Sigma Lens??

[CW Jones]

I am just looking at lens prices and I noticed the sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 Auto focus lenses are pretty cheap... like under $200

decent starter lens?? yes no? I know you get what you paid for but I also see a lot of people on here saying that have that lens in there signature... just trying to get a feel for what a good lens is... I know "L" lenses are better... but I dont have that kind of money haha

 

[nikonguy]

if you've got a low budget, then yes, its a decent lens...

 

[DRoberts]

Its really not a bad lens. It does have its weakness at longer focal lengths. 70mm to 135mm seems to be its sweet spot.

These are with the 70 - 300

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3078/2833289435_cafe7a060a_o.jpg

 

[tirediron]

It's a decent consumer-grade lens. The only concern I have is that there are many reports of varying quality amongst Sigma lenses.

 

[CW Jones]

Tamron any better?

 

[Overread]

not really I think - those lower level lenses are never outstanding, but they are good places to start as they don't put a lot of pressure on the budget and yet offer a lot of features - letting you play around and see what you do and don't need.
I would be tempted to say go for the sigma for its macro feature - its not proper macro but it can do a very good job of flowers and similar sized subject (infact with a tripod under it this is about its strongest area in my view).
Also if you can the Sigma 70-300mm APO edition of the lens is noticably sharper than its cheaper former model (no APO glass coatings) and if you can afford that then go for it.