Sigma 70-300 DG HSM MACRO AF Lens for my D40 ??

[ANP !!!]

I am looking for a telephoto lens and I found the price on this really good. I wanna buy a SB600 and 50mm prime later so wanna save some cash.

Is it a good lens for landscapes and portraits ?? anyone here using it ??

http://www.abesofmaine.com/item.do?item=SG70300DGHSMAFN&id=SG70300DGHSMAFN&l=PRICEGRABB



Regards.

[Rooz]

its not a very good lens for anything.
the 55-200VR is a much better option if you want a cheap tele.

[ANP !!!]

Thanks, I guess the Sigma is out of my list, I gotta get a ext flash or a 50mm Prime lens first. ;).

[K1W1]

its not a very good lens for anything.
the 55-200VR is a much better option if you want a cheap tele.

I agree with Rooz. I have the non HSM version and the 55-200 and the 55-200 beats the Sigma hands down. From what I have seen Sigma have not changed the optics on the HSM version only added the focus motor.

[macr023]

Roo, I am curious to know why you think its not a good lens for anything? I've looked all over the net for actual images taken with a sigma 70-300 DG, specifically with d40's and d60's. Also I read reviews on this lens, and so far i'm convinced its a great budget lens. I am currently thinking about purchasing this lens over a nikkor 55-200 because of its 300mm zoom and pseudo macro ability. I am no pro, but I can tell the difference between my kit lens that came with the d60 and my nikkor 50mm f1.8. Looking at example photos taken with the sigma, I was impressed. I am still steering towards the sigma, but would like more input from others.


its not a very good lens for anything.
the 55-200VR is a much better option if you want a cheap tele.

[K1W1]

I am currently thinking about purchasing this lens over a nikkor 55-200 because of its 300mm zoom and pseudo macro ability.

As I said earlier I have the 55-200VR and also a Sigma 70-300 DG APO (the non HSM version).

The Sigma is very soft over 200mm which makes it not particularly useful at those ranges. Cropped photos at 200mm on my 55-200 look better the uncropped photos on my Sigma at, say 250mm.

The Sigma is TERRIBLE for CA. Anything with a sharp edge and contrast will have CA on it.

The "macro" function is not macro as most people understand it. It's "similar to macro" at best and if you are buying for that reason you will be disappointed.

I can't comment on the focussing speed of the HSM it should be okay but the older screw drive versions were slow and noisey.

In summary. If you want 300mm length pay the extra and buy the Nikon 70-300VR. If you want macro buy something else. If 200mm is fine buy the Nikon 55-200VR for better results overall.

[accord2003]

I agree with K1W1. I too had this sigma (non hsm) for short period of time. It was fine at 70 to around 150. anything over 200 is not so good. Focus speed was slow as well. I didn't keep it for too long.

I tried the 55 200 VR. It was much better but I didn't keep that one either. I finally decided on getting the 70 300 VR.

If you can save a bit longer, I would get the Nikon zooms.

[macr023]

I've read that in daylight the sigma performs very well up until 300mm, Its when lighting starts to get low is where CA starts to show up. I've seen some sample pictures at 300 and was extremlely impressed, maybe I cannot tell the difference ?

[K1W1]

If every photo you take is in perfect lighting then there will not be a problem.

[ANP !!!]

I have decided to bite the bullet and ordered this lens, considering how cheap it is, I don't expect much from it though. Hope I like it, If i don't I will sell it and get a SB600 or 50mm 1.8. ;).

[macr023]

If every photo you take is in perfect lighting then there will not be a problem.

I see it like this. I can buy the sigma for 249$ Canadian and the 55-200VR for 289 Canadian. So far what I gathered is the sigma is a descent lens up until 200mm. I guess near perfect lighting it will allow me to take clear shots up to 300mm. Or is the sigma just plain soft in all lighting all zoom ranges all over the place?

[Visual Reality]

It's not just the softness. The Nikkor will win out in terms of focus speed and accuracy, which is very important for telephoto.

Not to mention quality - with Sigma's lenses you play the lottery just to get a good copy that doesn't have focus, softness, or off-center issues of some sort.

[cincyimages]

The Sigma 70-300mm was only $140 on Amazon.com last week. For that price, it is a good buy.

[macr023]

I ended up getting the 70-300 sigma DG APO macro. I can return it if I want, but so far I dont see any reason too. At 70mm I can take some very nice indoor night shots with my sb600 flash. Even at 300mm with sb600 flash I took some nice shots. Here are 2 examples of indoor at 300mm with sb600 on the d60.

http://66.212.251.13/olive.jpg

http://66.212.251.13/sigma.jpg

Sorry for the load times. They are full size jpg's. I was amazed how much I can zoom in the tree ornament and see the inside of my condo.

