Sigma 20-200mm F3.5-6.3 DG Review | A Full Frame 10x Travelzoom

0:00
[Music]
0:11
Hi, I'm Dustin Abbott and I'm here today
0:13
to give you a review of the final of the
0:16
three trio of lenses that Sigma released
0:18
at the same time, including the 135
0:20
millimeter f1.4, the 35 millimeter f1.2
0:24
2 Mark I from their art series and then
0:26
this lens the new 20 to 200 millimeter
0:29
f3.5 to 6.3 DG from their contemporary
0:34
lineup. Now for about 5 years now I have
0:37
been promoting and using the Tamron 28
0:40
to 200 millimeter because of its unusual
0:42
blend for a travel or super zoom of
0:45
having you know pretty great image
0:46
quality and relatively good brightness
0:49
in a compact form. Now, this new Sigma
0:52
lens has one massive advantage over that
0:55
Tamron lens. It can go all the way to 20
0:58
millimeters, which as you can see from
0:59
this comparison is radically wider than
1:01
28 mm. That's going to be incredibly
1:03
useful in a great variety of situations.
1:06
However, it does have a distinctive
1:08
disadvantage relative to that Tamron as
1:10
well, and that it is not nearly as
1:12
bright. It starts at f3.5, yes, but as
1:14
we're going to see, it hits f4 by not
1:17
even 22 millimeters, and it's going to
1:20
reach its smallest maximum aperture by
1:24
only about 88 millimeters into the zoom
1:27
range. The Tamron by comparison has an
1:30
advantage most often anywhere between
1:32
one and even one and two/3 stops
1:35
depending on the area in the zoom range.
1:37
So, it's a much brighter lens. Now,
1:40
there are other strengths that Sigma
1:41
brings to bear that we're going to
1:42
detail as a part of this review. But if
1:45
you want to know the biggest strength
1:46
and biggest weakness relative to what's
1:48
available on the market right now, there
1:50
you have it right right there. And of
1:52
course, Tamron is already going to
1:53
counter punch in that sometime this
1:55
fall, they're going to release a new 25
1:57
to 200 millimeter lens. So, not quite as
2:00
wide, but it's going to be updated in
2:02
terms of build and features and the
2:03
optical design. So, it'll be interesting
2:05
to see how that shakes out when that
2:06
particular lens arrives. But right now,
2:08
for a,000 bucks, you can get a lens that
2:11
has an extraordinary 10 time zoom range
2:13
that is still very compact and easy to
2:16
bring along and starts at an incredibly
2:18
wide 20 mm. Something that we haven't
2:21
seen from any of these travel style
2:23
zooms on fullframe before. And so, we're
2:27
going to dive in today and see if this
2:28
new Sigma is worth investing in. Let's
2:31
take a look. So, in full disclosure,
2:33
this lens was loan to me by GenTech,
2:35
which is a distributor for Sigma
2:37
Products here in Canada. It will be
2:39
going to them after the end of this
2:40
review. As always, this is a completely
2:42
independent review. They have had no
2:44
input on my findings, nor will they see
2:46
this video before you do. So, we're
2:49
going to take a look at build handling
2:50
and features here. I will give you a bit
2:53
of an apology before we jump in. I am
2:55
fighting a cold right now and as you
2:57
have probably heard I'm a bit stuffed up
2:59
and so if my voice sounds a bit
3:01
annoying, I apologize for that. The
3:04
really standout feature of the new Sigma
3:06
lens is the fact that it has such a
3:09
useful zoom range, 10 time zoom zoom
3:12
range that allows you to go from this
3:14
and zoom all the way in to this at 200
3:18
millimeters. that's going to be so
3:20
useful in so many different situations,
3:22
giving you the ability to really frame
3:24
most settings in the way that you would
3:27
want. And as you can see here, comparing
3:29
to the 28 mm of the Tamron, it is a
3:33
radical difference. And so interior
3:34
spaces in particular, you're going to
3:36
really see a huge difference. Now, the
3:39
biggest weakness, as I detailed in the
3:41
intro, is the aperture here. Not only
3:44
does it have an overall slower maximum
3:47
aperture throughout the range f3.5 to f
3:50
f6.3
3:52
even that f3.5 is a little bit
3:54
deceptive. Yes, it is at 20 mm it is
3:58
f3.5 but by 21.8
4:01
mm less than 2 millime zooming in it
4:04
actually drops to f4. Uh by 28.8 mm it
4:09
is f4.5. I'll remind you the Tamron is
4:12
is f2.8 8. At that point at 38 mm, it
4:16
becomes f5. Tamron is still f2.8. 51 mm
4:20
it becomes f5.6. The Tamron is f3.5. And
4:24
then at only 83.3 mm, it becomes the
4:28
slowest maximum aperture of f6.3.
4:31
Whereas the Tamron is still at f4 and in
4:33
fact does not reach f5.6, its maximum
4:36
aperture until 150 mm. So, these lenses
4:40
are pretty radically different in their
4:42
light gathering potential, and that is
