Worth buying SIGMA 70-300MM F4-5.6 DG MACRO?

[carman]

I have a Pentax K100d and i was thinking of upgrading the lens for a telephoto lens, because I'm going to be traveling and i think this lens would be nice. It is also very cheep. Do you think its worth buying? Or is it a waste? It also has macro capabilities which is good. Its the SIGMA 70-300MM F4-5.6 DG MACRO

[Seafood]

I bought this lens a few months ago for my 110d. I have not really had the chance to play with it too much but I am happy so far. I am a novice photographer so I am not that critical...I am sure the pros will recommend something else...but for my purposes it is fine.

[carman]

I bought this lens a few months ago for my 110d. I have not really had the chance to play with it too much but I am happy so far. I am a novice photographer so I am not that critical...I am sure the pros will recommend something else...but for my purposes it is fine.

yea i am also a novice, and i think it would be a good starter zoom lens, and for the price...I'm not looking for "the best" just a decent zoom lens. This would be my first lens i buy.

[nqjudo]

Carman - I do not own the lens myself but several people that I know who do own it are very happy with it. Like in everything, one man's junk is another man's gem so much of buying photo gear is about selling it if it doesn't live up to expectations. Generally it's best to buy from a retailer who has a liberal return/exchange policy. That way you have the option to exchange if you are unhappy with from the start. There's always the possibility of resale later on and a well cared for lens will usually fetch a reasonable price. Hope it works out for you. Good luck.

[TheWengler]

I recently got the Tamron version of the same lens. Honestly, I've been considering selling it because of the CA's in images over 200mm. I don't think the CA's are quite as bad on the Sigma but I have read bad things about the Sigma's border resolution. Two things they probably share is the annoying rotating front element and the difficultly obtaining sharp macro shots as it isn't a dedicated macro lens. Whether or not you'll be satisfied probably depends on how high your IQ standards are. If you aren't planning on spending a lot of money or you want something more compact there aren't really too many choices. Here are some samples from the Tamron:

http://picasaweb.google.com/lswenger/PadresVsGiantsFall2007/photo#5114428153701039810
http://picasaweb.google.com/lswenger/MorroBaySPFall2007/photo#5116237833876245042
http://picasaweb.google.com/lswenger/MorroBaySPFall2007/photo#5116238254783040418

[griptape]

It's not extremely sharp. And the macro abilities are pretty unimpressive. Is it worth the money? Well assuming you accept it's limitations, and know its a lens that's long and dark (closes down to f/5.6 at about 200mm), as long as you're not surprised by that, it's probably worth the money. Also worth noting, the auto focus is noticeably slower and less accurate than any of my other lenses. I'll browse through my pictures and post a few samples.

135mm:
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m235/nothingisworking/70-300-5.jpg

300mm:
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m235/nothingisworking/70-300-1.jpg

300mm 100% crop:
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m235/nothingisworking/70-300-2.jpg

Macro (it's not that the macro is bad, it's that it only applies to focal lengths beyond 200mm, at which point camera shake becomes a serious issue for a macro subject:
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m235/nothingisworking/70-300-3.jpg

Macro above at 100% crop:
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m235/nothingisworking/70-300-4.jpg

[TheObiJuan]

Macro= Tripod and not shoot wide open.
Not some picture of a leaf, with camera hand held & pointed down.

I have this lens and am impressed with the performance at the price level.
It has plenty of utility. Good zoom range and Macro ability.
Not true macro, but close enough for me.

I'll post up some pics....

[DonSchap]

For the average $159-179 you drop on a 70-300mm ... it's no budget buster and you will be able to shoot some distance with it.

But to be completely fair, if you want to get it all-in-one lens, the 18-250mm should be where your focus is. It will provide reasonable indoor performance for up to 50mm ... and then do just fine with the camera's pop-up flash until around 100mm.

If you are shooting outdoors ... the sky's the limit. It provides very reasonable imagery.

