am wondering.
y would i choose to get the 18-125mm over the 18-200mm?
i am looking at the Sigmas.
y would i choose to get the 18-125mm over the 18-200mm?
i am looking at the Sigmas.
why choose 18-125mm over 18-200mm?
- Thread starter naresh666
- Start date
- Status
cannot generalise like that but in this case it's true... the 18-125 is slightly sharper and better in the corners...
Because 1) prior to 18-200, there was only the 18-125 available, 2) the max aperture at 125 is still f/5.6 which is the minimum requirement for AF to work properly for most DSLRs.
BTW, it seems like the 18-125 isn't listed in Sigma's site anymore, so I think it has been discon.
Agree on both.
You need to also consider the lens construction. For example an old prime may not be better than modern zooms that uses new technology (multi-coating, low dispersion glass, aspherical elements, etc) The 18-200 uses more special glass (Sigma's SLD) than the 18-125. The 18-125 is only marginally sharper at 125 but if you need 200mm, you simply need a longer zoom. But if you do not need so much zoom, then yes, a shorter zoom like those 17-55 f2.8, etc, would give you much better image quality.
My Nikkor 18-200 is way way sharper than the Sigma 18-125. But of course the price is double too!!
im also considerin between a nikon 18-135 or a sigma 18-200. do i really need that extra 65mm. hmm. anyway if anyone has had a taste in both, pls drop a comment or two. thanks alot.
I will suggest 18-135mm as the quality of picture is way better and no peeling issue~ and due to ur budget~
im also considerin between a nikon 18-135 or a sigma 18-200. do i really need that extra 65mm. hmm. anyway if anyone has had a taste in both, pls drop a comment or two. thanks alot.
Between Nikon 18-135 and Sigma 18-200 non-OS, I think Nikon 18-135.
But I would much prefer the Nikon 18-200 VR.
. Sigma 18-200 OS is Overpriced and goes to 6.3 while Nikon is 5.6 at 200mm.- Status
Similar threads
