Sigma 70-300?

Curt

Senior Member
Can anyone tell me about the Sigma 70-300 4.0-5.6 macro lens?
I see I could pick one up for under $200.00. I am looking for a macro focus lens.
I don’t really need a zoom, but the price is really good, even if I only use the macro feature. Anyone out there have one and is it any good? I am a bit of a purest and have only Nikkor lens right now, that is why I am a bit hasten to buy a Sigma. Is the quality there in this lens?
 

torgo

New member
<ObDisclaimer>I don't have this lens, nor have I used it.</ObDisclaimer>

After doing some searches for this lens, it looks like the "macro" functionality is more just close-focusing, not true macro. According to Sigma, you can achieve 1:2 magnification (half life size) by enabling the macro mode at the longer focal lengths, decreasing the minimum focusing distance but not getting you to the true macro range of 1:1 magnification.

If you're looking to do true macro photography, you may be left wanting; it's likely to be a little softer than a dedicated macro lens, and the magnification won't be there without using extension tubes or a close-focus diopter. If what you want is being able to get close-up photos, then you might be OK.
It's an older lens, but for less than $200 at least you're not getting ripped off. :) Reviews are the usual mixed bag; some people say it works great, others comments talk about the problems they've had, so it's hard to get a good feel for the overall quality of the lens from that. As long as wherever you get it from has a decent return policy, you could get it and see how it works for you.
 

Curt

Senior Member
Thank you so much for the information. I too have read some mixed reviews on this lens.
I see it in a flyer for $189.00. But I am thinking I will stay with Nikon (60mm. Macro).
 

torgo

New member
Thank you so much for the information. I too have read some mixed reviews on this lens.
I see it in a flyer for $189.00. But I am thinking I will stay with Nikon (60mm. Macro).
If you're not adverse to buying used, the Nikon 105mm AF-D might be a good low-cost choice too. Depending on what you want to take pictures of, 60mm might be too short of a focal length (most creatures won't stand for a front objective that's half an inch from them). I picked up mine about a year ago for something like $350 on eBay. Since you have a D80, you'd get AF with it too (for what it's worth at 1:1 magnifications). :)
 

cfphil

New member
If you are really on a budget, you can look for a 28-105 D 3.5-4.5. They are pretty sharp at f8 and the macro is decent for the price. I picked one up for $150. They are not as sharp all around on the corners as a dedicated macro, but for the price, it is not bad. Look at the cayfish image in my gallery. I took it using the 28-105. I think it was at 90mm with macro mode on.

The Sigma will just disappoint you. IMO.
 

Curt

Senior Member
Thanks for the tip, the 28-105mm you are referring to, is it a Nikkor lens, or Sigma? Do you know of a place you can pick it up at that price?
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
I went to a Tamron sponsored macro workshop a couple years ago and used the Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD. I was pretty impressed. If I hadn't already purchased the Nikon 70-300 I probably would have picked this one. A few samples from the event are here: http://www.pbase.com/edombek/tamron
 

Curt

Senior Member
Is $190.00 a good price for the Nikkor 28-105mm lens? It is in perfect shape still in the box with a couple filters.
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
I have read good reviews of this budget lens: Sigma 70-300mmf/4-5.6 Macro APO DG

Make sure it is the APO version! Weighing in at around $200, it's going to be hard to beat unless you get lucky and find something used in good working order. It comes with a lens hood, but is 1:2, not a true 1:1 macro...though I've read that it does produce very nice macro results for the price.

Not that my personal endorsement carries any weight, but this lens is #2 item on my purchase list, right after a 50mm prime.
 
Top