4:45
part of the price that Sigma uh has paid
4:47
for compressing a lot of additional
4:50
focal lengths into a really quite
4:53
compact lens. On top of that, this lens
4:56
does have no lens base stabilization.
4:58
So, that means you're going to be
4:59
relying upon in camera image
5:01
stabilization. And I found that as is
5:04
often the case particularly with Sony
5:05
cameras, when you get into telephoto uh
5:08
spaces, they're only so so in my opinion
5:11
when it comes to telephoto. I find that
5:13
both Fuji and Nikon, Canon, all of them
5:17
tend to have a little bit better
5:18
stabilization of telephoto focal lengths
5:20
in camera, at least in my opinion. And
5:23
so I did run into some situations where
5:25
I got a little bit of motion blur what I
5:27
where I didn't expect some. And that has
5:29
to do with a lack of in camera
5:31
stabilization. Also, that slow maximum
5:33
aperture means that you're going to have
5:34
to really keep an eye on your shutter
5:36
speed because it's pretty easy to get
5:39
into a pretty low shutter speed
5:40
situation if you're shooting in AV mode,
5:43
for example, and not paying attention to
5:44
that. Now, as far as the feature set, we
5:47
do have an AFMF switch, which is
5:49
something that was lacking on the Tamron
5:51
lens. It does have that lock here to
5:54
keep from any kind of zoom creep taking
5:56
place. Uh, as far as anything else,
5:59
there are no other buttons or switches
6:01
here. No aperture ring, nothing like
6:04
that. I will note that the design is
6:06
completely reversed in every way from
6:08
the Tamron. Instead of having the manual
6:10
focus ring first, we've got the zoom
6:12
ring first. It zooms in the opposite
6:14
direction. It focuses in the opposite
6:17
direction. And uh, and so just very,
6:19
very different. So, if you're going back
6:21
and forth, it can be a little bit
6:22
confusing. Ergonomically, you're
6:23
reaching for those things. Sigma has
6:26
done an excellent job in keeping this
6:27
lens compact despite that huge zoom
6:30
range. It is only 77.2 millimeters in
6:34
diameter or 3 in and 115.5
6:38
millime or 4.5 in in length. Now that's
6:41
retracted. Obviously, it zooms out a
6:44
considerable length and so that's going
6:46
to add about 75 millimeters to the
6:48
overall length. But for travel, it
6:50
remains really nice and compact. Now,
6:53
particularly when I first got the lens,
6:54
it was stiff, particularly in the the
6:58
wide part of the zoom range, and it
7:00
still has a little bit heavier weight in
7:02
that zone than what I would like, but it
7:04
does feel like it is getting smoother
7:06
overall. I still do find it because it's
7:08
a little bit heavy on that end, I find
7:10
it a little bit hard to smoothly zoom
7:13
it. And the Tamron is just a little bit
7:16
more consistent, but I've also been
7:18
using this Tamron for 5 years, so it's
7:20
thoroughly broken in. The Sigma might do
7:22
better after it is more um broken in.
7:24
But I did note and I see some other
7:26
reviewers as well have noted that for
7:28
them also there was some stiffness in
7:30
that. So that does mitigate the zooming
7:32
potential particularly during video. Up
7:36
front we have 72mm filter threads and
7:39
that's a little bit less common but uh
7:42
you know it's it's shared with a number
7:43
of other lenses from Sigma and other
7:45
brands as well. The weight here is 550
7:48
gram. You can feel that, but it's far
7:51
from being so heavy that you can't carry
7:53
it around for a good part of the day. I
7:55
think it's a a great weight for all that
7:57
you're getting in this particular lens.
8:00
It also has a pretty thorough weather
8:01
sealing, which is great. That's new for
8:04
the contemporary lineup from Sigma. And
8:06
so, you can see from this diagram, we've
8:08
got seven seal points starting with a
8:10
gasket here at the lens mount and then
8:12
working up to some coating on the front
8:14
element uh in addition. So, nice things
8:17
there. Inside we have got nine rounded
8:20
aperture blades and so that does help to
8:22
keep a circular shape and a decent
8:23
looking sunst star when it is stopped
8:25
down. Now the manual focus ring is right
8:28
up near the front. It doesn't have a lot
8:30
of damping. So it's not as nice feeling
8:32
as the two Art series lenses that I just
8:34
got through reviewing, but it is nice
8:36
and responsive because of the HLA focus
8:39
motor. And I will also note that these
8:41
Sigma lenses all have fulltime manual
8:43
override, which a lot of lenses don't.
8:45
And so I find that to be very very
8:47
useful. So and appreciate that. Now
8:50
because this lens goes so wide, it's got
8:52
a shallower than typical lens hood for a
8:55
