Yet another Sigma question

[Paul Tinworth]

Cutting straight to the case: I already own a Sigma 55-200 and I'm pondering if spending £110 replacing it with the 70-300 APO is worth it. I've previously owned the 70-300 non-APO and - while I was very happy with the focal length - was very very disappointed by the image quality.

So, two questions:

Is the 70-300 APO at all superior to the 55-200?
Does the reported bad border performance of the 70-300 APO affect shots on a x1.6 crop sensor (in my case the 350D/XT)?I'd love to get the 70-200, but I'm pushing my budget with this thought as it is. My main reasons for considering the 70-300 APO is that I'm intending to buy the 17-70 this summer (wanted to get the Tokina 12-24 and the Tamron 28-75, but alas!), so there'd be a fair amount of overlap using it in conjuncture with the 55-200. Also, I just plain miss 300mm.

I've already read this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=309034&highlight=Sigma+55-200+vs+Sigma+70-300+APO) along with the links within it. For me, it just muddied the waters, hence why I started this thread.

Any thoughts would be great! I just can't figure this one out by myself... :o

Thanks!

[Paul Tinworth]

Anyone? Please? :(

[Tee Why]

If you miss the 300, then I'd get it. The APO version is suppose to be optically better than the non APO, so it should only be better than the one you had.

Maybe you can sell yours and pick up a used one here for less.

[JackProton]

Check this out http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=11719375

I own a Tamron 70-300mm LD and the Sigma 55-200mm and have to say that the 55-200 is so much lighter, smaller and unobtrusive -- its much nicer to carry around than a 70-300. Frankly, if you're planning on upgrading, I'd suggest considering waiting until you can afford to make a bigger jump in terms of quality. Besides, the 17-70 will spoil you a bit so it might be cheaper in the long term to wait before on deciding on your next long telephoto.

[olly_k]

Hi Paul, if it makes you feel any better I can't decide between the two either! I like the idea of the overlap of the 55 200 to my 17 70 (I believe the 17 70 doesn't quite hit 70 anyway?) but I like the 300 and macro of the longer lens...
Looking through this (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=266596) thread there are some amazing shots but they are the exception not the rule so I figure this lens has great potential with loads of light and a steady hand and maybe now you have more experience witht the APO feature you will do a better job and get better shots?
Why not go to Jessops with current lens and compare the two side by side?

BTW If you come to sell the 55-200 give me a shout :D

Olly.

[JackProton]

I like the idea of the overlap of the 55 200 to my 17 70 (I believe the 17 70 doesn't quite hit 70 anyway?) but I like the 300 and macro of the longer lens...

I've found the "macro" abilities of the Sigma 17-70 much more useful than the "macro feature" of any of these 70-300 zooms. The 17-70 can focus VERY close to a subject, offers a shallow depth of field and is faster. The 70-300 zooms in macro mode still have a somewhat large minimum focusing distance (around 1 foot I think).

[Nick_C]

I actually find 200mm to be my limit of handholdability, even on sunny days im at ISO200 & 400 in order to get a fast enough shutter speed, its easy to get 1/200th etc but I find thats just not good enough for 200mm, its fine on the 17-70 but the telephotos just need that little extra on shutter speed to nail sharpness.

Ive read comments which in a way back up what ive said, I remember when I was choosing between the two I read that the 70-300 is great at 70 & is sharp all the way to 180mm but from then on it gets soft & by 300 is real soft at the edges, I also read comments saying its good up to 200mm but 300 is hard to get a decent shot without tripod.

All in all I felt it was really a 70-200 lens & that Sigma & Tamron really try & push a little too hard with squeezing an extra 100mm out of it, I ended up with the 55-200 as I already find 55mm a little too zoomed in on occasions, 70 is even worse.

Even if you say ok I will use it as a 70-200, on photozone if you compare its 200mm with the 55-200's 200mm setting you will see the borders on the 70-300 are much worse when wideopen & trust me you WILL want to shoot wideopen, most of my shots are done at F5.6 & I cant hardly tell any difference between F5.6 & F8.0, it doesnt seem to get any better like the 17-70 does when you stop down, its already decent wideopen.

As for the macro, I didnt feel this was even worth a second thought as it can be nowhere near as good as the 17-70's macro as it only achieves 1:2 at the longer focal lengths which is when the problems with border quality come into effect, on macro shots this is not what you want.

