What's new
L-MOUNT Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

News Sigma 20-200mm f3.5/6.3 DG

Yep, for the huge range that stretches just into ultra-wide territory it could be the best travel zoom ever made.

First super-zoom to break the 24mm barrier and the first FF mirrorless Contemporary zoom and Contemporary lens that isn't an I-series.
 
Now I'm thinking about switching my 20-60 and 70-300 for the 20-200. I don't know how much I would miss the 200-300 range, but most of the time I use it below 200mm.
 
I would prefer normally the 28-300mm range for super zooms. The review of Christopher Frost sounds very promising. Best super zoom available. But do not expect the same image quality as with your 20-60 and 70-300. It is still "only" a super zoom.
 
I was initially excited to see this, but then saw that it does not have OIS. I really value the Dual IS I get from using stabilised Lumix lenses on the S5II.
 
Looks very interesting. A very versatile lens, and I love the fact that it starts at 20mm (not 24, or worse, 28).

If this lens matches the optical performance of the M43 Olympus 12-100... it could be the ideal do-it all landscape/travel lens. It is difficult to tell from the initial reviews, which seem quite positive.

I wonder if Richard Wong will review the lens? Having bought two lenses in the past thanks to his amazingly thorough video reviews, I would certainly trust his judgement :)
 
dirk said:
I would prefer normally the 28-300mm range for super zooms. The review of Christopher Frost sounds very promising. Best super zoom available. But do not expect the same image quality as with your 20-60 and 70-300. It is still "only" a super zoom.
Click to expand...

The additional 8 mm on the wide are the main reason I even consider it. The 20 to 28 mm range is the only reason I still have the 20-60. I'm barely using it, because I have the 28-70 sigma. But 28 and even 24 mm are sometimes not enough. At least for me, 20 mm are enough almost always.

Quality wise, it seems good enough to what I've seen.

I'm only thinking, if I would miss the longer range or the close focusing on the long end.
 
I'm also very interested but want to see some good representative examples of landscapes throughout the zoom range.
I'm hoping Gordon Laing will get his diagonal pier shots up soon :)
 
Based on these sample images:


And this review:

www.the-digital-picture.com

Sigma 20-200mm F3.5-6.3 DG Contemporary Lens Review

Is the Sigma 20-200mm F3.5-6.3 DG Contemporary Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com

My initial thoughts are that it's better than the 28-200 but still lacking in overall optical performance, especially at the frame edges. I guess this is the compromise with super zooms and I need to calibrate my expectations accordingly.

However, I'm keen to try one. Until I do, I guess I won't know for sure if it's for me.
 
Yes I've downloaded the DPR examples in RAW and run them through Capture One. Whilst the sharpness in the centre looks good throughout the zoom range, the wide shots were a bit inconclusive for me, especially not knowing where the point of focus was.
 
Greytop said:
Yes I've downloaded the DPR examples in RAW and run them through Capture One. Whilst the sharpness in the centre looks good throughout the zoom range, the wide shots were a bit inconclusive for me, especially not knowing where the point of focus was.
Click to expand...
I find DPR’s lens sample images very disappointing, at least for evaluating performance for landscape shooting. I want to know what the sharpness is like across the frame at various focal lengths when shooting distant scenes at f8 or f11. Instead you’ll see a haphazard set of focal lengths, too many images shot wide open, focal point set on middle-distance subjects (bridges, trees etc), and similar random stuff. It’s as if they’ve given the gear to the office junior and just said “go take some snapshots with the camera in full Auto mode”.
 
pdk42 said:
It’s as if they’ve given the gear to the office junior and just said “go take some snapshots with the camera in full Auto mode”.
Click to expand...
I think that's exactly what they've done since the reorganisation.
 
Pete_W said:
I think that's exactly what they've done since the reorganisation.
Click to expand...
That could be a good thing.
"Hey, this lens is so good that even Junior the Ham-Fisted Intern here can get great photos with it."

Alright, I'm reaching....
 
I would be amazed if this superzoom is up the standards of a good landscape photographer, even stopped down to f/8 or so. It does look like it's optically far above average for a superzoom but that doesn't bring it into the quality range I'd expect from a prime or a zoom with x3 or x4 zoom ratio. Even Sigma in 2025 isn't able to get that from a x10 zoom.
 
Jonathan-Mac said:
I would be amazed if this superzoom is up the standards of a good landscape photographer, even stopped down to f/8 or so. It does look like it's optically far above average for a superzoom but that doesn't bring it into the quality range I'd expect from a prime or a zoom with x3 or x4 zoom ratio. Even Sigma in 2025 isn't able to get that from a x10 zoom.
Click to expand...
It’s still somewhat frustrating though. I agree that it’s asking a lot for any super zoom to deliver top IQ. But the Tamron 28-200 seems to get pretty close. I’ve pixel peeked images from that lens and it seems very good. The Panasonic 28-200 fails miserably and it seems from initial reports that this Sigma 20-200 also fails, albeit that it’s a step up on the Panasonic.

The Panasonic lens is probably compromised because of its size and it seems this Sigma is compromised because of its range.

I guess I’ll be sticking with my trio of 14-28, 24-105, and 70-200 f4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top