SIGMA 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens

[RandomlySet]

Is this lens any good?

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/camer...oom-lens-for-canon-03915059-pdt.html#longDesc

I just happened to spot it whilst browsing in PC World yesterday.

I am still finding my feet in photography, and whilst the video and text says this is perfect for wildlife, sport etc, I have never shot any. So far, I find myself doing city/town life, buildings etc. But this could let me try other things too.

 

[Phil-D]

I would say, for the money, definitely! Others will nodoubt disagree. I had one for just over 18 months, bought it 2nd hand off here, £60 I think when they were about £120 new.

I got some great results with it, sold it for £50 so was well worth the tenner I lost for the use I had.

I have a few on mi flickr took with it, let me know if you want to see a couple

 

[odd jim]

Lots of reviews online! It's not a macro lens though (despite Sigmas own description).

 

[Barso]

Tripod or steady hands are favourable as there is no IS to compensate at 300mm. At £87 it gets you past the kit lens range, some like it others hate it......you decide

 

[a1ex2001]

For a long while it was the budget telephoto of choice as for the money it is very good the only real criticism is a lack of IS and the sharpness falls off beyond 250mm

These days if your on a crop and don't have a big budget I'd go with the canon 50-250mm IS it's small, cheap, sharp and has great IS get the stm version if budget allows.

 

[RandomlySet]

Thanks, that's what I was thinking, for less than £100 I get a brand new lens to try. Fair enough it may not have IS, but it's better than forking out more on a "better" lens to later discover I don't actually need anything like that in my collection.

 

[Barso]

A long lens would be imo part of any kit, they give you more reach if you need it, a narrower field of view and let you compress the background. As you find your way you will find photography requires you to experiment with different ways of capturing images....a long lens covers this aspect. Don't be thinking that a long lens is only for (eg) capturing a robin at 30ft in a tree, there are far more times when a long lens is more effective.

 

[odd jim]

Thanks, that's what I was thinking, for less than £100 I get a brand new lens to try. Fair enough it may not have IS, but it's better than forking out more on a "better" lens to later discover I don't actually need anything like that in my collection.

The Canon 55-250 is a MUCH better lens, you should be able to pick a like new used one for £100.

Don't fall into the trap buying cheap. Pay a bit more for something decent.

 

[RandomlySet]

Jim, I agree.... As I always say yo SWMBO "buy cheap buy twice" lol. Just need to check my budget and think do I want a telephoto or wide angle? I was planning on wide angle next TBH

 

[a1ex2001]

A long lens would be imo part of any kit, they give you more reach if you need it, a narrower field of view and let you compress the background. As you find your way you will find photography requires you to experiment with different ways of capturing images....a long lens covers this aspect. Don't be thinking that a long lens is only for (eg) capturing a robin at 30ft in a tree, there are far more times when a long lens is more effective.

It's funny I've had a 70-210mm f4 in my bag since I got into photography and I've probably shot 100 frames with it, it's a lovely sharp lens but I just very very rarely feel the need I've mostly taken pictures from the top of tall building picking out bit' of the surroundings with it like this example:


San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice by a1ex2001, on Flickr

If I want to lighten my bag it is always pretty much the first thing to go! The only occasions I've really needed a long lens have been a couple of safari type outings (India and Sri Lanka) when I've rented or bought and sold a 100-400mm L.