18-200mm digital. Why, thatâ€™s a film-equivalent zoom range of 27 to 300mm. Is that a good thing? While itâ€™s wide enough for architecture shots in narrow streets and long enough for wildlife photography, dpexpert is quite skeptical about these improbably long zooms.
In the case of this Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC, dpexpert notes that the company has produced a useful lens albeit with some compromises.
This is a slow lens â€“ f3.5 at the wide angle end, which is not bad, the review said, but only f6.3 at the telephoto end. Distortion is noticeable. Both barrel (at the wide end) and pincushion (at the tele end) are apparent. Focus can be slow on low contrast subjects and mechanically noisy. The lens produces a warm color cast on images â€“ ideally a lens should be color neutral.
Their verdict: get two shorter range zooms to cover the same focal length. Such an ambitious zoom range in such an inexpensive lens can only involve compromises.
Any user out there who actually uses the Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC zoom lens?