It might sound like im plugging the 55-200 just because I own one, if it were the 70-300 I would be plugging that instead but im not, the 55-200 isnt without its faults & minor niggles, but it is a cheap lens to buy so what can you expect, but for the money I think nothing comes close.

If I wanted to get something longer, like a 70-300 I would certainly give the Tamron or the Sigma 70-300APO a miss, they just arnt good enough in my view, the 55-200 really only scores so well because of the fact its half the cost of a 70-300APO & delivers on paper better resolution for the money, if I were to go for a 70-300 I would save up a little longer and get the Canon 70-300IS, the only problem with that of course is then I would have to upgrade my 350D as that lens is F6.3! not a good lens on a 350D so its never ending!

Nick :-)

[olly_k]

Nick :-)

To be fair I have seen *some* very nice macro shots on the 70 300 but I am sure it will be more hit and miss!

[Nick_C]

I have seen plenty of nice shots on the web, but many people dont post 100% crops of their images so you really cant tell what they are really like, the main reason why I posted so many crops from my lenses.

Even a real soft image suffering from poor resolution due to the lens & even out of focus by a small amount when resized, sharpened & put on the web its suprising how good they look.

So unless you actually see 100% crops (ideally from multiple points on the image) you really cant tell how good or bad it really is.

Nick :-)

[Paul Tinworth]

Thanks for the replies, everyone! :D

Tee Why - I'm seriously thinking of doing that now. The APO had better be an improvement on the non-APO version, though! Yeuch, the CA and general softness of that lens was horrid.

JackProton - There's no telling when I'll have this amount of money available again (and I'm just impatient :D)! I'd love to get my hands on a proper 70-200, but I guess that's just quite a way down the line right now (then again, my housemate is buying a 1D MkIIN and a 70-200 f/2.8L, so I'll just nick his if I need it! :D). I hope the 17-70 does 'spoil' me like you suggest; I've been very impressed by the sample shots thread here, along with the numerous reviews floating around the web.

olly_k - You have a PM :D I like drooling in Jessops, but not a lot else. I feel rushed in there, and I've found that I always get the uninformed salesman, too.

Nick_C - You're right regarding the border quality, but I'm using a crop sensor, so I figure I'll avoid the worst of it. My right hand shakes randomly now and again, but generally I've had few problems hand-holding telephotos (odd, eh?).

I think you've helped me make my mind up for the time being, but I'll continue pondering until I decide to buy my 17-70.

Thanks again! :D

[Nick_C]

Thanks for the replies, everyone! :D

Tee Why - I'm seriously thinking of doing that now. The APO had better be an improvement on the non-APO version, though! Yeuch, the CA and general softness of that lens was horrid.

JackProton - There's no telling when I'll have this amount of money available again (and I'm just impatient :D)! I'd love to get my hands on a proper 70-200, but I guess that's just quite a way down the line right now (then again, my housemate is buying a 1D MkIIN and a 70-200 f/2.8L, so I'll just nick his if I need it! :D). I hope the 17-70 does 'spoil' me like you suggest; I've been very impressed by the sample shots thread here, along with the numerous reviews floating around the web.

olly_k - You have a PM :D I like drooling in Jessops, but not a lot else. I feel rushed in there, and I've found that I always get the uninformed salesman, too.

Nick_C - You're right regarding the border quality, but I'm using a crop sensor, so I figure I'll avoid the worst of it. My right hand shakes randomly now and again, but generally I've had few problems hand-holding telephotos (odd, eh?).

I think you've helped me make my mind up for the time being, but I'll continue pondering until I decide to buy my 17-70.

Thanks again! :D

A good comparison if its any help to you is here showing the non APO vs APO.

http://www.sdeklerk.com/photography/index.html

Photozone used a 350D for the tests so it was on a cropped camera, even still when I see borders lower than 1000 on the MTF chart (in this case 955 damn!) I cant see that a cropped camera is going to make much of a difference on that.

The 17-70 on the other hand is one lens you really REALLY will enjoy using, its one sweet lens.

Nick :-)

[Nick_C]

I know what you mean about Jessops too, im not sure what they are like down here in Cornwall but back home in Essex it was hardly the type of shop you could spend time in pondering over what to buy, let alone TRY anything!

