p.1 #1 · Sigma 20-200mm f3.5-6.3 C - Sample Images
I picked up the new Sigma 20-200mm a couple days ago. It's tiny for its range! Perfect for street photography. Here are a few from my first walk with it yesterday.
For hi-res versions click on the link.
p.1 #3 · Sigma 20-200mm f3.5-6.3 C - Sample Images
I haven't put it through any testing yet, but the corners are better than I would have thought. These samples include both ends of the zoom range, although there has been some cropping and my usual heavy-handed LR edits Click on the links and there are options to see higher res versions. They don't look that sharp here on FM, but they are definitely sharper than here.
I used to own the Tamron 28-200, and I would say they are about the same optically at f8 anyway. It feels smaller and lighter than the 28-200, and a bit less conspicuous walking on the streets. It's a no-brainer if you are looking for a superzoom and don't own the 28-200 yet, and if you don't mind paying the ~25% extra price (here in Canada).
p.1 #5 · Sigma 20-200mm f3.5-6.3 C - Sample Images
chrisd999 wrote:
I haven't put it through any testing yet, but the corners are better than I would have thought. These samples include both ends of the zoom range, although there has been some cropping and my usual heavy-handed LR edits Click on the links and there are options to see higher res versions. They don't look that sharp here on FM, but they are definitely sharper than here.
I used to own the Tamron 28-200, and I would say they are about the same optically at f8 anyway. It feels smaller and lighter than the 28-200, and a bit less conspicuous walking on the streets. It's a no-brainer if you are looking for a superzoom and don't own the 28-200 yet, and if you don't mind paying the ~25% extra price (here in Canada)....Show more →
That's good to hear.
This is going to be real simple for me. I've liked what I've seen from my 28-200. Once I get the Sigma I'm going to do a bunch of direct comparison shots. Unless the new sigma falls flat on its face IQ wise or just doesn't physically handle well I'd say the Tamron is gone. Tamron will have a small IQ advantage since PureRaw has profiles for it. Sigma is newer tech so I think that's a pretty big advantage. All the lens coming out lately just seem better to me regardless of brand (at least from a sharpness standpoint.)
This review seems bang-on. I was mistaken on the Sigma being smaller than the Tamron, but they are indeed very close. The Sigma just seems smaller for some unexplained reason. Anyway, IQ, size and weight are not a reason to choose one over the other. 20mm to 27mm focal length is the main reason. The Sigma's half-macro max magnification is an added bonus.
The MTF charts are particularly interesting with meaningful comparator lenses (Panasonic 28-200, Sony 20-70, Sony 70-200 F/4 G II). Based on the charts, the Sigma holds up surprisingly well in terms of central sharpness against all of these lenses, including vs the Sony 70-200mm at the telephoto end. It also looks no worse overall than Sony 20-70 at all FLs, in some cases better - if anything the Sony performs worse at corners than I would have expected). The review makes the obvious point that there's an aperture loss against either of the Sony lenses, and that seems to be main tradeoff.
Great review! The comparison to the 28-200 and 16-35PZ there is really helpful. I'm going to wait to see whether the Tamron 25-200 can up the game a bit before making a purchase.
p.1 #11 · Sigma 20-200mm f3.5-6.3 C - Sample Images
As Mads points out, I do agree the 20-200mm does perform better in terms of CA, distortion and sharpness at medium and long focal lengths, with the wider focal lengths not as good. Here is a test shot with my 20-200 taken at 20mm f8. No in-camera corrections. In LR I did the default correct for CA (which was not that noticeable in this image), but did not correct distortion or any crops, so you are seeing the actual un-cropped corners. I did do my typical exposure, clarity, sharpening edits and manually corrected vignetting in LR.
To me, the biggest problem at 20mm or the wide end is the complex distortion pattern. It's barrel in the middle zone only, so when you correct for barrel distortion manually in LR, the outer zone gets a pin cushion effect. I'm hoping that the upcoming distortion correction profile in LR will correct for this. As for sharpness (which is not that bad), since this is as “bad” as it gets in the focal range, and considering the versatility of the focal range, I can live with it as long as I'm not using it for paid architectural or fine art photography.
Note: I don't know why my sample images posted here on FM always seem a little soft and blurry. For higher or full resolution image, click on the link below the image to see it on my Flickr page and then zoom in, or follow the download link there for high res samples.
p.1 #12 · Sigma 20-200mm f3.5-6.3 C - Sample Images
Thanks, good to see more real life examples. Kind of a tough call for me if this will replace my 28-200 like I was hoping. Think I might wait for the 25-200G2 and see what that brings.
p.1 #13 · Sigma 20-200mm f3.5-6.3 C - Sample Images
Could you possibly try some sample shots with both JPEG and RAW enabled, making sure the camera is set to correct for distortion? Then you could post some "properly corrected" SooC JPEG sample shots while waiting for a Lightroom profile?
Or shoot some HEIF/RAW and process the HEIF? I assume it would be corrected for distortion, in camera, if that setting is enabled.
p.1 #14 · Sigma 20-200mm f3.5-6.3 C - Sample Images
chrisd999 wrote:
As Mads points out, I do agree the 20-200mm does perform better in terms of CA, distortion and sharpness at medium and long focal lengths, with the wider focal lengths not as good. Here is a test shot with my 20-200 taken at 20mm f8. No in-camera corrections. In LR I did the default correct for CA (which was not that noticeable in this image), but did not correct distortion or any crops, so you are seeing the actual un-cropped corners. I did do my typical exposure, clarity, sharpening edits and manually corrected vignetting in LR.