a lens like this. And that is at 20 mm.
8:58
Obviously it couldn't have a very deep
9:00
hood because it would start to provide
9:01
some additional shading um in terms of
9:03
vignette. And so it's a shallow hood,
9:06
but fortunately flare resistance is
9:07
good. They kind of I think offset that
9:09
through the optical design. And so no
9:12
major problem there. We have a minimum
9:15
focus distance in this lens and it
9:17
really really v varies and so as little
9:19
as uh 16.5 cm and it will grow up to uh
9:24
much longer I think even around 60 u uh
9:28
centimeters on the long end. But what's
9:32
interesting here is that you're going to
9:33
get your maximum magnification actually
9:35
between 28 and 85 millimeters. And while
9:38
the minimum focus distance varies, the
9:40
amount of magnification you can get does
9:43
not. You can get all the way up to a 050
9:46
times magnification or a 1:2
9:48
magnification ratio. That is hugely
9:51
useful and I find it particularly useful
9:53
at the 85 mm end where I think the
9:56
minimum focus distance is something like
9:58
26 cm. So, you know, useful enough
10:02
working distance, but you're able to
10:03
really blur out backgrounds. It's quite
10:06
useful and so I really appreciate that
10:08
aspect of the lens design as well.
10:10
Finally, the cost is basically $1,000,
10:14
$999,
10:16
$1,300 here in Canada. And so, it is
10:19
considerably more expensive than the
10:21
Tamron, which is about $700. But, of
10:24
course, the Tamron's been out for 5
10:25
years. And Tamron, as mentioned in the
10:27
intro, does have a new 25 to 200
10:30
millimeter G2 lens. We don't yet know
10:32
what the price of that lens is going to
10:34
be, but I suspect it is going to be
10:35
closer to the Sigma. I wouldn't be
10:37
surprised if it comes in at like an
10:39
$8.99 price point. And so, um, it's, you
10:42
know, it is on the expensive end for a
10:45
lens like this, but it also is doing
10:47
some things that no lens like this has
10:49
done before. So, let's talk autofocus.
10:52
Like most of Sigma's recent lenses, the
10:55
20 to 200 millimeter uses their HLA
10:58
focus motor, which stands for high-speed
11:00
linear actuator. It's their new
11:02
high-powered focus system that gives you
11:04
quicker, quieter, and more accurate
11:08
autofocus results. It's got more thrust
11:10
than their previous SDM focus motors and
11:13
is just generally better all around.
11:15
Now, some people think with these super
11:18
zoom lenses because they have a long
11:20
focal length at the end that they're
11:21
like sports lenses. That's not really
11:24
true. And some people will ask me
11:27
questions pretty often actually about
11:29
say comparing a 70 to 300 lens with a 16
11:33
to 300 mm lens. Well, the latter lens is
11:37
just not going to be the same. It's not
11:38
really a dedicated sports lens or even
11:40
telephoto lens. It's a general purpose
11:42
lens. That being said, focus here is
11:45
quick enough that I think you can use it
11:48
in a pretty wide variety of
11:49
applications. What I have found with a
11:51
lot of these zoom lenses in the past is
11:53
that while focus speed was fine on the
11:54
wide end, it would slow way down on the
11:57
telephoto end. With this new HLA focus
11:59
motor, that's not the case. You can see
12:01
that autofocus really is just as snappy
12:03
at 200 millimeters as it is at 20
12:05
millimeters. And so that does mean that
12:07
you can use it in a wider variety of
12:09
situations. I used it for not really for
12:12
sports, but I did use it capturing golf
12:14
swings and throwing horseshoes and
12:17
cornhole and things at some various
12:20
events that I was a part of. And it
12:22
worked fine for all of that. Focus was
12:24
well fast enough to keep up. While I
12:27
didn't try to do any kind of actual
12:28
birding, uh, if I was trying to just
12:30
take shots of of birds flying off of a
12:33
telephone wire early in the morning,
12:35
obviously no problem picking them up.
12:37
So, I would say that for most of the
12:39
things that people actually use while
12:41
traveling, there's going to be plenty of
12:42
speed here. Because of that slower
12:44
maximum aperture, it's not going to be
12:46
quite as good indoors in a variety of
12:49
situations. You're going to have to get
12:50
that ISO way up to accommodate that slow
12:53
maximum aperture. But, if you're
12:55
shooting outdoors while you're traveling
12:57
and just trying to capture events
12:58
moving, I think focus speed is going to
13:00
be perfectly adequate for those kinds of
13:02
situations. So as far as the focus motor
13:04
itself, that component of the lens,
13:07
pretty fantastic. So how about video AF?
13:10
Again, in this instance, that HLA focus
