What are the difference between these two?

I know that both these lenses are considered crappy so no need to discuss that, i've come to the conclusion that i use my 55-250 II 2% of the time i'm out taking photos, it's mainly my 50mm 1.8 and my Samyang 8mm that are mounted.

Therefore i've decided to sell my 55-250 and buy the cheapest telezoom i could find, just to have it in those rare occasions and instead save money for Canons 50mm 1.4.

So, my question is.. whats the difference between these two?

Sigma 70-300/4-5,6 DG CA

DG CA looks like the newer (current) Sigma finish and uses SLD glass.

The prices are both very low, but I think I'd rather have the more recently designed 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro rather than the red-ring model.

I've used both models a lot. If you want one of these, then spend the little extra to get the one with the APO DG macro designation, ie the red ring version. If you don't you will wish you had later. Buy it used and save even more money.

The APO version is much sharper, especially at the long end. Both lenses have the same mechanics and build. Both have the same slow autofocus. Both can focus down to 0.5x lifesize macro with a good working distance. Both include the lens hood. The APO version includes a nice lens case while the non-APO one does not. The APO version has much better optics, that is the only real difference.

The non APO version is sharp at 70mm and slowly degrades as the focal length gets longer until it is a bit soft at 300mm. The APO version stays quite sharp all the way to 300mm and has much less chromatic aberration. With either lens, don't use a UV filter or protection filter unless it is really needed as few filters have the optical flatness required to not soften the image at 300mm. Do use the hood to improve the picture contrast. Using correction software to fix chromatic aberration helps make any lens look better but especially cheap ones.

With the high magnification, these work nicely for taking pictures of more dangerous insects like hornets where you might not want to get so close with a normal macro lens.

I don't mind not having IS on a telephoto. IS is convenient but not required. I've gotten great shots without it. Keep your shutter speeds up above 1/640s and you'll be fine. Or use a monopod, much less hassle than a tripod but still improves your pictures.

macroimage wrote in post #15051476
I've used both models a lot. If you want one of these, then spend the little extra to get the one with the APO DG macro designation, ie the red ring version. If you don't you will wish you had later. Buy it used and save even more money.

The APO version is much sharper, especially at the long end. Both lenses have the same mechanics and build. Both have the same slow autofocus. Both can focus down to 0.5x lifesize macro with a good working distance. Both include the lens hood. The APO version includes a nice lens case while the non-APO one does not. The APO version has much better optics, that is the only real difference.

The non APO version is sharp at 70mm and slowly degrades as the focal length gets longer until it is a bit soft at 300mm. The APO version stays quite sharp all the way to 300mm and has much less chromatic aberration. With either lens, don't use a UV filter or protection filter unless it is really needed as few filters have the optical flatness required to not soften the image at 300mm. Do use the hood to improve the picture contrast. Using correction software to fix chromatic aberration helps make any lens look better but especially cheap ones.

With the high magnification, these work nicely for taking pictures of more dangerous insects like hornets where you might not want to get so close with a normal macro lens.

I don't mind not having IS on a telephoto. IS is convenient but not required. I've gotten great shots without it. Keep your shutter speeds up above 1/640s and you'll be fine. Or use a monopod, much less hassle than a tripod but still improves your pictures.

Just now i found the differences of these two, over at ephotozine they did a review.
The APO version have two more lenses that further remove CA.. other than that, as you said, they are identical.
I can't find it used here in Sweden.. and since i rarely use telezoom or macro for that matter, i think i will be fine with the cheaper version. I do appreciate your well written reply.

hold on you lost me.

why are you selling the 55-250? its a better lens than either of these two and you wont be netting any additional money by selling the 55-250. you will only get about $150 USD for it.

if anything save a bit more for the 50mm and sell the 50/1.8 when the time comes or sell sell the 50/1.8 and the 55-250, buy the lens you want now and worry about a telezoom later.

mike_311 wrote in post #15053132
hold on you lost me.

why are you selling the 55-250? its a better lens than either of these two and you wont be netting any additional money by selling the 55-250. you will only get about $150 USD for it.

if anything save a bit more for the 50mm and sell the 50/1.8 when the time comes or sell sell the 50/1.8 and the 55-250, buy the lens you want now and worry about a telezoom later.

I want a tele for those rare occasions, but i also want a 1.4 50mm. If i sell the 55-250 and buy the cheapest possible telezoom and save the rest of the money for a 1.4 and also sell the 1.8 50mm for around $70, this way i can get $110 but still have a telezoom with macrofunctions.

my point was i dont see how you net any real profit from selling the 55-250 and buying the sigma.

you are giving up an awful good lens to make $40, if you could even make that.

mike_311 wrote in post #15053209
my point was i dont see how you net any real profit from selling the 55-250 and buying the sigma.

you are giving up an awful good lens to make $40, if you could even make that.

My experience with the 55-250 isent all that good, sure i only used it like 10 times since i bought it.
And i havent used any cheap sigma/tamron.. so it might be god awful if i buy a sigma.
But i don't use it as much as i thought i should.. but yea, i might not get a price for it.

hmmm.. might take this into consideration... thanks.

unless you are sending good money on a telezoom, just keep it, or sell it outright and buy what you want, i.e. the 50mm/1.4.

if you aren't impressed then there is no point in keeping it, let alone buying some other cheap lens just to cover a focal length, buy something you will get use from.

if you look at my lens lineup, i dont have anything longer than 85mm, not becuase i cant afford one, but because i really have no need for one and even if i did have one and wasn't impressed with it i definitely wouldn't want to use it.

i made a decision a while ago not to keep lenses i dont use and in turn sell them and buy what i get use from. no point in keeping a lens on the shelf for "just in case i need it someday". that's what renting is for.

to add: you wont have any problem selling a 55-250, if you buy one of those other lenses you may never get rid of it unless you take a huge loss.