Sigma 28-300 or 18-200 as walkabout?

[AndyWilson]

Looking for a walkabout lens to take on holiday to Vegas in Dec so I can take just one lens and not need to carry a camera bag (and maybe sneak a 50mm prime into pocket too)

I definitely tend to use the long end of lenses for "snapshots" more than wide-angle so my first thought was the Sigma 28-300. It does get mixed reviews - but at about £170 I can live with a little bit of imperfection. The 18-200 is a bit more expensive and substitutes the long end with more wide angle, but I'm not going to be taking landscapes. We're only there for 4 days so staying pretty urban - did the Grand Canyon / Lake Mead etc last time.

My only real concern about "superzooms" is the lack of aperature at the long end - is this likely to be an issue in Vegas in Dec? Is it sunny or gloomy?

I don't want to spend a lot as the range does overlap my existing 18-70 kit lens and elderly 75-300 and 28-100 minolta lenses. If I'm going to spend serious lens money I'd rather spend it on a fixed length macro...

Also - what are the possibilities of picking up one of these in vegas? Do shops over there stock Sony/Minolta fit lenses?

[MICON]

Avoid the 28-300 at all costs. The worse lens I have had, other than the kit lens. I couldn't live with the quality. I now have the Sigma 18-200 OS & it's miles better.

[AndyWilson]

So what's wrong with it? Is it soft? Distorted? Fringing? Slow focussing?

I want it as a "snapshot" lens so I'm willing to compromise a little for the price - and to be honest when I said the reviews were mixed most of them have been fairly good, but I think it was your comments on here on an earlier thread that gave me doubts...

Also, has the "standard" version of the 18-200 got the same glass as the OS version?

[MICON]

So what's wrong with it? Is it soft? Distorted? Fringing? Slow focussing?

I want it as a "snapshot" lens so I'm willing to compromise a little for the price - and to be honest when I said the reviews were mixed most of them have been fairly good, but I think it was your comments on here on an earlier thread that gave me doubts...

Also, has the "standard" version of the 18-200 got the same glass as the OS version?

It was soft, (personally I prefer to say out of focus) the further towards the 300mm end, the worse it got. I have a few shots that were not too bad but I was so upset I sent it back to Sigma via cameras2you & they swapped it for the 18-200 OS (with a difference in price of course). The 18-200 OS is a different kettle of fish & it is very sharp all the way through. Even at 200mm & cropped it outperforms the 28-300mm at 300mm when cropped. I also have the Canon 70-300 IS & that is a fantastic lens. I'm sure there are many on this site that will give advice on a more suitable lens but don't waste your money on the Sigma 28-300.
I also liked the Sigma 17-70 very much but I think your covered at that range. I don't know if the glass is the same in the 18-200 as in the 18-200 OS.

[Fozzybear]

I think that for Vegas you might at times be wanting to go wider than a 28mm will give you, so I'd be inclined to go for an 18-200. Losing 300mm shouldn't be a problem for walkabout use, I can't imagine you'd really need that unless you're indulging in a bit of long-distance wildlife shooting (if you are then that's different of course!).