Anyone using SIGMA 70-300 DG APO 3.5-5.6 MACRO

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Garrison on June 15, 2009 at 5:53pm

Gabriel:

I have the Sigma 70-300 D 4-5.6 macro. Here are a couple of recent shots I took in Yellowstone. It is a 'budget zoom' but works rather nicely. I do not use auto focus.

Permalink Reply by Gabriel Catalin on June 15, 2009 at 11:14pm

Thank you, good examples for the cappability of the lens. As noted in the previews, for this kind of shots the lens is a bit soft at the long end, even stopped down, but still good image.

Permalink Reply by Alvin Gozum on June 15, 2009 at 6:31pm

Invest on the 70-200 2.8 DG HSM its worth a buck, most of my tele shots are from that Macro Tele lens...

Permalink Reply by Gabriel Catalin on June 15, 2009 at 11:06pm

You're right, I am seriously considering this or less (Nikon 70-300VR) but as I changed the body (D60 to D80 and also switched to 18-105VR) I am rather short on cash so I consider this lens for probably one year until I can raise the money...

Permalink Reply by Crystal Pierson on June 15, 2009 at 6:47pm

I have the Sigma 70-300 4.0-5.6 D APO Macro (might be an older version than the one you list). Bought it used and used it on my Nikon film cameras (N90s, F4, FE) as well as my D80 and I really love it. Nice Bokeh. Lens switches to macro at 300mm only though, but it does a nice job- autofocus is acceptable. I have an older Nikon 70-210 D lens too and I always reach for this one. Many shots in my gallery are with this lens. My advice is- Go for it :)

Permalink Reply by Gabriel Catalin on June 15, 2009 at 11:11pm

Thank you Cristal, I was indeed thinking about the new APO for Nikon, which has internal motor (not SWM though...) and the capabilty to switch to macro starting from 200 mm. I also have a D80. So which one you think is more useful on this body - the 70-210D or the new Sigma APO? Actually I can get the 70-210 second hand for about 70USD more than the SIGMA brand new ...

Permalink Reply by ToddZilla on June 18, 2009 at 12:14am

I had it and got rid it as fast as I got it, I would have the camera on a tripod and face it down to get a shot and the lens would roll out making it impossibly to get a shot, would take regular shots and the lens would always bounce and there's no VR/IS. It's OK for the price but you get what you pay for, this is just my opinion, I didn't like it. I'm sticking to Nikon or at least the lens has to be a little higher end if it's not Nikon, do yourself a favor and save, and stay away from the cheap stuff.
Good luck my friend!

Permalink Reply by Crystal Pierson on June 18, 2009 at 6:36pm

Gabriel (& Todzilla)- While todzilla is generally correct in that you get what you pay for and you should go for Nikon from the start, If you are just trying to get through a year or so with a lens to save for one you really want, I think the Sigma is a good choice. I am much happier with it than I thought I would be- especially it's macro capabilities at 300mm- love the bokeh. I love macros so this would be my choice for that reason, given what we have to choose form on limited budgets, of course. I got my Nikon 70-210 D for $150 on ebay. The Sigma was part of a package deal and was likely no more than $100 of the lot. Both are pretty slow lenses for the most part. good luck in your decision. C

Permalink Reply by Glen Chapman on June 19, 2009 at 12:45am

I have the Sigma lens and it wakes up the dead and you could bake a cake in the time it takes to auto focus. To me a waste of money as lenses go. I only bought it because it was light for the shoots I had to do off a dingy bobbing up and down in the surf and the salesman recommended it. It cost me equivalent to $350 here in South Africa and only found out later for an extra $100 I could have bought the Nikkor. This was a live and learn lesson :)