Nick :-)

[olly_k]

Just ignore the sales people in Jessops - I certainly did! Played with my 350d for about an hour asked lots of questions and could tell they were pi55ed but I figured my purchase decision was more important than some kid with little knowledge! What ever you do, don't go off impulse it may be worth saving up longer for a better lens as mentioned above if 300mm is that important to you?

@Nick yes I appreciate the crop thing (it has spoilt much of the 17 70 thread IMPO) but there is at least one piccy that made my jaw drop as I knew I couldn't quite pull it off on my 17-70.... and a very usefull feature to have if you want that elusive shot of a fly that you have never seen before (happens to me a lot!)..
I do consider all your points valid Nick just that I have seen quite a few shots that just can't be ignored from the 70-300! (all above 200 as well!)

[Nick_C]

Just ignore the sales people in Jessops - I certainly did! Played with my 350d for about an hour asked lots of questions and could tell they were pi55ed but I figured my purchase decision was more important than some kid with little knowledge! What ever you do, don't go off impulse it may be worth saving up longer for a better lens as mentioned above if 300mm is that important to you?

@Nick yes I appreciate the crop thing (it has spoilt much of the 17 70 thread IMPO) but there is at least one piccy that made my jaw drop as I knew I couldn't quite pull it off on my 17-70.... and a very usefull feature to have if you want that elusive shot of a fly that you have never seen before (happens to me a lot!)..
I do consider all your points valid Nick just that I have seen quite a few shots that just can't be ignored from the 70-300! (all above 200 as well!)

Fair enough, border quality wouldnt be an issue anyway if your subject is in the middle of the frame, like a fly would be so it may well be a lens that suits your needs better, where as my shots are mainly ones where border quality would be noticed, I dont do that much wildlife.

Nick :-)

[Paul Tinworth]

Nick, you're beginning to make me wonder if that border quality is really going to hinder me or not now. :? I tend to shoot people and am trying my hand at PJ-style work, so not everything is going to be dead-centre. On top of that, 80% of my shooting is vertical. I had a look at the link you posted and it's not exactly favourable. By chance I met a POTN member last year and he showed me an image on his PSP from his APO version and it was dead sharp... confusing!

I'm getting a bit impatient about upgrading my kit now, but I'm also beginning to wonder if saving is the better option. I hate waiting! :p

On a side note: Nick, are you following me? :p I used to live in Essex but moved to Cornwall just over a year ago! For Jessops I go to the big new 'World Centre' in Cardiff as it's the closest place to my uni. The guys upstairs in the pro section are great; one is old and snotty (and wondered why a Nikon mount wouldn't fit a Canon body), and the other one just doesn't know much about anything.

[Nick_C]

hehe sounds like we are all trying to escape from Essex! ;-) its great down here, ive already got some nice shots & I havent really been anywhere yet, im still working on the house, painting & decorating etc..

I would say so long as you buy from anywhere that will allow you to have a full refund then go for it, thats the great thing about ordering online as your covered by the distant selling regulation, so you have approx 7 days to try it & return it, of course you have to be really careful with it while your using it, thats what I had to do with my 55-200, thats how I sent the Tamron 55-200 back for refund.

The £160 price tag was the biggest thing that killed it for me, its daft I know but I felt like I was half way to the far superior Canon 70-300IS which I KNOW I would like much more than the 70-300APO, as I said the macro side of it was of no interest to me, 70mm macros on my 17-70 come out great, 300mm macro? well I think shutter speed would be an issue on most shots unless its extremely sunny.

Its a real shame that the border quality doesnt get any better by stopping down, it apparently gets slightly better but never that good, at least then if you really wanted the best you could use a tripod & stop down to F11 or so.

Of course all of this that im saying could end up to be a load of twoddle, ive never tried a Sigma 70-300APO so I cant really say too much about it, im only really going on other comments ive read & mtf charts on places like photozone, although to be fair I have found them to be very accurate in the past.

Nick :-)

[oldsquawk]

I've previously owned the Sigma 70-300 APO and I used it on a film camera. Don't expect to get much better images than the non-APO version. CA is better controlled but the images were still pretty soft at all focal lengths. I got rid of the lens after just a couple of months of minimal use and replaced it with a used 70-200 f 4L lens.

[brian_lewis67]

On a side note: Nick, are you following me? :p I used to live in Essex but moved to Cornwall just over a year ago! For Jessops I go to the big new 'World Centre' in Cardiff as it's the closest place to my uni. The guys upstairs in the pro section are great; one is old and snotty (and wondered why a Nikon mount wouldn't fit a Canon body), and the other one just doesn't know much about anything.