[cincyimages]

Nice photos but no one uses garland on their Christmas trees anymore ;)

[Prospero]

The Sigma 70-300 APO is really not as bad as some make it out to be in my opinion.

Even at 300mm wide open (where the performance of the lens is worst) I have had quite some results that impressed me in terms of sharpness and detail.
I haven't noticed the CA much either when using this lens.

The close minimum focussing distance of the lens is quite handy when shooting creatures that scare easily. Sure, it's not real macro, but it will get you quite close. Also, the bokeh of the lens is excellent, not much worse than my long primes, and a lot better than the 50 and my other zooms.

However, as has been said here, the focussing is terrible. It's way too slow for things moving towards you. It's inaccurate at closer distances. And it is very noisy. Also, in lower light it is difficult to handhold due to the lack of VR and slow speed.
The lens has many compromises, but can take a decent image, at a very low price.

[macr023]

cincyimages: Thanks, as for tree and decoration, they were all hand me downs. I wasnt aware garland was out, and now im prowd to be the few to try and keep it in style :P

Prospero: I can see where the sigma is to slow for faster moving object, but it still passed a few tests with my daughter and cat. The noise of the motor is definitely loud but I kind of like it. This friday I will be heading to the montreal biodome and try and take some flashless shots with three of my lenses. I will have a report after. 3 lenses will be: 18-55 VR d60 kit lens, 50mm f1.8 running in manual focus, and the sigma 70-300 APO. I hope to only use the sigma.

[ANP !!!]

I will get my lens on Jan 8th, I got it for $134 from Abe with free shipping. I think for the price, i cant really ask for more and I dont expect a super high quality lens. Cant wait to get my hands on it, now next in the list will be a SB600 :D.

[Prospero]

cincyimages: Thanks, as for tree and decoration, they were all hand me downs. I wasnt aware garland was out, and now im prowd to be the few to try and keep it in style :P

Prospero: I can see where the sigma is to slow for faster moving object, but it still passed a few tests with my daughter and cat. The noise of the motor is definitely loud but I kind of like it. This friday I will be heading to the montreal biodome and try and take some flashless shots with three of my lenses. I will have a report after. 3 lenses will be: 18-55 VR d60 kit lens, 50mm f1.8 running in manual focus, and the sigma 70-300 APO. I hope to only use the sigma.

A biodome will perhaps not be all that well lit. I think it may be a bit difficult to keep your shutterspeed above 1/300s. If you have one, I would bring a tripod. If not, do not be affraid to use high ISO, it cleans up quite well with Neatimage (if you get your exposure right). It's better to have a noisy shot than a blurry one.

About the noise, I think yours may be a bit more silent than mine, as I don't have the HSM version. One of my friends has the Canon version of the lens (can lenses always have an internal motor) and his lens is a lot more silent than mine as well.

[Rooz]

Rooz, I am curious to know why you think its not a good lens for anything?

its my personal opinion that buying lens' is an investment that should not be comprimised if at all possible. i'm not suggeting you go and pay $2k fo a lens, but the 55-200VR is simply put...a better inbvestment in optical quality.


I've looked all over the net for actual images taken with a sigma 70-300 DG.

i haveseen great images tken with a sony ericsson mobiler phone. doesnt mean its a great camera. and i've also seen crap imags taken with an 85/1.4...doesnt mean its a crap lens.


Also I read reviews on this lens, and so far i'm convinced its a great budget lens.

really ? just out of curiosity, what reviews have given it a thumbs up ?


As I said earlier I have the 55-200VR and also a Sigma 70-300 DG APO (the non HSM version).

The Sigma is very soft over 200mm which makes it not particularly useful at those ranges. Cropped photos at 200mm on my 55-200 look better the uncropped photos on my Sigma at, say 250mm.

The Sigma is TERRIBLE for CA. Anything with a sharp edge and contrast will have CA on it..

plus the 55-200 is an afs lens and it has VR.


I've read that in daylight the sigma performs very well up until 300mm, Its when lighting starts to get low is where CA starts to show up. I've seen some sample pictures at 300 and was extremlely impressed, maybe I cannot tell the difference ?

in daylight anything can perform. its not in low lighting when CA is a big issue either. its in high contrast situations, especially dark colours against an overcast sky for example.


