Sigma 18mm - 50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro "HSM" Autofocus Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras - USA Warranty

2013-02-06T19:00:00

I am overall satisfied with this lens. The build-quality is quite good and the finish is nice. The zoom is reversed for Nikon, which takes some getting used to. My used copy seemed to have noticeable back-focus. Dialing in -15 fine tune seemed to clear it up. Seems like it back focuses the worst at 18mm. On the long end, it actually front focuses a bit. But with the AF fine tune I get good results in real life settings. Focus charts will drive you crazy if you play with them long enough. Definitely soft at 18mm f2.8. Zoom in to about 19mm and it is noticeably better. Overall, not as tack sharp at 2.8 as I had hoped, but definitely useable. If you nail the focus, it is quite impressive in the center of the frame. I'd be curious to compare to the Tamron 17-50 directly. The "Macro" feature is pretty cool. you can almost touch an object with the front element and it still focuses. The HSM motor is quick and quiet, but not silent like my Nikkors. When it micro-adjusts at the end, there is a bit of a soft crunchy noise from the motor compared to the whirl sound during normal focus. This is audible if you're taking video. But for video, manual focus is better anyway. Get yourself a new lens cap. The outside tabs make it impossible to take off the cap with the hood on. Get a center pinch replacement.

jhonny0099

2010-11-17T19:00:00

Great all around lens. I use this for more than 70% of my photographs. Great for wide angle, portraits, low light, close ups. The close focusing distance is very helpful and allows me to do nice exaggerated shots. Highly recommended

HSEinPhila

2010-10-14T21:00:00

After reading every review possible, good and bad, I decided to take the plunge and buy. The first thing I noticed when I got this was the build quality, its built like a tank and has a good feel on my D200. I got to but it to the test on a shoot I did last weekend and I was very pleased with the results. The color was amazing, bokeh was very good, it was very sharp even wide open and even sharper stopped down, and at a third of the cost of Nikon's 17-55 its a winner. The only reason I didn't give it five stars was bucause in low light it does search a little, but not enough to really matter. If your on the fence about this lense, I say just buy it! You wont be disappointed.

Anthony

2010-06-28T21:00:00

I bought this lens as a replacement for the Nikkor kit lens. I use it with a Nikon D300 and couldn't be happier with the results. This lens consistantly provides me with sharp images in day or low light situations. The only con I have is that it is a bit heavy...but nothing that I can't manage. I use it for most of my portraits and I get very good results. For the price, this is a great lens.

WILLIE B.

2010-05-15T21:00:00

A very good, very versatile lens. Good in all kinds of light thanks to f2.8. Quick focus and pretty good macro performance. I use on Nikon D90 and D40x. All kinds of good points here but at the end of the day that 2.8 aperture makes this a lens to have, especially at this price point. I have six lenses, but if I could only have one, this would probably be it. The other contender would be the Nikon 18-200VR. Plan to use this lens to shoot some weddings.

Photophil

2010-04-19T21:00:00

Great for all my wedding work.Ideal for street photography and landscape.

Phil F.

2010-03-14T21:00:00

Nice lens but slow focus

kd

2009-12-15T19:00:00

I am a semi pro who uses this lens as a workhorse on my D90, this is an exceptional lens. Pop Photo mag rates this lens above Nikon 17-55 and other 3rd party lenses. You cannot go wrong with this lens, its a keeper. Try make sure to check for quality control (back/front focusing is not necessarily a lens defect, it can be calibration discrepancy between lens-Camera, so it might focus properly on one D90 but not another, but can be adjusted.). Checking for QC is imp for any lens brand. If you're not a brand snob, you will be happy. I do not shoot brick walls, and stare at charts (not discounting that, it is also imp), I am saying this from real life assignment experience. And my discerning clients have been very happy so far! It is not a dedicated low light lens however, but by that I mean in dark and poorly lit alleys/venues but then its only a f/2.8. So for hardcore night/low-light photography get a 35 or 50 (1.8 & 1.4).

