Nikkor 70-300 or Sigma 70-300

K

kabalman

Messages
57
Edit My Images
No
I am a beginner to DSLR photography and have owned the entry level Nikon D3000 with the standard 18-55 VR lens for 3 months now. I want to move on to buying a telephoto lens and also dabble in macro photography, but can't spend money on a dedicated macro lens for now (not even a f/2.8). I am trying to choose between a SIGMA 4.0-5.6/70-300 DG Macro (which also has a macro switch on it apparently) which is available for about £130 and the more expensive Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G which costs £200 more than the Sigma (and doesn't seem to indicate that you can shoot macros). What would you recommend, both from a quality point of view and from a value for money point of view?

With either of these lenses, will I be able to shoot good quality macros by adding a diopter/extension tube?

Any advice you can provide will be very appreciated for a novice like me.
 
If you can squeeze the extra, you will not be dissapointed with the Nikon 70-300 VR. I have it and love it - I try and shoot at F7.1-F8, and the sharpness always blows me away. :thumbs:
 
The macro on the Sigma is not ture macro but a close up focusing. I did own the Sigma until last week when I upraged to the Sigma 70-200mm EX DG Macro F2.8. I dont know what the Nikon is like but the Sigma I found not to be brilliant at 300mm the photographs can sometimes be a bit soft.
 
The Nikon wont do "macro" but its 100 times better than the sigma at everything else.

You could add a Raynox DCR-250 to the Nikon to get pretty good close ups.
 
TCR4x4 said:
The Nikon wont do "macro" but its 100 times better than the sigma at everything else.
Click to expand...

I second that. I own the sigma (apo version) and it is nothing special, especially at 300mm, about 80% of shots are either very soft or out of focus. If I was about to buy telephoto lens now, I would definitely squeeze out some more £ for something quicker like sigma 70-200 2.8 or something from nikon range.
 
I have the Nikkor lens in question. Very capable performer. Great value for money.
For macro go for the extension tube option since there will be no loss of image quality.
 
I have the Sigma and the Nikkor version. Obviously, the Nikkor is more expensive (£250ish compared to £90ish s/h), but if you can find the extra the improvement is noticeable. That's not to say the Sigma is a bad lens - for the money there's nothing really to touch it...

However, if you want to get into macro neither will really cut the mustard. Have you considered a cheap prime and something like the Raynox 250? That way you don't have to shell out that much to have a dabble at macro...
 
Naith said:
I have the Sigma and the Nikkor version. Obviously, the Nikkor is more expensive (£250ish compared to £90ish s/h), but if you can find the extra the improvement is noticeable. That's not to say the Sigma is a bad lens - for the money there's nothing really to touch it...

However, if you want to get into macro neither will really cut the mustard. Have you considered a cheap prime and something like the Raynox 250? That way you don't have to shell out that much to have a dabble at macro...
Click to expand...

Thanks all for your comments. Looks like Nikkor is the way to go provided I find the money to afford it. Where can you get the Nikkor for £250 ish? They seem to cost almost £330 cheapest.
 
I don't think you'll get the Nikon 70-300 for anything like £250, not new anyway. Cheapest seems to around £380 at the moment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top