It's main attraction, of course, is the reduced need to swap lens between your average long and short shots. This is the "grab and go" ... definitely worth the bucks, because it replaces two rather dark lenses at the same time (18-70mm & 70-300) and saves you from continual dust contamination issues.

Remember, the 18-250 is brighter from 18-70, than the 18-70 is. Indoors, that counts for quite a bit.

29687

Just some ideas for your consideration.

[TheObiJuan]

Resized, WB corrected, and curves.
http://i.pbase.com/v3/65/568765/1/44913211.IMG_6419.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/v3/65/568765/1/44913209.IMG_6384.jpg

[griptape]

Macro= Tripod and not shoot wide open.
Not some picture of a leaf, with camera hand held & pointed down.

My actual issue with it, and this is really just my own personal taste mostly, is that yes, I could use a tripod and do a much better job, but at 200mm minimum, it's extremely impractical to use it indoors. I'm just not a fan of shooting a macro literally all the way across the room. I was just pointing out that the macro function is at a much longer than usual focal length, and I personally don't like anything longer than 50mm when it comes to macros. But again, that may just be my personal taste. And the "some picture of a leaf" was just what my lens happened upon when I stuck it out my window (sad when it takes less time to pick up my camera and take pictures than it does to go through pictures I already have). So no, it's not a great display, but it's very reasonably sharp all things considered.

[TheWengler]

My actual issue with it, and this is really just my own personal taste mostly, is that yes, I could use a tripod and do a much better job, but at 200mm minimum, it's extremely impractical to use it indoors. I'm just not a fan of shooting a macro literally all the way across the room. I was just pointing out that the macro function is at a much longer than usual focal length, and I personally don't like anything longer than 50mm when it comes to macros.

The minimum focus distance is the same regardless of the focal length, correct? If so, then even if it allowed you to use smaller focal lengths I don't think it would qualify as macro.

[TheObiJuan]

I just did a focus test.
200mm to 300mm is a very slight difference in magnification.
At 300mm the lens barrel is at most 3' from the subject, this is of course a good thing.

I added the 1.4x tele onto the lens and got even more magnification with no real difference in focus distance.
I'd shudder to think how close one would need to be with a 90mm macro lens, 5" away?
You'd scare the darn subject away!

I need to get my tripod from my GF's car so I can shoot the nickel I was using as a subject.
I'll post at 200mm, 300mm, and 300mm +1.4x.
The lens maxes out at 1:2 macro at 300, but the 1.4x makes it closer to 1:1. I don't know how to calculate the increased magnification, but perhaps 1:1.3?

[griptape]

Again, it's just my personal taste. I'm not saying it does a particularly bad job, I was just underwhelmed when I realized that I had to be at 300mm to get to 1:2. Just not my cup of tea. And again, for the price, there's really not much to complain about, just as long as you're aware of the limitations. I just prefer to be a foot away instead of five. But it obviously CAN be done:

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m235/nothingisworking/macrotest1.jpg

[SpecialK]

The Pentax 50-200 is slightly better on image quality (at least comparing the ones I own). It is also significantly smaller and lighter than the Sigma. It does not have the long range or quasi-macro mode of the Sigma, though.

I find that increasing the contrast +2 at a minimum makes the otherwise bland and lifeless Sigma shots at least acceptable to not bad. I think I get better sharpness than griptape's examples at 300mm, but there is a hit-or-miss factor with lenses...

I know some posters claim the Sigma is fantastic and much better than the Pentax 50-200, but my informal testing proves the opposite.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/4768-lens-comparison-p-50-200-vs-s-18-50-s-70-300-a.html

Hope that helps.

[TheWengler]

Macro= Tripod and not shoot wide open.
Not some picture of a leaf, with camera hand held & pointed down.

Well you inspired me to go outside with my tripod to give it a shot. Usually I just handhold almost everything. Since I blew $3 on my tripod at the flea market the other day, I might as well use it.