James2009

2009-11-01T19:00:00

used it at a party for people shots on Halloween, it was great.

Piclady

2009-08-18T21:00:00

I bought this lens to "step-up" from the Nikon 18-55 kit lens to use as my primary lens on a D300. I wanted a wide zoom with a fixed aperture at a reasonable price. Nikon glass would be my preference but it is just TOO expensive. Tokina, Sigma and Tamron all offer 2.8 lenses in the 18-50mm range and I read reviews of each to the point of exhaustion. I settled on the Sigma because of the EX build quality and the HSM focusing. Based on other reviews I was concerned that it would have a front-focusing issue--I am happy to report that this lens focuses quickly, quietly, and most importantly, accurately. The fixed 2.8 aperture is a big step-up from the Nikon kit lens and a great advantage for shooting without flash.

rlg

2009-03-12T21:00:00

This is my walk around lens when I'm going to be inside at any point. It will take more zoom at 2.8 for me to replace it. My major complaint is that the on-camera focus controller does not let me go into manual focus. Instead it just doesn't focus. I have to change the switch on the lens to use manual focus for this lens. The end cap was almost instantly replaced with a nikon-branded one as the supplied one must be put on perfectly otherwise you scrape the lens contacts if you're not extremely careful

flyingember

2009-02-20T19:00:00

I bought this lens because I needed a faster lens than my 18-200mm 3.5/5.6f Nikon but I did not have a lot of money and this lens fit the bill perfectly. It does not feel like a compromise, like I had to give up quality for price, this is a well made lens and it helps me make beautiful images.

CSP E.

2009-01-14T19:00:00

Why I looked for a 18-50(ish) 2.8 zoom: I found that with my Nikon 18-55 kit lens the photos were good but not great. Indoors without good daylight the kit lens needed to be worked around and the price of the Nikon 17-55 2.8 was prohibitive for my needs. I went to a kids party and took my Tokina 11-16 2.8, Nikon 18-55 3.4-5.6, and nikon 50mm 1.8. I started with the kit zoom for convenience, but even at ISO 3200 I was having problems getting the kids without blur. I switched to the 50mm and 11-16 and came out with good pictures. Why this lens: After this party I decided that I need 2.8 and saw that the Tamron and Sigma offerings were a very nice price (the sigma being a better price). I played with the Tamron and while better than the kit lens just didn't give me a feel that it was better enough for the money. I ordered the Sigma and when I tried it was surprised. I really like it. It makes great pictures wide open and feels sharp and contrasty. Not quite as sharp as the 50mm but very close. Lens flare seems to be well controlled and the bokeh caused by background street lights at night were nice circles. I did notice (I use a D300) slight Chromatic Aberrations (purple fringe) on strong black to white transitions if viewed at 100%. I only noticed them because I was looking for them. Not an issue for me. Build felt solid and compact. No lens creep and the touch on the zoom and focus felt fine. It is new so no break-in has been accounted for. I didn't notice the HSM motor. Not noisy, not slow. AF hunt was on par with the Tokina 11-16 and the 50mm 1.8 and was not an issue. (proper exposure was about 1/15th at f2.8 at 1600). The pleasant surprise was how close it focuses. Closer than the advertised distance. It is close enough that the lens hood becomes a consideration for your subject. Not being a real MACRO guy its hard to evaluate as a Macro lens. I'll say that I could see the paper grain pattern in the label of the soup can. Compared with the equivalent Tamron; besides ergonomic and style preference, I felt the Tamron images were a bit "blah" but wasn't able to point to any specific reason why. Compared with images I reviewed taken with the Nikon cream of the crop, the Sigma feels to me to be about 90% to 95% of the Nikon. And the 5 to 10% difference is what you'd expect between mid-range and professional. (ah-hem... better than this photographer can exploit) Though for this lens purchase price was a factor for me; the Quality for Value is surprisingly high and I am comfortable saying this is a very good lens without having to add the phrase "for the price." Hope this helps.

Mike