Thinking on sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 ex dg macro

[Dave McCormick]

I am thinking on getting a telephoto lens and one thing and other, was given £160 worth of Argos vouchers and saw the sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 ex dg macro at Argos and thought it might be wroth using the vouchers on. Anyone use one or know how good it is?

[Rogerdodge]

David
I have one of these lenses tucked away, and gathering dust, at the back of a cupboard.
I purchased it about 10 years ago when I was much less knowledgeable and adept at photography.
I saw it as being a good "catch all" lens.
I only used it once.
The long end of the zoom was very soft indeed.
There was noticeable chromatic aberration also.
(It may well have been improved since I acquired mine.)
Having seen your photographs, and being aware of the sort of quality you are after, I feel you may well end up being seriously disapointed.
I think that it is nowhere truer than in camera lenses that you "get what you pay for".
Interestingly I read somewhere that a survey of photographs posted on-line using zoom lenses showed that 75% were taken at full zoom, 20% taken at the shortest zoom, and only 5% taken somewhere in between.
I would save up for a 300mm prime instead. It will cost you about 6 times as much – but there is a reason for that

[dilettante]

I had one of these a few years ago.They're OK and good for the price, and many people love the image quality they can produce, though my results were mixed. For butterflies, if I remember right, the 'macro' mode (actually max 1:2 magnification) is at the 200-300mm end which means you need good light and/or a tripod. You'd struggle to get sharp shots handheld in less than bright sunshine.

A word of warning: On Sony cameras, these lenses are notorious. The high torque AF motors in the cameras strip the plastic gears in the Sigma lens. I don't know if this is a problem on other cameras, but it suggests to me that the lens is not robust. In fact I had one of the older ones (non-DG) on my Minolta camera, that I dropped from not very high onto soft ground and that broke the internal gears as well. I replaced it with a DG version that I sold 'as new' to someone and the gears stripped within a week.

If you want a general purpose telezoom for under £200, this is probably a reasonable option. If you want something specifically for butterflies, there may be better alternatives, although I'm not sure what I'd recommend at that price.

[Gruditch]

I agree with Roger, be patient save up and buy quality glass.

Regards Gruditch

[MikeOxon]

I would add my caution to the previous posts. Always remember the adage "you get what you pay for".

I had one of the older Sigma 70-300 lenses, optimistically advertised as 'APO'. It certainly was not apochromatic in the true sense of the word but just contained some of the, then new, low dispersion glass - the term was mainly marketing hype and the performance at the 300mm end was rather soft. Recently, I took it out of the cupboard, where it had been packed away in its original box, and found that the so-called 'zen' coating had turned into a sticky 'goo', which prevented the zoom and focus controls from operating. All my other brand lenses of the same vintage were perfectly ok.

I think Sigma are an innovative company, somewhat given to over-enthusiastic marketing, with some innovations that do not stand the test of time. They will do what you could expect at the price point but don't expect too much.

Mike.

[Wurzel]

I bought this lens a couple of weeks ago and have been struggling to get the best from it. I haven't got a tripod (the quick release mount it stuck to my scope) but I have managed to get a couple of good shots - although I've thrown a lot more away with this lens than with my previous. At the 300mm end it is really tricky to get a sharp image and I am going to try and sell it back to the shop where I got it.

Are extension tubes a reasonable alternative or not?

Cheers

Wurzel

[Dave McCormick]

Thanks all for. Since I had the vouchers anyway just wanted to be sure but if its not really worth it, I can see what else there is, I am on a budget at moment.

I don't have a lot of money but did want a lens long enough I could get bird shots as I keep seeing geese and other migrant birds I would like photos of but don't have a lens to get half close enough. I can't afford a very sharp lens like some out there. Think the max I could do is £230. I saw two, Canon 75-300mm USM III: http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/p ... 367818.htm or Canon 75-300mm: http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/p ... 367818.htm

But anyone know how either do? The only zoom lens I have is the Tamron 18-200 IF Macro and it came with my camera and quite disappointed with it and never use it and don't want something like that.

Anyone know the quality compared to the say Canon 18-55mm IS lens? If one of them took photos the quality of that lens, I'd be happy enough. Is there much difference in either lenses? The second is higher price but not sure if that means anything as they have the Canon 18-55mm IS for £797.99 and thats way too much for that lens IMO, especially when you get it as a kit with some of the Canon DSLRs like 500D/550D/600D

[MikeOxon]

Dave,

I'm not a Canon user so can't advise you directly on these lenses.

