Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 - has anyone used it?

[OrangeCuse44]

I'm a bit weary about purchasing 3rd party anything involved with electronics, but with the price of this lens I did some exploring. Taking a look at a lot of macros on pixel-peeper, this lens seems to perform admirably. Has anyone used it? Have you been happy with the results?

 

[jampat]

I don't know about that lens specifically, but most people are happier with the results when they save up for a bit longer and get a 70-200 instead.

The pictures captured with the 70-200 are orders of magnitude better (and you have at least one more stop of light at the long end). I have never heard of anyone regretting buying a 70-200. Buy used you will save money and can always sell it and get your money back.

I know a number of people that never remove their 70-300's from the bag as they are just too slow for what they want to shoot.

What are you planning on shooting with this lens? If you are trying to shoot wildlife in good light, maybe 70-300 will work, but if you are expecting to be able to capture a kids soccer game in the evening, it won't be very useful.

 

[nutmac]

I've evaluated it when picking a telephoto lens. If I recall, it has few good things going for it, such as no perceptible barrel distortion and decent sharpness at wide angle. At 300mm, however, I thought it was an absolute crap. Super soft details and high amount of chroma aberrations.

If you are constrained for a budget, get EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS. Otherwise, I wouldn't settle for anything below EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (since I handheld frequently, I ended up spending extra for the IS version).

 

[OrangeCuse44]

I don't know about that lens specifically, but most people are happier with the results when they save up for a bit longer and get a 70-200 instead.

The pictures captured with the 70-200 are orders of magnitude better (and you have at least one more stop of light at the long end). I have never heard of anyone regretting buying a 70-200. Buy used you will save money and can always sell it and get your money back.

What are you planning on shooting with this lens? If you are trying to shoot wildlife in good light, maybe 70-300 will work, but if you are expecting to be able to capture a kids soccer game in the evening, it won't be very useful.

Shooting macros basically of foliage/insects/smaller objects such as these: http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/...perture_min=none&aperture_max=none&res=3&p=10

 

[HBOC]

the 55-250mm is an amazing lens for the price. It is not ideal for anything less than bright light, however. That could be caused by the XSi's AF as well... For the price, you won't find anything better.

 

[TheReef]

I also find it soft at 300mm, and Macro mode only works at 300mm so it's not ideal. (that may have changed since though)
Results are somewhat better with shorter focal lengths < 200mm, it's cheap too.

 

[apearlman]

It's very good for a budget lens.

I have an older version of this lens, the SIgma 70-300 f/4-5.6 Super Macro II APO. It's *very* sharp, though can get soft above 200mm. Build quality seems fine, certainly not cheap. Bokeh is nice, and the macro mode is decent. Focus is a bit slow, but accurate on my Rebel XT/350D.

I've never used the 70-200L, so I can't personally compare them. But the Sigma is about 1/3 the price of the 70-200, so I'm not sure many people cross-shop these lenses. For the money, I think the Sigma is terrific -- better than Canon's 70-300 (non-IS) or Tamron's. If you want a bit of reach for not much money, go for it.