Nikon Vs Sigma

I'm in the market for a 18mm-200mm lens for my D40.

I would like to know how the Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS compares to the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX

The main reason why I am asking is because the Sigma is $140 cheaper. I could care less about the "name brand", I just want to know the main differences between the two.

Also, I was thinking of getting the 55-200mm Nikon VR which is $140.

I think I found my answer:

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-200m...d_ef_rt_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B000NOSCGM

"For instance, we recently tested the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS AF zoom, which performed optically a notch better than Nikon's 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DX Nikkor VR AF-S ($700, street) and about on par with Canon's most comparable zoom, the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM ($2,200, street). The image stabilization of the three lenses was competitive (Cannon and Sigma, 2-3 stops' advantage; Nikon, 3-4 stops'). The Sigma, at $549 (street) cost $130 less than the Nikon and $1,650 less than the Canon."
By: Dan Richards from Popular Photography - February 2008: Volume 72"

I would not buy the sigma, myself. A $140 price difference... BFD. There are no metrics mentioned in this review, and not even a link provided, no sample shots so you can make an informed decision. Go to a real photography site, and do some better research before you pull the trigger.

You might try going to http://www.nikonians.org and ask if anyone is using one. Go to the lens section ofcourse. Also you may want to go the the FS section and see if anybody has one or, one of the better lenses for sale at a good price.

The Nikkor lens is faster at the narrow end of the zoom range (1/5.6 instead of 1/6.3), which I guess is an advantage. Other than that, just make sure not to fall into the "Sigmas are ripoffs" trap that a lot of people seem to do. Sigma make some pretty darn good lenses, often better than Nikkor and Canon lenses in the same class. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case with these particular lenses, but the Sigma isn't necessarily better just because it's a Sigma. Even if it is a fairly small price different, it's definitely worth looking into both options. Also, check out the Tamron. They feel cheap and plasticy, but they're actually quite good most of the time.

Hulk said:

I think I found my answer:

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-200m...d_ef_rt_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B000NOSCGM

"For instance, we recently tested the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS AF zoom, which performed optically a notch better than Nikon's 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DX Nikkor VR AF-S ($700, street) and about on par with Canon's most comparable zoom, the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM ($2,200, street). The image stabilization of the three lenses was competitive (Cannon and Sigma, 2-3 stops' advantage; Nikon, 3-4 stops'). The Sigma, at $549 (street) cost $130 less than the Nikon and $1,650 less than the Canon."
By: Dan Richards from Popular Photography - February 2008: Volume 72"

Click to expand...

Canon has a 18-200, it's new. But since you are already on the Nikon side, I'd take a look a the 18-270 from Tamron. Check some reviews in it's comparison to the other super zooms.

Sigma quality control is so-so - I know people that have sent 2 or 3 lenses back before getting a good one.

here's a review on the sigma........i'm pretty sure it's the walk around I'll be getting, especially considering the price tag. and the price difference is quite a bit bigger than $140 too. beach camera has it for $340 shipped and the nikon is $625 shipped. (maybe ur looking elsewhere)