DSLR Photography Forum

I was going to buy the Nikkor version for close to 700 dollars but saved over $200 purchasing the Sigma. The lens is very light. The motor is a little noiser than the Nikkor and the turning mechanisms seem a little stiffer. The lens is surpriringly small and light, even though it is longer than the 55-200 mm Nikkor when extended--or seems so. It has an additional extension out of the tube for the longer focal lengths. The segments have visal scares to mark focal lengths. The optics look very good to me and the lens has a macro potential focussing down to about 6 inches. You have to use the manual focus when you focus in that close because the autofocus seems to search forever, but it does focus fine.

The best part is that my Nikon has the same capability as my point and shoot Kodak and I don't have to make decisions about every day use lenses. I can carry my Sigma 10-20 mm lens with me in my small case and have my whole photographic range. I've only had the lens a few hours but I feel like the cat who swallowed the canary.

Hi, Don! I have the same two Sigma lenses, although I acquired them in the reverse order. I have never used the kit lens that came with the camera. I've used the 18-200 (OS) for over a year and I find it to be a great walking around, all purpose lens. I really hate changing lenses in the field. I recently bought the 10-20 and have had a ball using it. Just got back from vacation and I posted a photo today that utilized the ultrawide. I understand the joy of a new toy. Regards.....Dennis

I'm glad you said that. A good around walking lens is all I need. I traded in my 55-200 Nikkor and I'm going to get some money for the 18-55. I don't need it.

Enjoy the new toy Don, I find my (Nikon) 18-200 very practical and I have no doubt that you will too. You will make better use of the long focal length than I do, I suspect. Pavel

I will only need two lenses--this one and the Sigma 10-20