[toriaj]

I bought the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 for the long zoom. Now I mostly use it in bright daylight, when the large minimum aperture is not a problem. It is quite sharp in those conditions:
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=227131&highlight=sigma#post227131

The panning shot here shows some sharpness:
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=184748&postcount=23

I don't take many macros with it. Here's one sample though:
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=181265&postcount=5

And here's a moon shot:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/224/479115002_cd651192f9.jpg

[carman]

I don't know now between the:
SIGMA 55-200MM F4.0-5.6
and
SIGMA 70-300MM F4-5.6 DG MACRO PENTAX

which one would you go for?

The 70-300MM is kind of dark? i've heard.

[TheObiJuan]

Same aperture equals the same amount of light.

If you want 300mm then get the 300mm, if you want 200mm, then get that one.
You have to decide accordingly and decide.

[AlexMonro]

I don't think anyone has yet mentioned (sorry if I missed it) that there are two versions of the Sigma 70-300. The APO version, while a bit more expensive, has significantly better sharpness and overall quality.

[Djzleite]

That moon photo ... what´s the adjustments for capturing it as it is ? tried and only got it as a strong light, can´t see nothing but light.
I don´t have filters but i do have the A100 and a 420mm in total.
About my sigma is the cheapest.

EDIT: i asked on google and here it is:
http://www.aidan.co.uk/article_tecmoon5622.htm

[carman]

I don't think anyone has yet mentioned (sorry if I missed it) that there are two versions of the Sigma 70-300. The APO version, while a bit more expensive, has significantly better sharpness and overall quality.

That lens is a lot more expensive, its like more than $2000, too much!

[SpecialK]

That moon photo ... what´s the adjustments for capturing it as it is ? tried and only got it as a strong light, can´t see nothing but light.
I don´t have filters but i do have the A100 and a 420mm in total.
About my sigma is the cheapest.

EDIT: i asked on google and here it is:
http://www.aidan.co.uk/article_tecmoon5622.htm

The moon is almost a daylight exposure (it is in sunlight), and not a long "night" exposure as you might think at first which results in a big white dot.

Alex - good call above on the APO version.

Carman - It's only about $225, not $2000.

[carman]

The moon is almost a daylight exposure (it is in sunlight), and not a long "night" exposure as you might think at first which results in a big white dot.

Alex - good call above on the APO version.

Carman - It's only about $225, not $2000.

Oh you're right, I was looking at the wrong one.

[carman]

The APO is still over my budget, i'm on a VERY tight one now. I was thinking about the SIGMA 55-200MM F4.0-5.6. Do you think this has better optics than the SIGMA 70-300MM F4-5.6 DG? because if the SIGMA 55-200MM F4.0-5.6 has optics closer to the APO version of the 70-300MM F4-5.6 DG?, then i'm willing to go down to only 200mm rather then 300mm.

[toriaj]

That moon photo ... what´s the adjustments for capturing it as it is ? tried and only got it as a strong light, can´t see nothing but light.
I don´t have filters but i do have the A100 and a 420mm in total.
About my sigma is the cheapest.

EDIT: i asked on google and here it is:
http://www.aidan.co.uk/article_tecmoon5622.htm

The process in the link doesn't work for me, other than using ISO 200 and using the tripod with timer. I've had the best results with the Sigma 70-300 APO DG at f/16, although other experienced users recommend f/8 to f/11. Shutter speed around 1/80 to 1/500 sec (possibly even shorter,) depending on brightness. When viewing the LCD, look for detail in the moon, rather than the brightness of the moon. A search for "moon shots" here on DCRP will yeild a lot of info on the topic.

[carman]

The APO is still over my budget, i'm on a VERY tight one now. I was thinking about the SIGMA 55-200MM F4.0-5.6. Do you think this has better optics than the SIGMA 70-300MM F4-5.6 DG? because if the SIGMA 55-200MM F4.0-5.6 has optics closer to the APO version of the 70-300MM F4-5.6 DG?, then i'm willing to go down to only 200mm rather then 300mm.

..........?

[TheWengler]

What exactly is your budget?

[carman]

I just purchased the Sigma 70-300mm DG. I've already taken around 400 photos. AMAZING LENS! I love it. I love the macro capabilities! I'm very happy with it so far.