Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Sigma 70-300mm

mrstratts 10 2 United Kingdom
20 Apr 2010 1:34PM
HI everyone was just woundering what u all thought of the sigma 70-300mm. is it worth getting , or should i go for somthing better. will be shooting a lot of showjumping and moto x. i have a nikon D80 with a 18-70mm at the moment, so any ideas would be great

cheers Paul

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

kbtimages 8 7 1 United Kingdom
20 Apr 2010 2:08PM
I have found the sigma to be quite slow in focusing and the images are quite soft. this can fixed using ACR and clarity though. I have the Sigma AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro and rarely use it TBH.
cats_123 Plus
14 4.8k 28 Northern Ireland
20 Apr 2010 2:28PM
have had mine for a few months now...am reasonably pleased with it, although haven't tried at an event, the motor drive is pretty good for burst shooting. I also have a Nikkor 55-200 which gives a sharper finish
cameracat 14 8.6k 61 Norfolk Island
20 Apr 2010 3:31PM
Bite the bullet and buy the Nikon 70-300 ED VR or suffer the consequences......Sad

I have used the Nikon 70-300 ED VR, For fast moving ( Border Collie ) Dawg images, Many of them with the dawg coming at me head on, Also used this lens a lot at local " Horse shows " covering everything from show jumpint to eventing, For the money the quality of the images is hard to beat.....Smile

It does not claim to be a " Macro " lens.....However zooms in this sector that do, Are Not true macro lens, They just close focus, You do not get 1 : 1 life size images.....Sad

Anyhow if you want a macro lens, Then buy a proper macro lens......Wink

Oh! Did I forget to mention the 2 stage VR on the Nikon lens.......Very usefull when required in low light or forced low ISO situations, No it will not stop the subject movement, But it does help reduce hand held camera shake, When using at extreme focal range.

I was thinking of buying the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII, Specially for sport subjects, But while I'm getting such great results from my Nikon 70-300 ED VR, I'll keep the 1200 extra quid it would cost to by the 70-200mm, Until I can really justify it.......Smile Smile

Working with sports or fast moving subjects, Is as much about technique as it is equipment you use......Grin
paperboy 8 208
20 Apr 2010 3:43PM
nikon 70-300 vr or nothing. Sigma is a poor choice by comparison.

@vince...I have both Nikons, albeit the original 70-200 vr, and use the 70-300 5:1 over the 70-200 which in actual use is a low light indoor event lens IMHO. a great lens, but in general the 70-300 is more useful.
Nickscape 12 708 9 England
20 Apr 2010 4:33PM
As with most lenses in this price range it is never going to be as good as the more expensive alternatives. For 100 you really cannot go wrong, I have one and have used it for sports, wildlife and landscapes and to be honest have never been dissapointed with the results and I regularily use top of the range kit. With these cheaper lenses you have to spend the time getting used to them and working out what it can do and can't do, once you find the sweet spot the results really are excellent. The focusing is much slower than the pro equivalents, but with some basic good camera skills you just need to make sure you are prepared, you cannot expect to point and shoot, you will need to plan what you are going to do and think ahead, give the camera the chance and you will get good results. Make sure you get the APO version
20 Apr 2010 6:56PM
The Sigma in APO version can be a very sharp lens if you get a good copy - I've been amazed at mine at times but its slow focusing and a bit clunky to use. I've just got a Nikon 70-300 VR and its a Rolls Royce in comparison - fast and accurate to focus and the VR really makes a difference. The Sigma is heading of the classifieds or eBay.

mrstratts 10 2 United Kingdom
20 Apr 2010 9:34PM
cheers guys thanks for all the helpGrin
BigRick 12 2.1k 3 United Kingdom
20 Apr 2010 9:37PM

Quote:Have had mine for a few months now...am reasonably pleased with it, although haven't tried at an event, the motor drive is pretty good for burst shooting. I also have a Nikkor 55-200 which gives a sharper finish

dandeakin 10 209 3 England
20 Apr 2010 9:59PM
I bought a sigma 70 - 300 when I started out a few years ago. Ended up replacing it with a Nikon 70 - 300VR as I got fed up with the sigma. No comparison between the two. Sharper, faster, silent and has VR. Plus, the "macro" on the sigma is nothing more than a Gimick. I should have waited and saved up for the more expensive, but far better lens. Sure the Sigma's cheaper, but if you ask me its better (and cheaper) to buy once rather than twice.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.