Has anyone every tried one of theses lens and what are they like?? Im in two minds about buying one
For the price it's a great lens had one a while back when a I shot was film.
For a first TP lens it's great too.
For serious work it's not the best.
I've got one on my D50 and its great if you can live with the f/4-5.6 aperture! I don't think you could expect it to be any better for the price to be honest.
Super starter lens and I got some great shots out of it.
Nice photo!. Well I have to the chance to buy a secondhand mint condition sigma 28-300mm DL hyperzoom lens or would i be better of going with the 70-300 dg macro?
I had a sigma superzoom 28-300 3.5-6.3 about 5 years ago. thought it would be the all rounder lens. Big mistake. Slow to focus, cr@p apertures, heavy, big, not sharp, cr@p minimum focussing distance (it wasnt the macro version sigma brought out afterwards) and I ended up hardly ever using it. I've used and seen results with the Sigma 70-300's and for the money, they cant be beaten. There are different versions of them so try to get the newest version you can get.
The 70-300 as others have said is a great lens for the money - in terms of quality/price you probably won't do better. Sure it won't stand up to comparison to a 70-200 f2.8L, but costs a fraction. If you can limit it to less than 200mm, say 230mm at a stretch, it can be very sharp. Longer focal lengths are a bit soft, but still acceptable. It's reasonably handy as a close up lens (ignore the "macro" tag Sigma stick on practically every lens the make - this'll do 1/2 life size).
I'd be wary of superzooms - they always have some sort of a compromise, and you can't produce something with this range of focal lengths without some serious compromises, probably at the trickier wide end. 28mm also won't be very wide on a crop sensor DSLR.
Quick question, is it the APO version of the zoom?
It is usually slightly more expensive but really worth it.
With the right amount of light, that lens gives stunning pictures.
I have this lens which is APO & it's a disaster. Images are very soft & not worth buying. I have used it with the Nikon D70 & D80 & the same thing. I stay away from it.
I used the APO version of this lens with a Canon 350D and still occasionally do. I've never used the macro function on it but from a zoom point of view, up to about 250mm it's an excellent lens.
Examples of it are scattered all over my flickr.
Here's one taken with a 70-300 APO at 300mm:
That was taken the day after I bought both my camera and lens too!
You may have a bad example, as my experience, and that of lots of others show otherwise. Yes it's a bit soft at 300mm, yes it's a bit slow, but below 230mm with decent light, it performs very well for the price, and is exactly where I'd send somebody looking for a decent first long lens. Sure it's not going to measure up to a pro spec Canon or Nikon 70-200mm f2.8, but neither does it cost €1500.
If your lens is still under guarantee and as bad as you say it is, I'd get it checked out.
I wouldn't agree at all... I have this lens and find it great - once it has enough light and it's kept steady...
wide open at 300mm on a tripod (and sharpened from RAW)
Fabulous photograph, Beef. I am envious.
Which would be a better lens , the Canon IS EF 70-300 f4/5.6 or the
Sigma 70-300 DG ?