Opinions? Sigma 70-300mm for Canon: F4-5.6 DG APO Macro

sonikin · Dec 20, 2009

I shoot with a Canon XSi, and I'm looking for a good zoom lens for larger focal lengths. The macro capability is a nice bonus to me, even though it isn't true 1:1 macro.

In general, a good buy? Quality?

L.L.Lozeau - Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG APO Macro for Canon

jman6785 · Dec 20, 2009

also listening..

LuckySo-n-So · Dec 20, 2009

I don't have the APO version, but make sure you have lots of light. A whole lot of light.

Overread · Dec 21, 2009

For a budget telephoto its a decent lens. The APO edition makes for a sharper image in the 200-300mm range, though it still tends to soften in that range. For its price point I rather like it and its older nonAPO edtion was the lens I used for some time.

I personally found that a good solid support (tripod - a cheap one will do if you have your hand on the setup when taking shots --- or a beanbag if you are low down) was essential and made a very noticabale improvment to the quality of images one was able to capture when using the lens at the longer focal lengths.

In addition its function as a macro lens (even though not true macro) is quite impressive and it gives some good results - subjects like flowers (and similar sized objects) are great with this lens and its long focal length gives it a good background blur.

Like I said there are better lenses on the market, but they will all cost you more.

Big Mike · Dec 21, 2009

In general, a good buy? Quality?

That depends on what you are expecting to get out of it.
As with most 70-300mm lenses, it's a cheap consumer level lens...probably not as good as your 18-55mm 'kit' lens. With the long focal length and smallish max aperture, it will struggle in lower light situations.

There are, of course, much better options...but they will be much more expensive. So unless you are willing to spend at at least 3x times as much, you aren't going to find anything that is a whole lot better.
As long as you don't try to push it's limits, it's probably a decent lens.

sonikin · Dec 21, 2009

Thanks for the replies.

Let's shift this conversation to what would rather be a good option for a lens of about that focal range, macro capable or not (a nice bonus though). But let's not think extravagant and suggest 2,000$+ lenses.

Green Li · Dec 22, 2009

Let's face it, it's a cheap lens, but it gives you good zoom range.
Other thing to consider:
* Sharpness is far from perfect, but decent
* Motor is slow
* Lens tend to hunt a lot when light is dim
* Barrel not only extends when zooming but also rotates - problem with polarizers
* I don't really like the bokeh of this lens but that's subjective

Despite all of the above, it's a good starter telephoto lens.

Hope this helps.

sonikin · Dec 22, 2009

so what would be the next lens up the ladder from the Sigma?

Big Mike · Dec 23, 2009

I think the next step up from the group of cheap 70-300mm lenses, would be the Canon 70-300mm IS. While the Image Stabilizer does help quite a bit with a lens like this, I believe it also has an upgraded design which makes it a better lens, IS or not.

There is the Canon EF 100-400mm L IS. It's a very big, heavy lens but has very good image quality. It's still 'slow', having a max aperture of F4-5.6 but it's certainly much better than those 70-300mm lenses.

Then there are the 70-200mm lenses. Canon has four models, all with L classification.
70-200mm F4 L
70-200mm F4 L IS
70-200mm F2.8 L
70-200mm F2.8 L IS
All four are fantastic lenses. The F2.8 models work pretty well with Tele Converters, so you could add something like the 1.4X TC to have more range.
Sigma & Tamron also have 70-200mm F2.8 lenses. They are pretty good, but not quite as good as the Canon models. They are about half the price though.

After that, to step up you probably need to look at prime lenses. Canon has 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses that are fantastic but fairly expensive.

TJ K · Dec 23, 2009

Big Mike said:
I think the next step up from the group of cheap 70-300mm lenses, would be the Canon 70-300mm IS. While the Image Stabilizer does help quite a bit with a lens like this, I believe it also has an upgraded design which makes it a better lens, IS or not.

There is the Canon EF 100-400mm L IS. It's a very big, heavy lens but has very good image quality. It's still 'slow', having a max aperture of F4-5.6 but it's certainly much better than those 70-300mm lenses.

Then there are the 70-200mm lenses. Canon has four models, all with L classification.
70-200mm F4 L
70-200mm F4 L IS
70-200mm F2.8 L
70-200mm F2.8 L IS
All four are fantastic lenses. The F2.8 models work pretty well with Tele Converters, so you could add something like the 1.4X TC to have more range.
Sigma & Tamron also have 70-200mm F2.8 lenses. They are pretty good, but not quite as good as the Canon models. They are about half the price though.

After that, to step up you probably need to look at prime lenses. Canon has 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses that are fantastic but fairly expensive.

After those primes he might want something like this but it might need like a 2x TC :lol:

Big Mike · Dec 23, 2009

After those primes he might want something like this but it might need like a 2x TC

I'm waiting on that one for the EF version, so I don't have to use an FD to EF adapter.

sonikin · Dec 23, 2009

Thanks TJ K for you insight. I've heard from many people though to stay away from Canon's non-L lenses, for image quality reasons, and that third party lenses of this prie bracket from Sigma and Tameron are better.

Big Mike · Dec 23, 2009

Thanks TJ K for you insight. I've heard from many people though to stay away from Canon's non-L lenses, for image quality reasons, and that third party lenses of this prie bracket from Sigma and Tameron are better.

I wouldn't say to stay away from non-L, Canon lenses. Some of them are very good and priced very well. For example, the 50mm F1.4 & the 85mm F1.8.

My take on 3rd party lenses is that at the top end, they are almost as good at top of the line Canon/Nikon lenses. Maybe 85-90% as good...but at about half the price.
For some people that extra 10% in quality, is well worth the extra price...but some people would never know the difference, so it would make sense for them to go with the cheaper lenses.

Resale value might be a consideration. Top quality lenses (like Canon L series) will hold their value very well. Probably much better than any 3rd party lenses.