[Closed] photo experts and geeks, advice S.V.P.

No idea about the lens quality, but if you can I'd go for an 18-200 or 18-250, as faffing about changing lenses gets very boring very quickly...

Its a cheap lens but the quality of photos at that price is very pleasing. It is relatively slow and noisy compared to your current kit lens and it 'hunts' low light meaning it finds it hard to focus. For a Tele-photo the aperture range is slightly limiting, but for basic first use its pretty good. Certainly in good light it'll be fine.

Maybe consider the standard version as what you get with the APO is the special coated glass and a case. It depends if you need those two things, I would say the glass is more important than the case and Id still pay it.

Edit: this was taken with my old Sigma 70-300mm APO on Macro. Focus isnt quite right, but its close.

[IMG] [/IMG]

thanks dooge that's valuable advice

It is a good lens for the money and worth paying that bit extra for the APO version. Might be worth hunting around for a second hand one as they can usually be had for around 100 quid. What dooge says is correct re: noise and low light focussing but when it's on song the results are pretty good. These were taken with the 70-300 APO DG, Canon fit:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Depends what you're going to use it for. Focus may be a bit slow for fast action.

Sigma don't have the best reputation for consistency so if it isn't producing the right kind of results early on it might be worth checking against others with the same lens.

The talkphotogrpahy.co.uk lot are pretty good with advice. Post the request there for more specialist advice.

There are also a few comments [url= http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1031&message=31876442&q=sigma+70300&qf=m ]here on DPReview[/url]. They make a good point about IS, at 300mm with a relatively slow lens you are likely to suffer from motion blur as well as potential softness.

In the right conditions (bright) it looks like will produce good results.

I bought one a couple of years ago as a cheap telephoto to go on my D80.
Much prefer wide lenses so this was a 'toe in the water' job to see if I'd get on with it.

As the others have said, it's fine - image quality on mine is spot on, whereas my Sigma 10-20 is a bit soft.

Bit slow, takes a lot of thought to get good results, but I wouldn't swap it for anything else for the same money.
The macro switch is a bit stiff on mine and the zoom is 'notchy', but nothing you can't live with.

Feels a bit plasticky, but no worse than say a new Nikon 50mm f1.8.

whereas my Sigma 10-20 is a bit soft.

Just to emphasise the Sigma quality variability: my 10-20 is nice and sharp.

Probably the best of the cheap teles that. Go for it!

Changing lenses??? You need to get out more mogrim, or just get a compact. I switch between 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 on a pretty regular basis, and have yet to think "Oh God, why do I do it - my life is a disaster". Besides, even a cheapo 70-300 is going to be better than a more expensive superzoom (unless we are talking the Canon 28-300L, but since they both cost a wedge and weigh a ton I am guessing they defeat the purpose for most people!)

Changing lenses??? You need to get out more mogrim, or just get a compact. I switch between 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 on a pretty regular basis, and have yet to think "Oh God, why do I do it - my life is a disaster".

Been there, done that - and it's a pain. Even worse with DSLRs as you can get dust on the sensor.

I'm not in any way against getting more lenses - I'd love a macro lens, and a Nikon 50mm is high on my "things to buy" list, but if the OP wants something to complement a standard 18-55mm kit lens, I personally think a better bet would be to replace it with an 18-200. The quality and speed will be basically the same, and you don't end up missing the shot because you've got the wrong lens mounted.

Still, as you point out superzooms are a lot more expensive - which is why I said "if you can" - if the OP can't, a 70-300 in the hand is clearly worth more than an 18-200 sitting in a shop.

GrahamS - Member

whereas my Sigma 10-20 is a bit soft.

Just to emphasise the Sigma quality variability: my 10-20 is nice and sharp.

Whereas mine was soft.

Depends on what he wants to shoot though surely?

The 18-200mm would leave him 100mm shorter and a third of a stop slower than the 70-300mm.

Depends on what he wants to shoot though surely?

The 18-200mm would leave him 100mm shorter and a third of a stop slower than the 70-300mm.

Definitely, I didn't say it was necessarily the perfect lens, just that it was an option that [b]may[/b] be more appropriate. (As it was in my case when I was faced with the same dilemma!)

There is a Canon 70-300 with IS second hand [url= http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=137409 ]here on talkphotograpy.[/url] Not a canon user but perhaps someone could offer an opinion. Might be a good deal.