So here goes with my early impressions of this lens in action.

First, on the negative side, this lens doesn't immediately impress with the sparkle, or clarity, or whatever you call it, that hits you in images taken with Canon's 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm 1.8. Those aren't "L" lenses but they sparkle in contrast to the Sigma. The Sigma images just aren't as good right out of the camera.

Taken on its own, though, the Sigma 18-125 produces what I would call "respectable" images. A little tweaking of colors and saturation, a bit of sharpening, and they're just fine for most non-professional uses.

Without a direct comparison, my impression is that the images are in the same class as those of Canon's inexpensive "kit" lens. Not bad, not great, definitely useable for most purposes. And the Sigma has more than twice the reach of the kit lens, making it much more versatile.

Here are some specific impressions.

I would say the images do tend to be a little soft. Without much closer inspection of the images, I could not say if the Sigma is better at some focal lengths than others. But despite this, the images are still satisfactory, in my view.

In use, the stiffness of the zoom ring has not been a problem. It may have gotten better with use, or perhaps I've just gotten used to it, or perhaps it fades in comparison to other considerations while out shooting. Whatever the dynamic, I've stopped worrying about it.

I have not seen the focusing problems reported by some other users. It is true that at longer focal lengths, the depth of focus can become quite narrow, and routine variances can make quite a difference. With a cat portrait, should I focus on the eyes or nose? With auto focus, you've got to be careful which focus point you use.

One characteristic is that it has a hard time focusing at infinity against a clear blue sky. Instead, it searches for a cloud or other distant object and then has no trouble. But whether to blame this on the lens or the camera (Canon 350 XT) I don't actually know.

Focusing is a bit noisy when the lens is searching but not overly so. I don't think it's loud enough to draw stares from others. It is also relatively fast, at least I've no complaints after several weeks of use and perhaps 1,200 photos.

I've gathered some sample images. As I've said, there's no technical analysis but just a chance to see representative images. I've included two versions. In the first set, the images have been translated from RAW to jpeg but have had no further correction or processing. In the second set, I've done some minor processing by boosting contrast and saturation, correcting brightness in a couple of cases, and adding some sharpening. Nothing fancy, but I think this gives a fairer idea of what the Sigma 18-125 can deliver.

Conclusion:

To be fair, I have to grade this lens relative to its price and intended uses/users.

If you need a top tier lens for everyday use, you had better dig deep into the bank account to buy one. This is not the one for you.

But I've gotten to appreciate it for what it is, a very modestly priced lens of reasonable optical quality and good build quality with a good everyday range.

It has replaced the Canon kit lens on my Digital Rebel 350 for everyday use. I would expect that a lot of other everyday photographers will also appreciate what it has to offer.

I doubht that this is a "now and forever" lens. If I find that I use the long end a lot, I might eventually migrate to a better quality and higher-price lens like the Canon 70-200 f/4. But for now, the Sigma offers a chance to experiment without breaking the bank in the process. Use it and enjoy it.