sigma 70-300

I've got one for my 400D. Mainly use it when I go to motorsport events. Not got any complaints about it. I posted a few pics in the motorsport thread that I took with it.
 
Thankyou No one;) nice pics,and Vanand I have a 600d.i have an eye on a canon 70-300mm but not sure if paying the xtra would be of benefit to a beginner like me.
 
It used to be the king of the budget heap but I think that crown has passed to the canon 50-250mm is lens it's smaller, sharper and has great stabilisation.
 
Thankyou guys.
I was thinking 55-250 which would be 400 on a crop,would this be close enough for birds and stuff,cuz that was the only reason I was thinking 300mm giving 480 or so?
Also the STM version is almost double the price of the IS2 version,good for video shooting I hear but I'm not too bothered with that.
 
None of the cheap cheap 70-300's are sharp enough beyond c. 200mm to really say that they have a reach advantage over the 55-250. You'd get similar quality just cropping.

If you need absolutely need the reach then you need to be getting either the Tamron VC (c. £300) model (not for the VR, brilliant as it is, more because the optics are much better than the c. £100 ones) or the proper Canon model (70-300 IS, again c. £300, but a bit more than the Tamron)
 
Ksanti said:
None of the cheap cheap 70-300's are sharp enough beyond c. 200mm to really say that they have a reach advantage over the 55-250. You'd get similar quality just cropping.

If you need absolutely need the reach then you need to be getting either the Tamron VC (c. £300) model (not for the VR, brilliant as it is, more because the optics are much better than the c. £100 ones) or the proper Canon model (70-300 IS, again c. £300, but a bit more than the Tamron)
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that tbh. I owned the sigma 70-300 with my first DSLR (D5100) and it was truly awful. Couldn't get a decent shot out of it at 300mm as its sharpness and contrast really did top out at around 230mm or so. It also had terrible zoom creep.

Its so tempting to just buy cheap all the time, but better glass really does make a difference to the photos! Better off saving for longer imo.
 
Get the 55-250 STM. It's not really long enough for birds though, not small ones anyway. You've got birders using 500mm primes on crop bodies and it's not close enough :p

I have the 55-250 IS II and happy with it for the money :)
 
One of the cheapest ways to get extreme reach with decent image quality is to use a Nikon V1 + FT-1 adaptor and whichever f-mount lens you choose.

It retains full AF & metering with no loss of light and because of the 2.7x crop factor, the cheap Nikon 55-300 VR (as an example) would become a very powerful 150-810mm with stabilisation.

The V1 has a 60 fps burst as well which is great for birds!
 
Columbo said:
One of the cheapest ways to get extreme reach with decent image quality is to use a Nikon V1 + FT-1 adaptor and whichever f-mount lens you choose.

It retains full AF & metering with no loss of light and because of the 2.7x crop factor, the cheap Nikon 55-300 VR (as an example) would become a very powerful 150-810mm with stabilisation.

The V1 has a 60 fps burst as well which is great for birds!
Click to expand...

*twitches*

That's... Not.. How.. Crop factors... WORK

*Explodes*

The only advantage you get over just cropping through using a small sensor is pixel density, but that doesn't matter when you're using a cheap lens that isn't anywhere near approaching the resolving power of the sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom