Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO experience?

[^MikeG]

Has anyone used this lens? I am debating on selling my 28-105 and getting this. It is around $220, and seems like a decent lens. I really want more zoom, and 300mm works :)

Just wondering if anyone likes/dislikes it, and if anyone has any pictures from it?

Thanx!

-Mike

[Dante King]

i just picked up a canon equivalent but not for $200.

[Wazza]

I partly dislike mine, as I've used a 100-400L recently, and it felt so much better, and AF was silent and quick.

But in reality, this is a great lens for the value. It does have the macro function, which when zoomed from 200-300mm, you can click the button, and it will focus closer, down to about 0.95m, pretty close for a 300mm.

Some examples of shots from this lens...

http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/skytower4.jpg
http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/muriwai1.jpg
http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/ring.jpg <-- trying out the macro (shot at 190mm)
http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/dolphins5.jpg (168mm)
http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/v82-09.jpg
http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/v82-01.jpg - Not so flash..
http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/v8-09.jpg - losing some details in logos.

http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/vh-ogf.jpg - Aircraft landing at 119mm

I like the results from 70-200.. but 200-300, the zoom doesn't change so much, and the images are bit soft.

I doubt you want anymore to decide, but there are more in the airliners.net link in signature, and also on http://wazz*****scity.com/recent.htm (the wider angles are shot with 17-40L).

Anyway, good luck in your future purchase, and should be a better lens than the 28-105. I'm guessing you have a 18-55 to cover the rest of range?

[tim]

I had the 70-300 F4-F5.6 APO, but I returned it. It took great photos during the day, but inside or in low light F5.6 just isn't enough. I had a 300D then, the 20D is better at high ISO so it might be ok. It helped me decide not to buy lenses with a maximum aperture smaller than F2.8 :)

[nitsch]

For the price you just can't go wrong. I've picked one up recently second hand for around 100 GBP and its great value for money.

Here's a couple of example pics I have taken. The squirrel is not far off a 100% crop so you can see how sharp it is (plus this was taken through a double glazed window!) and the Robin is an example of what you can do in poor light, I used ISO1600 and had the lens wide open.

http://www.nitsch.co.uk/photos/squirrel4_small.jpg
http://www.nitsch.co.uk/photos/robin_under100k.jpg

:)

[HMetal]

I have one. I no longer use it as it has been replaced by the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L. I gave it to my wife to use on the DigitaL Rebel that I gave her when I got my 20D.

It's not a terrible lens but it's not the greatest either. It needs a lot of light to produce a decently sharp photo. However, when the light is present, even at 300mm it is a fair lens considering the price. I paid just under $275 Canadian for mine sometime in early '04.

[ron chappel]

Without ever having used one i had been recommending this lens alot-
It's quite easy to do when you see all the good reports about it and see well done comparisons like this-
http://www.pbase.com/argylemonkey/lens_comp

But mine arrived just today and i must say this particular example is certainly no step up from the common 75-300 canon.In fact they seem to be near identical in overal sharpness at relative focal lengths.

WAZZA's comment on softness at 300mm is interesting .I had thought (from user comments) that that image quality of this lens didn't degrade much when zoomed past 200mm but mine certainly does .
It's identical to the 75-300 canon in that regard.I must say i had hoped for more.

I do like the build quality/feel,lack of zoom creep & the included bag+ hood...and it's certainly not a BAD lens,so i still feel OK recommending it compared to the canon 75-300

But unless i've got a dud example i have to say that it certainly isn't as sharp at 300mm as the canon 100-300usm

[condyk]

There are several threads on the cheaper zooms. I had a Sigma and thought is was great value. I would get it again, or the 100-300 USM Canon, if nI was in the market for this kind of lens. The 'macro' works pretty well too. A sound buy with decent resale :)

[^MikeG]

Wow, thanx for all the info everyone! I just really want more zoom all together because the 125mm doesnt cut it at all. I am not really ready to spend all my money on higher end lenses, that is why I am looking at this one. I guess for the money it is decent, i think I might buy it. And Wazza, I do have an 18-55, but I think I am going to look into the sigma 24-70 also.

There are way to many lenses to look at...lol.

Thanx for the help every1!!

[condyk]

Check out this thread ...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69913

Convinced? :)