Review on 📷 Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 II DC OS HSM Lens for Nikon SLR Camera (Previous Generation) by Heather Gorman

I bought this lens with some skepticism due to so many attacks on Sigma and its increased aperture to 6.3. However, I have other "good" special occasion lenses for my D7000 and didn't want to spend money on a Nikon 18-200 just because I thought it was an all-round walking lens, so I gave the Sigma a try. (Just so you know I'm not cheap when it comes to lenses myself, I also have a Nikon 16-35 VR, 24-120 VR, 105mm DC, 105mm VR Macro, 50mm f/1.4, 85 mm 1.8 and 80-200 2.8.) I used it yesterday for the first time on a train where there were a lot of different shots: trains in an outside garden; train sets installed in basements; Toy Train Museum; a real train museum; and a real train ride. And I came home and pored over the pictures and tried to find a mistake. I did find a few minor imperfections in sharpness on some shots, but without having a Nikon 18-200 to compare to, I don't know if they're different from what Nikon is putting out, or just like that. with an 18-200 lens in this situation (for example, some shots were taken in a basement at ISO 6400 with no flash. Some had toy trains running outside. So the lack of sharpness in some shots could very well be what you're looking for want to get in this situation with a universal lens reduced to 200mm.) But other shots, such as those taken in daylight at reasonable ISO settings, were very sharp. And looking through the photos, there weren't any that I could call unusable (at least not without a lens). Then today I did a test shot with my Nikon 25-120 VR in the kitchen, with one of the Division 56 bodies over the cabinet, at 120mm, no flash. And side by side in Lightroom I didn't notice any difference. And even at 100% magnification, I could only see the slightest difference, and that's only because I was looking for it (which I was really hoping for, with a $400 lens versus a $1000 lens!) In general, I was looking every reason to return this lens and buy a Nikon, but so far I just can't find anything other than this nagging feeling in the back of my mind that I've "missed" from the lack of a Nikon. I seriously think people like me sometimes get stuck wondering if a third party lens is good enough and end up buying a Nikon just to settle down, if only for something else. Но мне приходилось напоминать себе, что я только купил этот объектив не за абсолютное совершенство, а просто чтобы иметь приличный объектив без смены объективов для базовых снимков, а то иногда (а может даже и большую часть времени), когда дело касается путешествий, семейных снимков etc. , "good enough" really good enough. If I send these photos to Walgreens for 5x7 prints and they come back and end up in an album and maybe viewed 2 or 3 times in the next 50 years, does it really matter what lens I had? Probably not. In addition, this innovation has attracted attention. The D7000 was meant to replace my D700/28-300VR combo that I stole in Seattle a few weeks ago. (By the way, I hope that the people who stole my camera, and everyone who buys it, die a slow and painful death knowing it's hot. But I digress.) Pictures. So if something happens to a $400 Sigma lens instead of a $900 Nikon lens, I know I'll sleep a lot better tonight than I did after finding missing gear in the trunk of my car found value in the thousands of dollars. is it, is it perfect? no Can I expect every 18-200 zoom to be perfect? no But for a very good and comfortable lens I see no reason to spend twice as much on a Nikon.