To me, the biggest problem at 20mm or the wide end is the complex distortion pattern. It's barrel in the middle zone only, so when you correct for barrel distortion manually in LR, the outer zone gets a pin cushion effect. I'm hoping that the upcoming distortion correction profile in LR will correct for this. As for sharpness (which is not that bad), since this is as “bad” as it gets in the focal range, and considering the versatility of the focal range, I can live with it as long as I'm not using it for paid architectural or fine art photography.
Note: I don't know why my sample images posted here on FM always seem a little soft and blurry. For higher or full resolution image, click on the link below the image to see it on my Flickr page and then zoom in, or follow the download link there for high res samples.
This looks quite decent considering there is no matched correction profile in LR yet. I bet it looks even better at 24 or 28mm. The lens is on my radar as well as the upcoming Tamron 25-200, if either is an improvement over my existing 28-200. It’s the kind of lens I like to have on the camera when I’m not wanting photography to interfere with whatever else is going on in life, and it has paid off for me with great images I would otherwise not have (especially since I lean toward the telephoto range for landscape).
p.1 #15 · Sigma 20-200mm f3.5-6.3 C - Sample Images
tsdevine wrote:
Could you possibly try some sample shots with both JPEG and RAW enabled, making sure the camera is set to correct for distortion? Then you could post some "properly corrected" SooC JPEG sample shots while waiting for a Lightroom profile?
Or shoot some HEIF/RAW and process the HEIF? I assume it would be corrected for distortion, in camera, if that setting is enabled.
Interesting, I’ve never trusted or tried automatic corrections in-camera. I’ll try that on my next shoot, thanks!
p.1 #16 · Sigma 20-200mm f3.5-6.3 C - Sample Images
chrisd999 wrote:
Interesting, I’ve never trusted or tried automatic corrections in-camera. I’ll try that on my next shoot, thanks!
Well....I don't like the shading correction, I always leave that off. It can screw around with things in the RAW. But I do leave distortion correction on, so I'm composing with corrections in play. For distortion, the RAW is uncorrected whether or not you turn on distortion correction. You can generally turn off the correction (and turn it on) in Lightroom if there is a profile for the lens. In some rare cases I think manufacturers can kind of force Lightroom to correct, but that isn't the case with most lenses (I believe.)
p.1 #17 · Sigma 20-200mm f3.5-6.3 C - Sample Images
Dustin Abbott published a review today which is consistent with what has been said: https://dustinabbott.net/2025/10/sigma-20-200mm-f3-5-6-3-dg-review/
The Tamron 28-200mm has consistently made me happy, but at times wishing it were wider. While the Sigma 20-200mm isn't as bright, it's macro capabilities allow one to regain bokeh for nature photography. I have a feeling this lens with an ultra light prime is the way to go.
p.1 #18 · Sigma 20-200mm f3.5-6.3 C - Sample Images
Josh Lewis wrote:
Dustin Abbott published a review today which is consistent with what has been said: https://dustinabbott.net/2025/10/sigma-20-200mm-f3-5-6-3-dg-review/
The Tamron 28-200mm has consistently made me happy, but at times wishing it were wider. While the Sigma 20-200mm isn't as bright, it's macro capabilities allow one to regain bokeh for nature photography. I have a feeling this lens with an ultra light prime is the way to go.
According to Dustin Abbott's tests, there is very little LoCA on the Sigma which is great news, as that would be one of the hardest flaws to correct in post. The complex distortion at the 20mm looks potentially troublesome but forgivable for a lens with this kind of zoom range - for sure it's better than having no 20mm at all.
p.1 #19 · Sigma 20-200mm f3.5-6.3 C - Sample Images
So far it's looking like a good walk around lens, or super zoom lens for times you may need to go from wide angle to telphoto without changing lenses or bodies, as long as there is enough available light.
I have been happy using my Nikon 28-400mm as an f8 zoom in similar circumstances. Looks like the Sigma you may get away with using as an f6.3 zoom, which can help a bit in lower light and for diffraction on higher mp bodies.
I think of the Nikon 28-400mm as a 70-300mm that can go 100mm longer on the telephoto side, and 42mm wide on the wide side (which is quite the difference). For those situations, the 28-400mm will probably still be my go to, but for walking around, I usually pair my 28-400mm with a wider lens. 20mm is substantially wider than 28mm, so the Sigma 20-200mm is getting very tempting for me.
These superzooms definitely won't replace high IQ lenses such as a 24-70 f2.8, but if you use them correctly, they can allow you to get shots you may normally not get at all.
p.1 #20 · Sigma 20-200mm f3.5-6.3 C - Sample Images
DWOfPaul wrote:
These superzooms definitely won't replace high IQ lenses such as a 24-70 f2.8, but if you use them correctly, they can allow you to get shots you may normally not get at all.
Exactly my thought. I won't be replacing my 12-24 GM and 24-70 GMII anytime zoom, but sometimes I have a couple of hours to walk around my favourite city, and it's a great lens to mount on my A7CR and chuck in the bag for an unplanned shot. Sometimes the "moment of opportunity" shot is better than the perfect IQ shot.
Click on the links and there are options to see higher res versions. They don't look that sharp here on FM, but they are definitely sharper than here.