13:13
motor really serves the this lens very
13:15
well. Another thing that serves it well
13:17
is a minimal amount of focus breathing.
13:20
And so here I had things set around 40
13:22
to 50 millimeters for this particular
13:24
shot for my focus pool test. And you can
13:27
see that focus breathing is essentially
13:29
non-existent here. It does an
13:30
exceptional job there. And that remains
13:32
pretty true even on the telephoto end.
13:34
So great job Sigma in controlling that.
13:37
At the same time I on the negative side
13:40
this lens is far from being par focal
13:42
and so if you are zooming while videoing
13:44
you will have moments of lag where a
13:47
focus needs to resume once again. I also
13:49
found that with my copy as mentioned
13:51
previously it was a little bit sticky
13:54
particularly at the early stages and so
13:56
I wasn't able to get really smooth
13:58
zooms. Anyway, it did seem to improve
14:01
over the course of several weeks of use.
14:03
However, when it came to my hand test,
14:06
transitions were basically perfect,
14:08
transitioning from my hand to my eye and
14:10
back and forth with no issues at all
14:12
there. Likewise, in other static shots,
14:15
focus was fine. I've been shooting all
14:17
of the outdoor segments on the lens and
14:19
so, as you can see, it has no problem in
14:21
keeping focus on myself and on my eye as
14:24
I'm shooting these segments. I will
14:27
note, however, that when I tried to zoom
14:29
in close, that at close focus distances,
14:31
it wasn't quite as good. And so, I
14:34
wasn't able to hold focus quite as well.
14:36
So, you will want to watch out for that
14:38
as you're kind of going in. Focus isn't
14:40
naturally going to transition into that
14:42
closest zone. So, just watch out for
14:44
that. In general, however, I would say
14:46
that video focus has been excellent. And
14:48
again, for a travel lens, I think you're
14:50
going to be really delighted with the
14:52
options you have available to you for
14:54
capturing video content. All right,
14:56
let's talk optics. This is a really
14:59
complex optical design, as you might
15:01
expect, with 18 elements in 14 groups.
15:04
That includes four aspherical elements,
15:06
one FLD element, and three SLD elements.
15:10
The MTF chart is interesting because in
15:12
both uh 20 millimeter and 200
15:15
millimeter, you have a really really
15:17
strong meridian line, which is the solid
15:21
line. You can see it's a really strong
15:22
performance. But the sagittal axis,
15:25
which is the dotted line, is kind of
15:27
shaky. And so that means that there will
15:29
be some aigmatism and at times contrast
15:32
won't be as exceptional as what you
15:34
might want. But what I found is that I
15:36
saw mostly strong real world
15:38
performance. There were some instances
15:40
where I felt like contrast wasn't
15:42
exceptional, but others where it was
15:43
good. Let me just say that it's probably
15:45
a matter of this lens relying more on
15:47
the contrast of the situation itself.
15:50
And I found that in lower contrast
15:52
situations, it didn't quite work as
15:54
well. You know, there's some lenses that
15:56
they're able to produce the magic by
15:58
themselves. These type of lenses, that
16:01
is not their strength. Their strength is
16:03
being able to have great flexibility and
16:06
so you have them along and so that you
16:07
can capture the magical moments, but
16:09
don't expect the optics to do the heavy
16:11
lifting for you. And I think if you have
16:13
that kind of mentality, you'll be
16:15
happier with lenses like this. In
16:17
general though, I thought that the
16:19
performance was fairly good. Now, there
16:21
are some serious compromises that went
16:23
into this lens. Going to 20 millimeters
16:26
is something that's never been done
16:27
before, but as we're going to see right
16:29
now, maybe there's a reason why it
16:31
hasn't been done before. To get there,
16:33
the engineers had to compromise to have
16:36
an incredible amount of barrel
16:37
distortion. It, as you can see, without
16:40
correction, it has just massive amounts
16:42
of barrel distortion and vignette. at 20
16:45
millimeters. It required a plus 39 for
16:47
me to correct it uh for the the barrel
16:50
distortion, but you can see it's a
16:52
really strong mustache pattern. So that
16:53
just creates lots of pin cushion
16:55
distortion at the edges. And likewise,
16:58
when it comes to vignette, I had to max
17:00
out the slider. So plus 100 in
17:02
Lightroom, and I still could have gone a
17:04
little bit more. And so there are some
17:05
major optical compromises. And I found
17:07
even the correction profile, there's
17:09
still a bit of barrel distortion and a
