03-28-2012, 01:45 AM
I have owned all three lenses, the Nikon 18-200, sigma 18-200 OS, and nikon 18-105 VR. I gave the nikon 18-200 to my sister. It's a heftier lens and takes decent images, but I think it's softer at 200 mm than the Sigma. I currently have the 18-105 vr and sigma 18-200 OS. Both are reasonable performers.
The 18-105 VR is a lighter lens..not bad, but I never use it anymore, as I have the Sigma 18-200. I bought the sigma over the Tamron, despite the fact that VC is better than OS...my reason was simple, the 18-200 was a lot less. I believe I bought the 18-200 for about $299 when it was on sale a while back.
Overall, I'd say that all of these lenses are about the same build quality...with the Sigma and Nikon 18-200 being slightly better (but heavier), but older Nikon units suffer from lens creep (the newer ones have lens locks like the Sigma). The sigma does a decent job, despite being slow at 200mm (f6.3)...with the newer sensors and high ISO capability, it almost doesn't matter anymore. I've found that the sigma 18-200 takes better quality of pictures at 200mm than the nikon.
I was surprised to find out that the 18-105 almost gets as much reach as the 18-200 lenses...when you focus on objects that are closer than infinity, the superzoom lenses lose some reach. Thus, the FOV for a superzoom at 200mm wont be comparable to a prime lens (hope I'm saying it right). At infinity, the superzooms will approach 200mm...but usually that's not very useful. Another nice thing about the 18-105 VR is the weight...nice and light is useful sometimes.
my 2 cents worth...
The 18-105 VR is a lighter lens..not bad, but I never use it anymore, as I have the Sigma 18-200. I bought the sigma over the Tamron, despite the fact that VC is better than OS...my reason was simple, the 18-200 was a lot less. I believe I bought the 18-200 for about $299 when it was on sale a while back.
Overall, I'd say that all of these lenses are about the same build quality...with the Sigma and Nikon 18-200 being slightly better (but heavier), but older Nikon units suffer from lens creep (the newer ones have lens locks like the Sigma). The sigma does a decent job, despite being slow at 200mm (f6.3)...with the newer sensors and high ISO capability, it almost doesn't matter anymore. I've found that the sigma 18-200 takes better quality of pictures at 200mm than the nikon.
I was surprised to find out that the 18-105 almost gets as much reach as the 18-200 lenses...when you focus on objects that are closer than infinity, the superzoom lenses lose some reach. Thus, the FOV for a superzoom at 200mm wont be comparable to a prime lens (hope I'm saying it right). At infinity, the superzooms will approach 200mm...but usually that's not very useful. Another nice thing about the 18-105 VR is the weight...nice and light is useful sometimes.
my 2 cents worth...