Need help choosing a 70-300mm lens

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by SlimPaul, Jan 17, 2009.

  1. SlimPaul

    SlimPaul TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Hi,

    Right now all I have is a D90 with the kit 18-105mm VR and a 50mm 1.8. While looking at all the beautiful shots of animals, I thought that a tele lens could come in handy for the holidays. My budget for the lens is about $200. The two lenses that fit in that price range are Nikkor 70-300 4-5.6 AF G and Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 DG APO. The parameters seem to be the same. After seeing some sample photos, I've noticed that the Sigma isn't that sharp. Please help me out.

    Thanks, Paul
     
  2. tirediron

    tirediron Watch the Birdy! Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    37,316
    Likes Received:
    10,636
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I've never used the Sigma, so I can't comment on it, but I would strongly advise staying away from the Nikon. It suffers horribly from purple fringing, is cheaply made, and worst of all, has a plastic lens mount. Consider looking for a used copy of the ED version of this lens. It still suffers somewhat from purple fringing, but is a more solidly built lens with better glass, and has a metal mount.
     
  3. SlimPaul

    SlimPaul TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Tirediron, maybe you just got a "bad" copy ;) What I've read from Ken Rockwell's review, is that both lenses have the same optics and image quality. And what's so bad about the plastic mount?
     
  4. tirediron

    tirediron Watch the Birdy! Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    37,316
    Likes Received:
    10,636
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Ah yes, controversial Ken. Ken's purpose is to support Nikon. Much like asking a Ford dealer if he'd recommend the new F-150. That aside, you really believe that Nikon would put the same optics in to a $140 lens that they would into a $450 lens? Granted you probably won't notice a significant difference during most shooting, but compare the two when shooting a light against dark situation; say a person standing in bright sunlight, wearing a white hat situated against a dark background.


    As far as the question of the lens mount, don't forget the mounting ring in your camera is metal. If the lens mount is plastic, and the camera metal, then think Moh's Scale. Nuff said?

    The simple fact is that in optics, at least with major names, you get what you pay for. If you're at al serious about your photography, than the $140 lens won't satisfy you for long, and you'll be regretting the decision. Speaking from experience, you'll be much better off in the long run to wait a bit, save up a little more, and get a better lens. Of course all of this advice is worth exactly what you've paid for it...
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2009

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
sigma 70-300mm macro ken rockwell
,

sigma 70-300mm review ken rockwell