Sigma/Tamron 70-300 zoom lenses

[commando]

After playing with my Tamron 28-75 lens for a while and posting/reading a bit here, i've decided I want a higher zoom lens. The 70-200L F4 was the front runner for a while, but to be honest I won't be using it all that much so now i'm considering one of the Sigma or Tamron 70-300 lenses - or anything in that sort of range. The $569 of the L lens is also expensive compared with the $200 or so Sigma/Tamron lenses, and I doubt they'd give pictures that were twice as good.

Lets say maximum cost of US$220, it has to be hand holdable. Can you hand hold lenses of this power at 300mm zoom? Of course that's equilivent to 480mm zoom on a regular camera.

I've read some reviews but i'd like to get advice from people who've used some of these lenses. How do you find the lenses for casual use?

Examples of what I want it for:
- I wanted a shot of a bird in a tree that was about 20m away from me, the 75mm lens just wasn't enough.
- Photos of animals that would be disturbed if I went closer.
- Maybe a shows, if I wanted to isolate something while I was sitting in a grandstand.

If anyone can point me to somewhere that has comparison photos of zoom lenses i'd also be very appreciative

Edit - also feel free to tell me these lenses are crap and I should get the 70-200L F4.

[mdude85]

I know a guy who uses a Sigma 70-300 and he doesn't seem to be complaining...also I have heard mixed reviews about the Canon 75-300, but I've seen full size crops at 300 mm and they're very nice. I'll probably pick up one of these. I would point you to a review/scoring site like www.photodo.com -- I often find those ratings are not incredibly accurate though. Another good site is www.photographyreview.com.

Good luck!

[commando]

Thanks Scott. PhotographyReview's great (that's where I saw the reviews before), photodo seems a bit crap though.

Good to hear that the sigma works pretty well too

[Headcase650]

Id go with the sigma 70-300 apo super macro II. Its just as good as the others mentioned but has an added feature of a pretty decent 1:2 macro in the 200-300mm . Just make sure you get the "II" version its the newest and I havent heard of any compatability problems with this lense. So you could go from shooting birds in the trees to bees on flowers if you like.

[commando]

Thanks HeadCase, I saw the macro capability and it'd be most handy for what I like to take photographs of sometimes - bugs and stuff. That's looking like the lens i'd be going for

[SoCal69]

I have the tamron 70-300 and am very happy with it. It's a nice little lens for the money and I have gotten some really nice shots with it. Although I have the 70-200 2.8 L, I still use this lens quite often, especially when I don't feel lke lugging the L around and when light is not an issue. A couple of sample shots taken with it can be found here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...amp;highlight=

[commando]

Nice photos, thanks Chuck.

Does anyone know what the sigma "apo" stands for?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by commando

Nice photos, thanks Chuck.

Does anyone know what the sigma "apo" stands for?

APO - Indicates the use of apochromatic lens elements. These low dispersion glass elements effectively eliminate chromatic aberration or color fringing resulting in sharper images.

[chucksberg]

[adj] (optics) corrected for both chromatic and spherical aberration; "an apochromatic lens"

HaHaHa, finally able to answer something, instead of lurking and learning.

I have the 70-300 Tamron. Not the best lens, but one of the best values, but I still have the kit lens on my dRebel.

[commando]

Thanks guys. I'm going to get this, but my credit card bill's looking quite scary so I should probably wait a while..... hmmm. The macro capability is a great attraction, I might be able to get away without buying another macro lens, at least for a while.

The Sigma's review better than the Tamrons. You can even get the cheaper Sigma for $149 I think, but i'll go for the better $200 one. Great value.

[Canuck]

I had a really old (about 1999 vintage) Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 and it was absolute crap. I sold it and got the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX. I know this lens (the 120-300mm F2.8EX) is in the $2000 range but this is what I did. It seems that the APO version is better than the original. Anything is better than the one I had, even a coke bottle

Ok, here is a side by side of the difference between the old (70-300) I had and new Sigma (120-300) I have. I think it will be obvious as day...

[commando]

Thanks for the input Canuck. 5 years is a long time to develop the lenses, hopefully they've gotten better. Also $200 vs $2000 you expect some improvement

[Canuck]

Originally Posted by commando

Thanks for the input Canuck. 5 years is a long time to develop the lenses, hopefully they've gotten better. Also $200 vs $2000 you expect some improvement

No problem, u get what u pay for. Btw, I got the new lens in Aug, 03 and the old lens in Dec, 99 so it is like 3 and change years and the hardest part is paying the money for good lenses which are not cheap. This lens led to the 16-35mm F2.8L and then the 24-70mm F2.8L and then most recently a 50mm F1.8 and a 1.4x tc for the monster lens. Oh I meant to mention this before...the monster lens is 5 3/4 lbs!

[commando]

After doing some reading, the Sigma lens came out as a pretty darn good lens for a great price. I've finally bit the bullet and ordered the "Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super II Autofocus Lens", along with a $21 Hoya multi-coated filter. The filter's not their best, but it's not their worst either, so it'll be fine for protection, and I can take it off if I really need to. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions and help

[jay24k]

Where did you get yours at? I think I'm going to pick up the same.