18-200VR Nikkor vs Sigma/Tamron/Tokina

sin77 · 28th December 2008

I believe Nikkor is the most ex, but does it justify the price?

My nikkor lens stops at 200mm, while 3rd party can even reach 270mm.
My lens got no lock, it will slide out to 200mm when facing down.
My lens will also creep/jump at certain angle/focal length.
My lens is so heavy.
3rd party also got antishake.

So why do we still go for Nikkor?
I am thinking of trading away to get 3rd party.

rotisiao · 28th December 2008

comparing nikkor 18-200 VR AF-S to sigma 18-200 OS HSM which i currently own..sigma OS and HSM noiser..at 200mm sigma is f6.3 compared to Nikkor's f5.6. I believe with enough usage most heavy double barrel lens will creep my sigma starting dun have but now have. Sigma bokeh not as nice as Nikkor's for sure. Sigma is roughly $200 cheaper than Nikkor's offering iirc, gotta ask yourself is the above advantages worth the jump in price lo.

Tamron's 18-270 i know for sure the focusing speed not as fast as nikkor or sigma's af-s and hsm respectively.

jimmyle80 · 28th December 2008

the 18-200mm is not good ? I read some reviews about the 18-200 and the tamron 18-270 , still can not decide which one ! heard that the 18-270 focus very slow !

DeWei · 28th December 2008

Not to mention the color rendering of Nikkor glasses are better (more neutral), unlike most Sigma lenses render slight yellow cast.

rotisiao · 28th December 2008

Originally Posted by DeWei

Not to mention the color rendering of Nikkor glasses are better (more neutral), unlike most Sigma lenses render slight yellow cast.

yea that and nikkor's 18-200 the colours more natural...sigma's come out more saturated. But this kind of temp,colour issue can correct if the user shoot in raw.

rotisiao · 28th December 2008

Originally Posted by jimmyle80

the 18-200mm is not good ? I read some reviews about the 18-200 and the tamron 18-270 , still can not decide which one ! heard that the 18-270 focus very slow !

i think its a good all around lens for travel and leisure purpose especially when you dont want to lug around multiple lenses..also good for you to see what range you use mostly and work on getting better lenses at that range. e.g since using my 18-200 i find that i use the 18-40mm range more and f3.5 is not fast enough thus i would look for an upgrade that way, instead of having to rely on guess work.

IQ wise they are just average imo, about the same or marginally better than the 18-55 kit lens. 18-200/18-270 most have bad or uneven barrel distortion at wide angle (can be corrected to a certain extent during pp), softer than most lenses similiar f3.5 wide open, different brand also have different CA handling capability and many numerous issues. Many of this things can be corrected during post processing, i think composition and exposure/lighting is more important than outright image quality.

I tried the Tamron once and its definitely slower than the af-s, hsm of nikon and sigma but its really not that bad, probably you will only notice if you are doing sports where you need fast af. I guess thats the trade off for that extra 70mm.

Blur Shadow · 28th December 2008

1. Nikkor focuses faster, or at least in my experience.
2. When turned back to 18mm, the Nikkor does not lens creep, or at least in my experience.
3. Nikkor has a widest aperture of f/5.6 at 200mm, against Sigma's f/6.3 and Tamron's f/6.

But having said that, they're all "superzooms"... So don't expect tip top performance in every aspect... They're bound to lose out in certain areas... Personally, I'd take the Nikkor though... Although the price of the Sigma and Tamron is very tempting.

28th December 2008	#1
sin77 Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 932	18-200VR Nikkor vs Sigma/Tamron/Tokina I believe Nikkor is the most ex, but does it justify the price? My nikkor lens stops at 200mm, while 3rd party can even reach 270mm. My lens got no lock, it will slide out to 200mm when facing down. My lens will also creep/jump at certain angle/focal length. My lens is so heavy. 3rd party also got antishake. So why do we still go for Nikkor? I am thinking of trading away to get 3rd party. __________________ Nikon D90, SB600, 18-200mm VRII, Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, Lumix FZ18, Fujifilm F31fd.

28th December 2008	#2
rotisiao Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 705	Re: 18-200VR Nikkor vs Sigma/Tamron/Tokina comparing nikkor 18-200 VR AF-S to sigma 18-200 OS HSM which i currently own..sigma OS and HSM noiser..at 200mm sigma is f6.3 compared to Nikkor's f5.6. I believe with enough usage most heavy double barrel lens will creep my sigma starting dun have but now have. Sigma bokeh not as nice as Nikkor's for sure. Sigma is roughly $200 cheaper than Nikkor's offering iirc, gotta ask yourself is the above advantages worth the jump in price lo. Tamron's 18-270 i know for sure the focusing speed not as fast as nikkor or sigma's af-s and hsm respectively. __________________ My flickr!

28th December 2008	#3
jimmyle80 Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 58	Re: 18-200VR Nikkor vs Sigma/Tamron/Tokina the 18-200mm is not good ? I read some reviews about the 18-200 and the tamron 18-270 , still can not decide which one ! heard that the 18-270 focus very slow !

28th December 2008	#4
DeWei Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 641	Re: 18-200VR Nikkor vs Sigma/Tamron/Tokina Not to mention the color rendering of Nikkor glasses are better (more neutral), unlike most Sigma lenses render slight yellow cast.

28th December 2008	#7
Blur Shadow Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,286	Re: 18-200VR Nikkor vs Sigma/Tamron/Tokina 1. Nikkor focuses faster, or at least in my experience. 2. When turned back to 18mm, the Nikkor does not lens creep, or at least in my experience. 3. Nikkor has a widest aperture of f/5.6 at 200mm, against Sigma's f/6.3 and Tamron's f/6. But having said that, they're all "superzooms"... So don't expect tip top performance in every aspect... They're bound to lose out in certain areas... Personally, I'd take the Nikkor though... Although the price of the Sigma and Tamron is very tempting.