The only time I ever use the new Cardiff Jessops is when I want to try something. I certainly wouldn't uy anything from them!

I went into Jessops opposite the castle a few months ago for a step up ring and a couple of filters and the guy offered me a step up ring and some cokin P filters. According to him I would use the step up ring to make a gap between the lens and then hold the cokin P filter against the ring when taking the photo. when I stopped laughing I just walked out!

[MikeI]

I have no experience with the 80-200, but the 70-300 APO is a great lens for the money. I had not problems at all with mine. The only reason I sold it was I had the focal range covered w/ my Bigma, and I wanted some extra cash for a different lens.

[Paul Tinworth]

Oldsquawk - Disconcerting to hear, but after looking at that comparison of the non-APO and APO, I believe you. :(

Mikel - Lucky you with the Bigma! :D If I had the money I'd either go for a Bigma for a 70-200 f/2.8 with a x1.4 TC... I can dream, right? :D

The only time I ever use the new Cardiff Jessops is when I want to try something. I certainly wouldn't uy anything from them!

Ditto!

I went into Jessops opposite the castle a few months ago for a step up ring and a couple of filters and the guy offered me a step up ring and some cokin P filters. According to him I would use the step up ring to make a gap between the lens and then hold the cokin P filter against the ring when taking the photo. when I stopped laughing I just walked out!

...wah? That makes no sense to me at all! :confused: With that specific shop I remember going in and asking to try a Sigma 24-70, but the girl in there - just like the snotty pro man in the World Centre - couldn't understand why the Nikon mount wouldn't fit on a 30D. :rolleyes: I prefer that shop to the World Centre, though. Ugh! :lol:

I may have my hands on a very sweet deal involving a EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, but if it falls through (and it will, because it's sod's law), I'll come back to looking at the Sigmas. :(

[Paul Tinworth]

Bleh. That plan fell through.

Back to square one! :( Doesn't have to be Sigma, but from reviews the APO still seems to be the best of the budget. Still wondering if I need to upgrade this or not.

[Nick_C]

Bleh. That plan fell through.

Back to square one! :( Doesn't have to be Sigma, but from reviews the APO still seems to be the best of the budget. Still wondering if I need to upgrade this or not.

They usually do when you want them badly!

I have the 350D same as you I believe? with as you the Sigma 55-200 so if I can be of any help to you making your mind up just shout if you want any tests done, I will try my best.

Another reason I went for the 55-200 was size & weight, its so small compared to other lenses, even at 200mm its hardly going to attract any attention, where as when I saw images of the 70-300 extended it looks very long indeed, like this image:

http://www.puschto.net/images/wSigma70-300.jpg

Although I wouldnt have minded so much if it was going to deliver good results but im not 100% sure I would have been happy with it, despite my gear which is hardly top of the line stuff I am extremely fussy but dont have the funds for better stuff, so I tend to have to buy the best for the money, which I thought was the 55-200, ive seen people saying how happy they are with their 70-300APO lenses but without making this sound snobby & rude, some people are easily pleased, where as im always scrutinizing over every image I take, its obbsesive sometimes!

Nick :-)

[Paul Tinworth]

I take your point, Nick. The size has never really been a problem for me, but you do have a point - especially when you want to remain inconspicious.

I'm thinking I may just give up, be content with my 55-200, and use the money left over to repair my broken 85mm.

Thanks everyone! :)

[Nick_C]

I take your point, Nick. The size has never really been a problem for me, but you do have a point - especially when you want to remain inconspicious.

I'm thinking I may just give up, be content with my 55-200, and use the money left over to repair my broken 85mm.

Thanks everyone! :)

Got a bit muddled there, I forgot you already had the 55-200 ;)

Yep it might be one of those situations where you try & improve but only end up spending more money! after all the 70-300APO is still a budget lens, I cant see it being better than the 55-200, only worse.

The 17-70 is my main lens which stays on the camera most of the time, I never needed the 55-200 back in Essex, but down here I find everything so far away that I use it more often, while im generally happy with the results I do get some shots which SHOULD have been in focus but they arent, I think AF accuracy is also what you pay for, where as my 17-70 only does nothing but please!

Nick :-)