Sigma 70-300mm?

[somethingfunny]

how does the Sigma 70-300mm sound as a loom lens?

[NBEast]

I got the 70-300 APO DG Macro for my Canon 20D.

Its a little soft wide open, which is only 5.6, so there's not much range in less than bright light. Also for slightly lower light / low contrast it noisily zooms all the way in and out for each button push, so I've had to get a focus then click it on manual. However, its about the cheapest path to 300mm out there with modestly OK results, not too bad as a learning tool. From BH Photo, complete with B&W UV filter it was $253 shipped.

The new Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM is expected to be about double the cost. My plan is to get used to the longer range then sell and get a better one probably with IS as I get better - the USM focus system would be a great improvement too.

I've heard the Sigma 28-300 is as good or better than the 70-300, so the extra range would be a nice bonus.

Note: I've had it for a month and have only been motivated to use it twice (once was forced to post some sample images). My Tammy just stays on nearly all the time.

Here's a sample of what came from the camera (no Photoshop). This is very slow (1/5), ISO 100, at F11. Its about the best I could get.
http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/31870053-L.jpg

This image shows my problems with this lense. This is a crop from f5.6, 300mm, ISO 100, 1/125 sec. from about 100 feet away using tripod and timer. Focus is supposed to be in the clump of purple/yellow (high contrast) leaves. Notice how the white in the flowers bleeds into the surroundings.
http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/34581126-L.jpg

[Blue Deuce]

I had it and was dissapointed. Too soft at wide aperatures and full zoom.

[condyk]

Do a seach and you'll find lots of references to the lens. It is good value. I did a poll last week and every previous or current owner, 30+ in number, rated it great value and recommended it. This was the APO version not the DL.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=94186

[rgravel]

The APO version is a good value and provides good results if used within its limits. Go over 200mm, and/or below f/7.1 and it becomes soft.

I recently purchased the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX HSM and returned it after doing my own tests.

Sure the 200 is a better lens, giving better pics, but it also has its limitations, and given its steep price, I could not justify spending so much money for a lens that was only slightly better (for me) than the 300. I wanted a faster lens than the 300, but the 200 is soft at f/2.8 and doesn't get very sharp until f/4. Its also very heavy.

Here are 2 pics taken with the 70-300 APO. They are not the sharpest pics in the world, but for the price, the results satisfy me ;) I don't regularly print large.

http://www.pbase.com/image/46128748.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/rgravel/image/43434851.jpg

[NBEast]

Do a seach and you'll find lots of references to the lens. It is good value. I did a poll last week and every previous or current owner, 30+ in number, rated it great value and recommended it. This was the APO version not the DL.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=94186
My immediate plan is to get mine serviced since after seeing these reviews. It's the old "if you get a good copy" scenerio.

I really got mine because my wife insists on a long lense, but she can't really tell the difference between image quality unless presented next to each other.

If I really had a need for 300mm, I cannot honestly say I'd be keeping this - instead I'd scrape up $900 for a Bigma or something. Just don't see the point in getting a 300mm lense that's only any good at 200mm - and at the higher F stops to boot - and even then results are just adequate. Maybe an extra sharp copy would be different.

Also forgot to mention, the Macro capability is nice.

[condyk]

Just don't see the point in getting a 300mm lense that's only any good at 200mm - and at the higher F stops to boot - and even then results are just adequate. Maybe an extra sharp copy would be different. Also forgot to mention, the Macro capability is nice.

I think the point is it sells for silly money to people who don't want to spend out $900. :lol: That's all it is really ... No one is saying it's an EX or L class zoom. I doubt you'll find anything better at double the price and even if you do you'd probably be better getting a 70-200 f4 L instead.

[SSquared2000]

Now this is interesting. This is the xx-300 lens I am sort of thinking of getting. There seem to be very few negative comments. Condyk's poll was a good catalyst and many of the images on pbase are quite impressive. I've been researching this for about a week and had sort of settled on it.

Those sample images above are somewhat disappointing. They are definitely a lot different than the pbase images. Is this another case of some lenses are good and some have problems?

[LightRules]

NBeast, the 70-300 DG is a "good" lens and is capable of very good captures. Shooting at 1/5th even on tripod isn't completely "fair"; MLU needs to be used at that FL and shutter spd. In good light and with faster shutt spds, the lens can deliver very good images. Try it in good daylight with faster SS.

[Tyger]

NBeast, the 70-300 DG is a "good" lens and is capable of very good captures. Shooting at 1/5th even on tripod isn't completely "fair"; MLU needs to be used at that FL and shutter spd. In good light and with faster shutt spds, the lens can deliver very good images. Try it in good daylight with faster SS.

My thoughts exactly,

As i've said before and i'm no pro either but for a "consumer" lens this isn't a bad deal. I've had some pretty good shots taken with this lens. Sure it can be soft from 200-300mm, but with good technique and good lighting conditions, this lens can deliver. However, in cloudy or overcast days i've found the images i take lack colour and contrast, but again that can be due to my own error in setting the wrong exposures.

Personally i'm happy with this lens.

[Wazza]

As everyone says, it's soft from 200-300mm, some people don't like it, especially after they've used an L telephoto lens. I've used several nice lens, but still I don't mind using my 70-300 which cost a fraction of the price. It's noisy, it often focuses up close before going outwards, which is what I usually want.

Here's some 100% crops:

http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/a6-emi-large.jpg
http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/a6-ebd.jpg

And low light motorsports:
http://wazz*****scity.com/20d/desktop-gt3.jpg

Comes down to a bit of practice, and luck of a good quality one, which I'm sure I have sometimes, when I hear the complaints of other users. Maybe it's user error?

One happy user of a good value lens.

[BrianEE93]

Here is a shot at 300mm handheld with an APO Super II.

[IdanShechter]

looks very nice, hope to see high-res pics

[Kees Terberg]

Nice shots. I would not complain with shots like these. Nice lenses as well.

Brian, what a fantastic lotus shot. Whow...

[WxGuesser]

Here are 3 galleries with the sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro
I'm saving for the canon 70-200 2.8L :D

http://www.kevinchurch.smugmug.com/gallery/1819721/1

http://kevinchurch.smugmug.com/gallery/1954971/1

http://kevinchurch.smugmug.com/gallery/1981397/1/100962614

[sparksdjs]

This is a pretty good lens for the price. Some examples at

http://www.pbase.com/sparksdjs/waterfront

One of my favorite shots was taken with this lens:

http://www.pbase.com/sparksdjs/image/58021672

I just replaced it with the Canon 70-300IS (non-DO). It is definitely a sharper lens and the real seller for me is the IS.

But as I said, the Sigma is good lens, particularly with good light conditions.

Dave

[Lani Kai]

It wasn't bad at the short end, but then again I didn't buy a long zoom lens just to use it at the short end... For the price it's definitely hard to beat, but that doesn't exactly mean it's good, it just means the alternatives aren't any better.