17:11
bit of vignette left over even after
17:13
applying that profile. So it's, you
17:16
know, optically it's really relying on
17:17
the software to get that done. Much less
17:20
of an issue as you begin to zoom in.
17:22
However, it will pretty quickly invert
17:24
to a pin cushion style distortion and it
17:27
kind of remains consistent from 50
17:29
millimeters. I tested at 50 millimeters,
17:31
135 millimeters, and then at 200
17:33
millimeters, and I got pretty much the
17:35
same results all along there. So,
17:37
anywhere between a minus 10 and a minus1
17:40
to correct a bit of pin cushion
17:41
distortion, but nice and linear,
17:43
corrects just fine. And vignette is also
17:46
quite mild, requiring uh in the low
17:48
plus4s to correct for. And so, uh no big
17:52
deal there. And so really it's on that
17:54
very wide end that the compromises were
17:56
made uh by the engineers to get us to 20
18:00
mm. And so it comes at a cost.
18:03
In terms of longitudinal style chromatic
18:05
aberrations, I tested at multiple focal
18:07
lengths. I didn't really see anything
18:09
and so it comes off well in that.
18:11
Likewise in some really high contrast
18:13
images I took, I didn't see a lot of
18:15
fringing. So I was impressed by that.
18:17
And also there is a minimal amount of
18:19
lateral style chromatic aberrations
18:21
which is also very good. Now when it
18:23
comes to testing the sharpness sides of
18:26
things, I found that on my high
18:28
resolution A7R5, so that's 61 megapixels
18:32
and I show you the crops at 200%
18:33
magnification.
18:35
There's definitely uh some give and take
18:38
at the 20mimeter end. The center looks
18:40
fantastic. The mid-frame looks very
18:42
good, but the corners, particularly the
18:44
far corners, are quite soft. What's
18:47
more, I found that as I attempted to
18:49
stop down, even at f8, which I would
18:52
consider probably the best as it gets,
18:55
it's still fairly soft in the extreme
18:57
corners, I found that to be true also in
18:59
real world shots, that the corners never
19:01
got super sharp. At the same time, I
19:03
found that images were good. But as long
19:06
as I wasn't looking too hard at those
19:07
extreme corners, I was quite happy with
19:09
the results that I could get. Now, to be
19:11
fair, the Sigma lens is never as good as
19:14
the Tamron on the wide end. Tamron
19:17
obviously didn't go nearly as wide. So,
19:19
at 28 mm, it's strong, and the Sigma
19:23
lens all the way through 28 mm is never
19:26
quite as strong, particularly in the
19:28
corners. And so, again, it's it's that
19:30
compromise. you know, you can shoot
19:31
considerably wider, but you're not
19:33
getting quite as good of optical
19:35
performance. Now, defraction is going to
19:38
come after uh at starting by f11 and
19:41
getting stronger at the minimum
19:43
apertures. Minimum aperture varies as
19:45
well as the maximum aperture. And so at
19:48
20 mm, minimum aperture is f22. By the
19:51
time you get to uh around 85 88 mm, the
19:57
minimum aperture is going to become f40.
20:00
And so uh at any of those that is going
20:03
to look quite soft due to the effects of
20:05
defraction. So I would avoid those
20:07
minimum apertures were at all possible.
20:10
As I move through on throughout the zoom
20:11
range, what I found is at 50 mm it isn't
20:14
quite as sharp in the center of the
20:16
frame, but it's more consistent across
20:18
the frame. The mid-frame and the corners
20:19
in particular definitely look stronger
20:22
and have more potential for sharpening
20:24
up. uh real world images at you know
20:27
anywhere between 35 and let's say 75
20:30
millimeters all looked really really
20:32
good. No problems there. At 135 mm I
20:35
noted a little bit of drop in contrast
20:38
just a little bit less potential in
20:40
general but I did note by 200 mm that
20:43
there was a little bit more contrast
20:44
available there. However, I didn't
20:46
notice a lot of improvement when
20:48
stopping down, which stands to reason
20:50
because the lens is already at f6.3
20:53
um on throughout basically all the
20:55
telephoto range, which means that you
20:57
can only stop down 2/3 of a stop and
20:59
you're already at f8. And beyond that,
21:01
you start to see some effects of
21:03
defraction. So, there's just less
21:04
potential on these slower variable
21:07
aperture zooms uh for them to get, you
21:10
know, a lot of additional sharpness from
21:12
stopping down.
21:14
As I noted, the real world results were
21:16
a little bit situational. Sometimes I
21:18
found that, you know, the images look
21:20
really, really crisp and then other
21:22
times where there was less contrast
21:24
there. There just wasn't optics to make
21:26
