baseline is; the price truely reflects the quality of this lens .. very cheap.
I tried it under different shooting conditions and it just failed to deliver, and was retured within the week. The downfall of this lens is failure to accurately autofocus .. using manual focusing it produced good results .. so it had to go back !!
People may say it may be a quality control problem or that the lens may require calibration .. but who has the time and patience to try that .. you get a lens and it either delivers good sharp focused white-balanced shots or it doesn't, and this one did not.
|
|
|
Mar 3, 2006
|
|
binho
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Location: Brazil
Posts: 87
|
|
Review Date: Dec 14, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap wide angle solution, light weight, 58mm...
|
|
Cons:
|
less than you would expect for the price. rotating front element, a little bit noisy focus.
|
|
|
there is no complain for this cheapest kit lens. and i paid a lot more (taxes, taxes and taxes...), but is is still the cheapest.
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2005
|
|
uccmmcpo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 22, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 2596
|
|
Review Date: Jul 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
For it`s intended audience and $100 price tag it is a very good piece of goods for entry level and advanced users however it`s bigger brother the 55-200 DX is noticeably the better of the two and it`s priced at just $150
|
|
Cons:
|
None when you consider how the image quality they deliver for the small amount of cash one has to shell out.
|
|
|
Anyone reasonable and fair person would have to rate both of these kit priced lenses pretty high for what they deliver at their respective pricepoints, the 55-200 definitely being the best of the two mentioned . I did sell off the 18-50 as I already have the Nikon AF 18-70 and it`s unquestionably better.
I am presently shooting the D70 with the 55-200DX and it seems to be nearly as sharp as my AF 80-200D-ED. Actually it`s hard to call wide open at full zoom and blown up to 100% which one is sharper. Yes, my copy is that good.
The color is well saturated but neutral with litte if any noticeable flare, ghosting, or artifacting. The coatings simply have to be very good. I shoot raw too.
Focussing is obviously noisier and slower than AFS but not unlike any other Nikon non AFS consumer lenses and on a par with them with regards to build quality.The zoom ring is adequately smooth and quick IMO, however the MF ring is not damped in the least but that might not be important with most users of this lens.
Hey, It`s surely not a pro class item but sharpness is impressive and the focussing is spot on accurate.
Best of all it don`t hurt the wallet and it`s a lens that you won`t mind carting around..
Bottom line is that it is a very good mid range zoom ,well worth the cost of admission.
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2005
|
|
kingkong
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 27, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
It is a lens. Low cost. Good for a camera you would take into a burning building or mud wrestling ring
|
|
Cons:
|
Pictures are bad to very bad. Money could have been saved or put to a good lens instead of tossed into the fire.
|
|
|
I was sent this lens with my Canon 20d by mistake so I figured I'd give it a try before I sent it back. I'm not going to get into the bull about contrast and soft on the edges. It's enough to say that you would not want this lens on your 20d becaue it takes bad pictures. Why would anyone spend $1300 on a camera and put this on it when you could save your money and get a real lens for betwenn 5 to 7 times more is beyond me. You could get a nice used fixed lens for this price. If you want a low cost junk wide angle zoom get the canon lens it has 13 elements and it's less money. The people at sigma must be smoking the rope to think up somthing like this.
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2005
|
|
John Mason
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 11, 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 138
|
|
Review Date: Apr 18, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap, small, lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
unsharp, slow
|
|
|
it's quite good for that price. But I wouldnt buy it again, but what would you expect from a lense that's worth 100 bucks?
- not that much is it?
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2005
|
|
John Black
Online
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jul 14, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3905
|
|
Review Date: Dec 4, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $108.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, good AF, good color and inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
Note quite as sharp as a Canon EF-S 18-55
|
|
|
I was just looking through and saw that this lens had a low rating... what?!?! It's only $100 - some people need lighten up! As a walk around lens, it's just fine.
I had a Canon 300D and sold it for a Canon 10D. The 18-55 EF-S went with the 300D, so I was hurting for a cheap wide angle. The Sigma fit the bill and went to Hawaii with us on our honeymoon. 800+ shots later, couldn't complain much.
It was reasonably sharp (but not any sharper than teh Canon 18-55), but the color was better. AF worked well and then lens did just fine. For $100 you can't expect some hidden "L" lens secret! If you don't have a wide angle lens and need something cheap - buy it!
If you want something brighter/faster, there is an F2.8 EX version. Mixed reviews on that one, but after F4 it's supposed to be as sharp as the Canon 17-40L.
If you have a 300D or 20D and you're think about "upgrading" from your kit lens to this - don't waste your time. And given that Canon now sells the 18-55 EF-S in a USM version for around $160, I'd probably buy that lens just for quicker, quieter AF.
|
|
|
Dec 4, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
28
|
100878
|
Mar 29, 2009
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
61% of reviewers
|
$124.65
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
5.93
|
8.23
|
5.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
