Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 DG opinions?

[Soma 115]

So i'm getting more into photography, and i'm feeling the need for a lens with some more distance. i looked around, and i found the Sigma 70-300. I've heard good things about the lens but i dont want to rush into it. I was looking most into this lens because it is motorized and would work well with my D40. Do any of you have any opinions or experience with this lens?

any help/advice is greatly appreciated.


thanks in advance,

-Dillon

 

[bozigle]

Well i guess it all come down to what kind of picture you want to take.

i bought this lense few years back and almost never use it...
The quality is pretty low (this is not an EX sigma excelent quality) it doesn't have image stabilisation, that would come in handy with long focal.
but on the plus side, it doesn't cost much and is really light.
Do i regret my buy? no not really, i used it from time to time.
would i buy it again? no i would go for some lense that cost 3 times more either from sigma or canon...
you get what you paid for.

 

[operator207]

If your not married to buying this lens, you may consider the Canon 55-250 IS lens. I have it, and really like it. I doubt I will buy another lens in that range, as I really do not shoot in that range.

Here is a thread that has some shots with the lens. If you read further into the thread, there is an archive I believe of a ton of pictures by various photographers: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=492427&55-250+canon+is

I bought mine for $295 at Circuit City. I thought I would want that range, but found most of my shots tend to be in the 20-70mm range.

 

[epicwelshman]

The D40 is a Nikon camera. The 40D is a Canon. Therefore the 55-250 IS from Canon would be no help in the slightest.

Nikon's 55-200 is well regarded, for a low-end lens. $170 (non-VR), $220 VR

The 70-300 VR is a little more pricey at $480, but from what I've heard it is quite good.

I have no experience with low-end Sigmas. I just purchased a 70-200mm f2.8 from Sigma for my D40x which is meant to hold its own against the big boys for half the price.

Good luck!

 

[Cave Man]

So i'm getting more into photography, and i'm feeling the need for a lens with some more distance. i looked around, and i found the Sigma 70-300. I've heard good things about the lens but i dont want to rush into it.

The APO version is the best sub-$300 70/75-300 lens you can buy. The non-APO version is pretty weak, about the same as Canon's 75-300 pair.

 

[leighonigar]

I have one, well, a version without the motor but the optics are the same afaik. I'd get the 55-200 vr if I wanted something in that price range now. The sigma is ok but it's rather unwieldy, it's the general feeling of the thing that gets me, oh, and the photo quality.

 

[Soma 115]

The D40 is a Nikon camera. The 40D is a Canon. Therefore the 55-250 IS from Canon would be no help in the slightest.

Nikon's 55-200 is well regarded, for a low-end lens. $170 (non-VR), $220 VR

The 70-300 VR is a little more pricey at $480, but from what I've heard it is quite good.

I have no experience with low-end Sigmas. I just purchased a 70-200mm f2.8 from Sigma for my D40x which is meant to hold its own against the big boys for half the price.

Good luck!

Alright, after much deliberation, i decided that the 55-200 would fit my needs. I searched on Amazon and found what i feel to be a decent price for a VR lens. can anyone verify that im not getting jipped ??

LINK-http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-Vibration-Reduction-Zoom-Nikkor/dp/B0015OCE7M/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1219256971&sr=1-3

Also, does anyone here have experience with the quality of refurbished nikon lenses?

once again thanks in advance,

Dillon

 

[jhamerphoto]

If I were you, I would ditch the kit lens and grab the 18-200mm DX VR lens by nikon. Fantastic lens, super fast and quiet AF, and you won't need to switch lenses between wide & tele shots. Probably about $700 store price. $400 for Sigma non-VR version with slightly smaller aperture at 200mm, although it is much smaller and lighter.

 

[Abstract]

The 55-200 mm VR lens is supposed to be a really great lens. Good choice.

 

[operator207]

The D40 is a Nikon camera. The 40D is a Canon. Therefore the 55-250 IS from Canon would be no help in the slightest.

Ya, apparently my dyslexia[1] was showing that day. Though the poster before me said "no i would go for some lense that cost 3 times more either from sigma or canon..." which is probably why my dyslexia kicked in.

Sorry about that.


[1] Unconfirmed and untreated. Of course.