things pop. In those situations, the
21:28
bokeh quality is going to vary somewhat.
21:30
Now, because you can get close and you
21:32
have a long focal length, you can
21:34
obliterate backgrounds and really,
21:36
really blur them out in some situations.
21:39
However, where the background is
21:40
visible, you can see from this crop from
21:43
specular highlights that they're kind of
21:44
busy. There's some outlining and some
21:46
junk inside them. And so that just means
21:48
that in situations where you have a less
21:51
defocused background, things are going
21:53
to have a little bit more outlining and
21:55
be a little bit more apparent. You know,
21:58
that's true of all these super zoom
21:59
lenses. Like, you can only engineer so
22:02
much of that. It's not going to have
22:03
primeike performance at any focal
22:05
length. I did find the colors looked
22:07
good in all the shots. I was generally
22:09
happy with the overall appearance of
22:12
photos I was able to take. I also found
22:14
that the lens exhibited good flare
22:16
resistance despite having that shallow
22:17
hood. Optically, it held up really well.
22:19
And so, a lot of my back lit images, I
22:22
didn't notice any negative effects from
22:24
the sun. So, kudos to Sigma on that
22:26
front. So all told, there are
22:29
compromises here, which is true of all
22:30
of these, you know, travel zooms, you
22:34
know, super zoom lenses. One of the
22:36
reasons why I've been touting the Tamron
22:38
is that it had fewer of those than most
22:41
lenses. Now, obviously, it doesn't have
22:44
nearly as exciting a zoom range by
22:46
comparison, but it does manage to have a
22:48
little bit less of optical flaws
22:50
relative to the Sigma. At the same time,
22:52
the Sigma does a lot of stuff really,
22:53
really well. And I think that despite
22:56
its shortcomings, it still is an
22:58
interesting lens optically at the end of
22:59
the day. So my conclusion is that in
23:02
many ways the greatest strengths of this
23:04
lens are also the sources of its
23:06
greatest weakness. The fact that it goes
23:08
to 20 mm gives you so many additional
23:11
options when it comes to framing,
23:13
particularly in interior spaces.
23:15
Unfortunately, the slow maximum aperture
23:18
also means that you're going to have to
23:20
jack that ISO up even more in those
23:23
interior spaces to accommodate. On top
23:26
of that, I also noted that a lot of the
23:28
strongest optical flaws are going to be
23:30
found at 20 mm where Sigma's engineers
23:33
had to make the greatest compromises for
23:35
that to happen. So, by far you've got
23:37
the heaviest amount of vignette and
23:38
distortion there and the corners aren't
23:40
as sharp as what we see across the rest
23:42
of the frame. In many ways, however,
23:44
this lens is amazingly competent and it
23:48
offers great flare resistance. It offers
23:50
very good colors and of course that
23:53
half-life size magnification level opens
23:56
up even more potential options for
23:59
getting images. The fact that we're
24:01
relying on in camera stabilization means
24:03
that there will be some situations that
24:05
maybe it's not as effective as a lens
24:08
based stabilization.
24:09
At the same time, however, I can
24:11
understand why Sigma did what they did
24:13
because it allowed them to keep the lens
24:15
smaller, lighter, and maybe a little bit
24:18
cheaper as well. At the end of the day,
24:20
however, $1,000 is not particularly
24:22
cheap, particularly when you do have the
24:24
already strong Tamron 28 to 200
24:27
millimeter available for $699 or about
24:30
$700.
24:32
At the same time, however, 28 mm is far
24:35
from 20 mm. And if your primary
24:38
objection to the Tamron lens has been
24:40
the fact that it just doesn't go wide
24:42
enough, the Sigma is the perfect
24:45
solution for all of that. So, I do think
24:47
that this is going to be a lens that is
24:48
going to not only end up in a lot of
24:50
people's bags, but also is going to be a
24:52
very useful option if you're looking for
24:55
a single lens solution for things like
24:57
travel. Having an all-in-one solution
24:59
like this with the 10x zoom zoom ratio
25:02
means that you don't have to worry about
25:03
carrying additional lenses. you don't
25:05
have to worry about changing lenses. And
25:07
the fact that it does have pretty good
25:09
weather sealing also means that if
25:10
you're shooting in more moist or dusty
25:13
environments, it just alleviates even
25:15
more of those concerns. So, this is a
25:17
lens I think that is going to be really
25:18
useful for those that are looking for
25:20
something just like this. Thanks for
25:22
watching. Have a great day and let the
25:24
light in.
25:26
[Music]