You should, however, be aware that a manufacturer like Canon makes many lenses in different price ranges. The £797 lens you mention is NOT the same as the kit lens - it is a high quality large-aperture lens intended for professional use. You need to look at the aperture as well as the focal length when comparing prices.

I hope you get advice from this forum but you should also look at the many review sites on the web. One that I have found useful is a http://www.photozone.de You will find that they have lots of reviews on many lenses and also have user surveys which compare lenses. For Canon long zooms, see http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/q ... 20AF%27%22

I had a fairly cheap Nikon 70-300G lens for a while, which seemed ok until I tried the 70-300VR, which totally outclassed it. I suggest that decent quality at the 300mm end of the range is going to cost around £400. Even that is still very marginal for birds in flight and, if you want to do that, you really need a prime lens of at least f/4 aperture.

Sorry not to be more encouraging but that's the reality.

Mike

[Pawpawsaurus]

... they have the Canon 18-55mm IS for £797.99 and thats way too much for that lens IMO, especially when you get it as a kit with some of the Canon DSLRs like 500D/550D/600D

I strongly suspect that the Argos website is in error here.

The £797.99 lens is described by Argos as a 'Canon EF-S18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 Zoom Lens'. This fails to mention the Image Stabilisation, which is clearly shown in the accompanying photo:
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/p ... N+LENS.htm
This item looks to me like the early version of that particular lens, which was superseded some time ago.

The 'Full product information' of the above item mentions the EOS 300D, which also is not current, so I expect the £797.99 is (or was) for the lens plus a camera, as that particular lens is worth nowhere near that much on its own. I wonder how many of this item Argos have sold recently.

Argos correctly describes the current version of the lens as 'Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Digital SLR Camera Lens', and offers it for £179.99 here:
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/p ... N+LENS.htm

That seems not to be a bad price, though it's beaten by other sources on this page:
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod2332.html

But again, Argos' description is questionable. The list of features includes these two:
- Maximum aperture f/5.6-.
- Minimum aperture f/2.2.

Oh dear.

Paul

[dilettante]

Are extension tubes a reasonable alternative or not?

Extension tubes always seem like an attractive idea, being simple and requiring no expensive glass, but I never had much joy with them. All they do is alow existing lenses to focus closer, which may be all you need, but you'll need a decent quality lens to start with.

Some of the downsides:

- You lose some light, depending on how much extension you add. This can make it hard to see a clear image in the viewfinder to judge critical focus. It may also prevent the camera's AF system working, but macro is usually done with manual focus anyway.
- Once attached, you can *only* focus close up, so you've lost a lot of lens versatility / agility.
- Working out how much extension you need is not obvious. Unless you know where your subjects will be and how big, you can't just rely on attaching a tube and waiting for interesting subjects to turn up. For that reason, I think they're more viable for static or studio shots than butterflies in the field. Trial and error, swapping in and out the different bits of tube, is time consuming.
- Some tubes don't carry all the electrical signals between camera and lens, which might affect metering, aperture control or AF.

[Gruditch]

I would disagree slightly, and say that extension tubes are ( if attached to a quality lens ) very good for butterfly work. A Canon 25mm tube on a 300 f4 or 100 - 400 is a mean bit of kit. But these lenses cost around a grand.
But fitting an extension tube ain't going to help if your photographing geese Dave, your be restricted to around 30ft max working distance.

I have had a Canon 70 - 300 of some sort in the past, their ..... Alright.

Regards Gruditch

[Dave McCormick]

Ok, thats all, I had my suspisions with Argos descriptions as one person asked if the sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 ex dg macro had a image stabiliser and they said it did, which I don't think it does. might just use the vouchers to get the 70-300mm USM lens, saw a lot of reviews, some saying it was good for the price, others saying its not that good, but I suppose for now it would do me. In future I'll get a much better lens, for moment, this will do since I won't have to spend anything to get it and nothing else I would like to get out of Argos anyway.

[Dave McCormick]

Well apparently the Canon 70-300mm USM III lens is now discontinued. I got the Canon 55-250mm IS lens instead. Have not had a chance to use it much yet since the weather has been wet lately. Bit shorter than I would have liked but can't complain. I did test it a few times, the IS is very good, a bit noisy though when on but I have not tested it much. A lot of the subjects I want to photograph (coastal birds) are not that far away that I couldn't get them in decent size in the shot with this lens, just have to be there at right time when tide is in.