It's not just the softness. The Nikkor will win out in terms of focus speed and accuracy, which is very important for telephoto.

Not to mention quality - with Sigma's lenses you play the lottery just to get a good copy that doesn't have focus, softness, or off-center issues of some sort.

yepp...and as i mentioned before, its also an af-s VR lens. so to puthisin perspective...for the extra $40 you;'re paying for the nikkor you get...

more accurate AF
much faster AF
VR
better contrast
better colour rendition
better sharpness

should i go on ?? nah..no point...thats 6 big advantages you get for $40, so thats what....$7 a pop ?




However, as has been said here, the focussing is terrible. It's way too slow for things moving towards you. It's inaccurate at closer distances. And it is very noisy. Also, in lower light it is difficult to handhold due to the lack of VR and slow speed.
The lens has many compromises, but can take a decent image, at a very low price.

if the 55-200VR was around when you bought the sigma and they were more or less the same price...what would you buy ?

[Rooz]

lol apoligies for the typos...i have been drinking a litle. :D

[macr023]

lol apoligies for the typos...i have been drinking a litle. :D

LOL

I agree I should invest in a lens for long term. I chose price over quality this time because I was too impatient, but also knew I have the option to return in case I wasn't satisfied. I am thinking about renting the 70-300 vr from same store and if I can truly benefit from it, I will return the sigma and go for the nikkor. The thing is, I see the 70-300 more of a lens to experiment and have fun. Most indoor and outdoor shots came out so well I am finding it hard to return. I compared it side by side with my kit lens, 18-55 vr, and it takes nicer shots indoors with the sb600. Its hard to compare because of different zoom range, but I noticed the colors came out warmer and more accurate. Without flash and semi low light the sigma really is a pain, but with good lighting it really seems to be a good lens.

[Prospero]

if the 55-200VR was around when you bought the sigma and they were more or less the same price...what would you buy ?

I'm not sure. The extra reach of the 70-300 has come to use on many occassions. In fact, when I use this lens, it's almost always at 300 mm.
So, even now, I think I would choose the Sigma simply for the extra reach.

Perhaps it's just me, but I often pick my lenses based on their reach rather than the quality of the optics. That's also why I picked the 10-20 over the Tokina 12-24, dispite the Tokina outperforming the Sigma in many ways. I would do the same thing today, had the 11-16 f/2.8 not been available.

The difference in contrast and colour rendition is not that important to me. With the amount of post processing I do, these things don't matter that much. The lack of sharpness cannot be fixed. However, perhaps it's that I am using only 6mp and that I am easily satisfied, but I really don't think it's all that bad.

So for me the choice would be between AF-s + VR and 300mm. I think I would still choose 300mm, but IMO it's a tough choice.

Having said that, I am considering replacing my lens for the 70-300VR, because VR and AFs are of course very handy features.
More importantly, this year I will be going to Australia on holiday, so I expect to need my tele a lot too shoot wildlife, so I want to get the best images I can with my budget (which, by the way, is too small to even consider the 300 f/4)

[cincyimages]

Rooz here are some reviews, the lens has a 4.5 out of 5 rating from owners that left a review on Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B0016N17ES/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

[Visual Reality]

Rooz here are some reviews, the lens has a 4.5 out of 5 rating from owners that left a review on Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B0016N17ES/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
You have to keep in mind though, those reviews are written by people buying bargain budget lenses. Of course most of them will be satisfied. It isn't receiving the same scrutiny as the people leaving reviews for the 24-70 I can assure you.

[cincyimages]

As someone who has the 24-70mm, I can appreciate what you are saying but the reviews show that owners of the lens are satisfied with their purchase.

[Visual Reality]

Which is exactly what I was saying. You have to keep in mind there are 2 different kinds of reviewers there. Since the people who would most often scrutinize it the most (those demanding higher quality and more expensive lenses) would not buy it, they won't be leaving a review on Amazon.

All it shows is that the people looking for a budget lens are happy with their purchase. Not saying anything is wrong with that. But it isn't a very good indicator of the overall quality of the lens.

[Rooz]

owners reviews ? lol come on cincy.

anyway...no biggie. if it does the job people are expecting it to do then who am i to complain ? enjoy it. :)

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

lol apoligies for the typos...i have been drinking a litle. :D

Thats some impressive drunk typing. A good new years eve at home hey Rooz.

I don't think lens reviews should be a democracy. You've got to find someone who thinks and shoots like you and ask their input but ultimately decide for yourself IMHO.