Sigma 20-200mm F3.5-6.3 DG Review | A Full Frame 10x Travelzoom

Dustin Abbott

Viltrox AF 35mm F1.4 PRO FE | Did We Need Another Viltrox 35mm?

S-LINE vs SONGRAW | 85MM F1.2 SHOWDOWN

Nikkor Z 20mm F1.8 S Review | Nikon's Best Wide Angle Prime?

Nikkor Z 85mm F1.2 S Review | Still the Best?

Tamron 16-50mm F2.8 A Review | Your New APS-C Zoom

TTArtisan AF 24mm F3.8 VCM Review | Full Frame $99 Pancake Treat

Sigma 50-120mm F2.8 DC OS Review | It Just Makes Sense!

SongRaw vs Viltrox Pro | 85mm Z-Mount Showdown

Laowa AF 35mm F2.8 APO Macro - A Flawed Macro Gem

7Artisans AF 18mm F2 | An APS C Pancake for $169!

The Best (Affordable) Way to Reach 600mm and 800mm on Sony

SongRaw 85mm F1.2 MS Review | Huge Lens, Huge Performance

Sony FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS Review | 600mm in Under a Kilo!

Sony FE 400mm F4.5 GM OSS Review | Lightweight Perfection!

Bluetti Elite 100 Mini Review | 1000Wh in a Small Package

Up next in 10

Sigma 20-200mm F3.5-6.3 DG Review | A Full Frame 10x Travelzoom

Dustin Abbott