Sigma 70-300 APO

33L · 23 Sep 2007 at 15:56

Hi all,

i know a few members here have got the mentioned lens and was wondering if you guys/gals can post examples at different focal lengths with the lens and feedback on use i.e speed of focusing general use and problems with them.

I will be mounting mine on my canon 400d.

Cheers 33L

divine` · 23 Sep 2007 at 16:32

Focuses slowly, loud, nigh on useless in much other than bright sunshine.

You get what you pay for.

Joe T · 23 Sep 2007 at 17:08

AGreed, but still as good as you can get for the money though.

divine` · 23 Sep 2007 at 17:10

Indeed, the 'you get what you pay for' was meant to imply that nothing at that price will be great. The APO is the best in it's 'class' (cheap tele zoom) just that class isn't a particularly good one.

boycee · 23 Sep 2007 at 17:17

divine` said:
Focuses slowly, loud, nigh on useless in much other than bright sunshine.

Perhaps a little harsh lol! I manage with it, and have got some pretty good pics!

http://www.croyce.co.uk/photos/Ireland-Dublin/ <-- ALL taken with 70-300APO

I admit, it does hunt in low light, but I'm quite happy with it. As already mentioned bang for buck it's very good!

divine` · 23 Sep 2007 at 17:21

Not harsh at all, they're all truthful.

Cookie-Monster · 23 Sep 2007 at 17:54

i think its a touch harsh, it can produce pretty darn sharp images, although yes its a cheap lens and as such it is slow and loud.

I found it to be a great robust versatile little lens for the money, and at that price point probably one of the best you'll find, although having said that have now traded up and selling my 75-300

all 3 below taken with the Sigma 75-300 APO before getting my sigma 120-300

V-Spec · 23 Sep 2007 at 18:00

In all fairness some of the shots people have posted using this lens are pretty fair considering this lens is only around £150.... I think you'll struggle to do better for £150...

33L · 23 Sep 2007 at 19:48

dammitt and there i was thinking i might of stumbled on some cheap greatness. oh well back to the 75-300 IS USM then.

Starts counting pennies 1,2,3,4....

Cookie-Monster · 23 Sep 2007 at 19:52

how cheap were you thinking? , I've got a 70-300APO for sale at the moment?

divine` · 23 Sep 2007 at 19:55

It's good enough for the price it is but no £150 tele zoom is ever going to be that good really.

Vertigo · 23 Sep 2007 at 20:11

If money is tight I'd recommend waiting a month or two until the new Canon EF-S 55-250 IS makes an appearance. RRP of £240 with a good zoom range and image stabilisation could make this a very interesting lens.

Cookie-Monster · 23 Sep 2007 at 20:47

divine` said:
It's good enough for the price it is but no £150 tele zoom is ever going to be that good really.

but thats always the argument isnt it. for that price point its a very good lens.

when i was buying the 120-300 f2.8 i got a lot of feedback saying "But it isnt as fast or sharp as a 300m f2.8 L"

however my lens cost me £700 and a 300 f2.8 L goes for around £3.5k

you have to compare like with like and if thats what is affordable IT IS a good lens

it takes more work and more effort to produce sharp images and the bin rate is probably higher, but i've shot at airshows and at Brands Hatch succesfully with that lens on both a 300D and a 5D

divine` · 23 Sep 2007 at 21:06

It's good for the price. That doesn't mean it is good in absolute terms, because it isn't.

In hindsight I perhaps wouldn't have bought mine and have saved for something better.

ElDude · 23 Sep 2007 at 21:36

I've got this lens, and I honestly can't remember the last time I used it. It is a bit of a git to get sharp shots at times. Sometimes shots have come out a little soft for me.

http://niallallen.deviantart.com/art/Viaduct-47981055

These are the only shots I've got uploaded, and to be honest I've no idea why I uploaded the above one at all. I REALLY hate that shot. This was taken over a year ago, and was on a tripod too.

I think this shot was taken with it too. This one was in strong bright light and handheld (I remember as I had a enormous hangover when I took it). http://niallallen.deviantart.com/art/Rubbish-48204790

Hodders · 24 Sep 2007 at 10:52

These were all taken with the same lens:

Balb0wa · 24 Sep 2007 at 11:04

This lens can be got for £97 new on ebay.

Ive had one before, it was ok, some shot from people using the lens:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=266596

Scam · 24 Sep 2007 at 11:46

divine` said:
It's good for the price. That doesn't mean it is good in absolute terms, because it isn't.

*sigh* This argument again!

I love this lens. I'm not willing to pay hundreds or thousands of pounds on kit for a hobby of mine. Getting this lens for £140 was a bargain. It's a great length, definately sharp enough for the hobbyist, has macro ability (that's a great bonus), is well built and feels sturdy, came with a hood and case and most importantly - can produce great results. If you're a hobbyist you really cant go wrong.

Here's a few examples.

Honestly, for someone who is looking for a zoom to take shots to post on the web, maybe get a few shots printed off.. you cant go wrong. I used the tricks i learnt from using my kit lens to get the most out of this one. Eg. Stop down whenever you can (to get sharper shots) and taking your time on processing (something which i enjoy anyway).

33L · 24 Sep 2007 at 13:20

all the above are good examples. Its not a purchase thats going to happen for a month at least but as everyone else says as a budget lens it is a good lens. I cant afford l glass anyway and will probably be a waste on me as i am doing it as a hobby for now. if i can afford the canon 70-300 IS USM then i will but as mentioned if the 55-250 IS comes out and gets good reviews it will certainly be on my list as an alterantive.

GSXRMovistar · 24 Sep 2007 at 23:04

For the price I think the Sigma is a fanastic lens, I picked mine up for £109 and most of the images here http://www.bakersplace.co.uk/WarsawOldTown/ were taken with it.