Sigma 70-300 APO DG Lens - Surprising

[smoky]

I wanted a longer lens than 200 mm so looking at prices of lens for my Nikon D90 for same brand saw me not able to afford one till much later than I wanted to wait, so conundrum, what is a good lens that does not cost the earth but gives good results, well, found out the Sigma 70-300 APO DG lens to be better in specs and clarity than I first gave credit for. Am I happy with the results, my word I am, it's been a great lens for quality photos and is just the length of lens I needed.

Now I'm looking at another Sigma lens for close up photography, well more affordable than Nikon lenses but no way is it worse in quality photographs, that is the bonus.

Cheers
Stuart

[Bennymiata]

Sigma's newer lenses are excellent.
I have the 150mm macro with OS, and it's amazing.

All the reports I've been reading on the newer Sigma lenses lately, have also been very good.

[ameerat42]

...I have the 150mm macro with OS, and it's amazing.
...

This has certainly got a very good reputation - even the older non-OS ones are to be fought over (again, reputedly).

OK! OK! I need GLASSES! I thought you were all talking about the 105 macro! That's the one I meant. Sorry!

[ricktas]

I agree that the sigma 150mm macro is a great lens, I do all my macro work with one

[arthurking83]

Siggy 70-300 is indeed a very good lens, for what it is. Keep it to under just 300mm ... eg. 280mm or so .. and you'll find it very handy.

But you must remember what type of lens it is .. a slow(aperture) kit type lens. Keeping that in mind, and as you've found, it can provide useful results.

....

Now I'm looking at another Sigma lens for close up photography, well more affordable than Nikon lenses but no way is it worse in quality photographs, that is the bonus.

Cheers
Stuart

What price range? (and does it have to be locally sourced or is grey market OK).

With that in mind, the very affordable Nikon 40mm f/2.8 Micro should be an option to keep in mind. Slightly more expensive but still good value for money are the Nikon 85mm f/3.5 VR and also the Nikon 60mm f/2.8.

rough price guides are: $250(ish) for the 40 and $500(ish) for the 85mm and 60mm from grey retailers.(add postage into the price too tho).

[smoky]

Thanks to all for the advice, but have had a real good look at the photographs I've seen from both these cameras, and if you put them side by side, there is no observable difference. Also, one big factor is the price, around $180 difference (wanting a 105mm lens as it also is good for portraiture) and as it's forums and details go, only for a slightly slower auto focus and some picky points, then I'm leaning toward the Sigma.

Yes, would prefer Nikon for the bulk of my photography, but seeing as this lens is not going to be used as often as my 55-200 and 18-55 then can't really justify the price of the Nikon V Sigma.

Cheers
Stuart

[Hayaku]

Does anyone know how the sigma 70-300mm compares against the 70-300 of tamron?

[ameerat42]

I have taken a few shots with one of those, but about 6 years old. It seemed to be OK. I have a Σ70-300 and it's pretty good too.
There is a bit of CA when wide open and at 70mm (from meory).
Am.
Some shots with it are in the threads below. (Ihave none with the Tamron.):

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...-Lake-Tuggerah
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...-Don-t-look-if
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...-and-some-bark