Sigma 70-300 Reviews?

[sk8boarder]

I'm thinking about getting a Sigma 70-300 lens once I get my Nikon D50.
Has anyone ever used one? Are they any good?
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B000A0UHXU/ref=sr_1_7/104-1081517-5934328?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1174962368&sr=1-7[/ame]
I saw some good reviews on amazon but I was just wondering if anyone around here has used one.
I'm sorry if there's a thread on this already, I tried searching and I didn't see anything.

- Thanks

 

[Big Mike]

From what I can tell...it's a typical consumer level zoom lens. The max aperture is it's biggest limitation...this means that unless you are in rather bright light, you may struggle to get shutter speeds fast enough to stop moving subjects or eliminate blur from camera shake.

As for image quality...it's probably better than most 'digi-cams' but it will be closer to the bottom when compared to more expensive lenses that are avaliable for that camera.

To sum up, if you don't expect professional performance out if it...it's a good lens...at a good price. If you need something that performs better, then save your money and get something better.

 

[agonzalez]

I've always read about that... It is better to have bigger aperture (1.8, etc etc) but on Zoom lens it is difficult to find something like that... the difference in prices between a 2.8 and a common 4-5.6 is simply huge, sometimes a couple thousand $$

 

[sk8boarder]

Thanks Mike, How much would it be if I were to get a lense that does a little better in low light? Any recomendations?
I have to work in low light allot so it wouldn't hurt if I had somthing a little better but I definatly don't have thousands of dollars to spend. Also, would it help if I used a tripod even if what I'm taking a picture of is moving?

- Thanks

 

[DeepSpring]

The sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is around $800 - $900 I believe if you really wanted to save for a faster lens.

As far as that lens I have used it but I have herd it is pretty good for the price. Im debating between that one and the canon version.

edit: just saw the low light question
The 50mm f/1.8 is extremely reccomended and only runs around $80. You will find one in many many photographers bags.

A tripod will only help the camera shake of you moving. If you have a slow shutter on a tripod and your subject is moving fast they will have motion blur, which could look good in some cases. I know canon has the IS lenses to help stabalize he camera without a tripod so you may want to look into nikons version I believe it is VR?

 

[Claff]

I'm fairly certain that I have this lens in question, though I got mine as part of a cheapish two-lens set (28-90, 70-300) from Ritz.

Knowing what I know now but did not know at the time of purchase, low light is the lens' killer. Again, I didn't know what I know now when I first brought the lens out to shoot a baseball game in very overcast (stadium lights on) conditions and it took a lot of work to lighten up the pics to usefulness (http://www.claffie.com/photos/060902/index.html), plus the pics can get a little fuzzy at the full 300mm length. But I was shooting sports action, under pretty tough conditions, handheld so I'll take a good chunk of the blame for it.

For the money you'll get a very serviceable lens, though with the knowledge that you can probably find something better if you're willing to part with the cash should factor into your decision.

 

[sk8boarder]

Thanks guys.

Yeah, I know about the f/1.8 Nikkor lens. I'll probably get that one too...
But somthing that I probably should of mentioned before is that I want a lens that has about the same amount of zoom as the one I posted about. I don't want a professional lens, just somthing that will give me half way decent shots in mid/low light with a good zoom. Looking at the price range of like $200 max. Maybey i'm being too optimistic...

-Thanks

 

[Big Mike]

You won't find anything around 300mm, that is better in low light...that is less than 10 times your $200 budget.

As mentioned, the next best (going up the price scale) telephoto zoom for lower light would the Sigma 70-200 F2.8. Nikon also has a 70-200 F2.8 lens.

Also, as mentioned, I'd suggest a fast prime (non zoom) lens for low light photography. The 50m F1.8 or something like an 85mm F1.8 etc.

Shooting moving subjects in low light is about the hardest thing you can ask your equipment to do...especially for a telephoto lens. This is why professional sports shooters use lenses that cost $6,000-$10,000.

 

[sk8boarder]

Thanks, i'll probably end up getting this lens and try to go out to shoot when there's plenty of light.
If not, I'll deal with the no zoom of the f/1.8 50mm Nikor lens.


Thanks again