Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro vs. Nikon 70-300 ED

Hello everybody

Has anybody been able to try both of these lenses? Basically, I like the features of the Sigma lens, particularly the Macro capability, and sharpness should be ok for me being no pro (not even a good amateur, for that matter) and not shooting slide film (pretty obvious with a D50, I guess ). However, build quality seems to be not so great (had one in my hands, and while it "felt" ok, it weighted almost nothing).

How does it compare to the 70-300 ED? I've been able to test-shoot the 70-300G, and the chromatic aberrations really bothered me (I like shooting animals, and they often have black/white contrasts). Is this much better on the ED? How is sharpness? One thing that's definately in favor of it - it's Nikon. I know that sounds stupid maybe, but I guess the resale value (if I choose to one day) and build quality should be better.

Important to know may be that I really want to use the lens at 300 mm a lot, so "it's pretty sharp at 200" won't help me much.

Any thoughts? If you want to know what kind of stuff I'm shooting, look at http://www.n.ethz.ch/student/bgreber/index2.html

Thanks in advance!

Basil

I have the Sigma 70-300 APO DG. I shoot mostly wildlife and nature shots. Here is a "macro" notice the moss in the foreground.



Then, here is a red-bellied woodpecker shot at 300mm, how is the sharpness?



I like the light weight and cost of this lens. Since I traverse rugged terrain and cover many miles it makes sense not to risk damaging a $2000 lens, let alone the cumbersome weight of such.

Thanks for your reply! Looks great, very crisp & sharp. How does it look when you zoom in to 100%? Almost everything looks sharp when viewing pictures resized from full frame - I guess you agree with that. Thanks anyway, looks like the Sigma is good "bang for the buck" optically...

I agree with you on the large, expensive lenses. I can't afford them, and I wouldn't want to use such a lense either (at least for now) because I too like being mobile (biking, hiking, even did some easy climbing once) with my camera + lenses.

Basil

I have a cheap telephoto I rarely use anymore because I've come to appreciate the sharpness and colour I get out of my better lenses, and if I had my time again, I'd avoid buying a cheap tele at all, and put the money toward a better lens later on, perhaps a second hand 180mm f/2.8 or something.

As for risking an expensive lens, your camera is expensive too, so you're going to cry when you drop your bag off a cliff, regardless of which lens you're using

Seriously, though, the quality difference between what I get out of my 50mm f/1.8 or even the 18-70mm, and out of my cheap telephoto has convinced me to save my pennies for a 80-200mm f/2.8 (or something similar).

I wish I could afford such a lens... unfortunately I can't.

Basil

You can get great results from the Sigma. Don't let lens lust bum you out. Sure, we'd all like to have the 70-200VR, but its not feasible for many of us. Here's another from the Sigma that you are considering:



--
http://cmvsm.zoto.com/galleries/favorites6227

--
My gallery: http://letkeman.net/Photos
Fuji Finepix F11
Nikon D70s, Sigma 18-200, Nikkor 50mm 1.8D, Sigma 70-300APO

--
Visit my website at
http://www.danielsdiaz.com
or my Gallery at
http://www.betterphoto.com?daniel_diaz

There seems to be a lot of support for the Sigma on this forum, but it seems that its front element rotates, while the Nikon's doesn't (please correct me if I'm wrong!). For those who use a circular polariser sometimes has this proved to be a problem?

Is focussing speed noticeably different?

Thanks for your contributions everybody!

Anybody with experience with the 70-300 ED?

Basil

Basil,

Sorry, I only have the G version and yes there is a lot of CA. One suggestion on how to improve any lens for 100 dollars: Nikon Capture has a simple CA removing function. It works on any picture. There is also an automatic function that will aply it to all pics you view (I think, I don't have the program yet.)

I just got a used Nikon 80-200 f2.8 (skipping entirely the 70-300 ED) and I'm debating how much difference there is. CA is definitely worse on the 70-300G, but the 70-300g is lighter and CA can be fixed. There is a suggestion that the only optical difference between the g and the ED is one ED element. The build quality is better, but, that might not affect the pics.

If you don't think you will be going for better glass after you get the 70-300 XX Lens maybe spend the extra on the ED and be done with it, but if you are using it as a stepping up lens and you'll have something better in the near future (remember cheap used Nikons) then the G can hold you over until you do. That's what the G has done for me. And in the end, when you get the "better" lens you can directly compare between the G and your next lens (as I'm doing now) and you will find uses for each one, or just keep the one you like.

Guy Moscoso

Thanks! Much appreciated.

Basil

I have the Nikon ED and although I havent given it any real use yet, the few test shots I've done (literally firing a few off in the living room) I have been quite impressed with. THe build quality is a match for the kit lens I got with the D70s, it is a nice wight but not heavy and feels much more substantial than the G version which I could have got new from a local Dixons store having a lens clear out for £49.99. It did feel like junk (sorry to anyone who ownes this lens), very light and cheap. The Nikon ED doesnt have macro, but other than that I have heard regularly that the other capabilities of the the Nikon and the Sigma are very similar. Hope this helps.

I've had it for some time, and I liked it. It is a little soft between 200 and 300 mm, but it hasn't bothered me much. Here is a few pics, I've taken with the 70-300 ED:

Ok, thank you very much everybody!

I've done what was suggested by Guy Moscoso. I might be upgrading later, who knows (maybe I win the lottery or whatever ). So I got a fairly cheap used Sigma APO lens (75-300 4.5-5.6) which is said to be quite good (based on what I read on the internet) and even has some Macro capability. Bought it for a fairly low price (less than a new 70-300 G Nikkor would cost anyway), and from what I've seen so far (that's not much, though) it has no chromatic aberrations and it's sharpness is ok (at least it can resolve the individual hairs on the carpet on the floor - more serious tests to follow ).

Thanks for all your input, I really appreciate that! And I also liked looking at the nice pictures some of you posted!

Basil

Hi...

I had a similar post going in the Nikon SLR Lense forum. Im about to buy a D50 with the 18-70 lense... I'm off to Zambia in a month and want alense to get some good wildlife shots. Cant afford the 18-200VR (!) so thinking of using a monopod with one of the following lenses....

Nikon 70-300AF ED
Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro

There seems to be support for both of these lenses here....and I can be easily convinced either way!! I get the impression that th sSigma has more of a macro capability than the Nikon... is this true or am I misinterpreting the posts (Im new to this so thats quite possible!)

Extremely grateful for any more posts on the pros and cons of both of these...

Thanks guys,

Chris

Oops - forgot something....

Id also be grateful for any advice on filters that would be useful for everyday use but also particularly for getting the best out of shots in Zambia... wildlife / landscape / safari type shots...

Hope I havnt hijacked this thread - just seems that there is a wealth of knowledge and experience out there to tap into...

Thanks once again, Chris

ChrisJGoodman said:

Hi...

I had a similar post going in the Nikon SLR Lense forum. Im about
to buy a D50 with the 18-70 lense... I'm off to Zambia in a month
and want alense to get some good wildlife shots. Cant afford the
18-200VR (!) so thinking of using a monopod with one of the
following lenses....

Nikon 70-300AF ED
Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro

There seems to be support for both of these lenses here....and I
can be easily convinced either way!! I get the impression that th
sSigma has more of a macro capability than the Nikon... is this
true or am I misinterpreting the posts (Im new to this so thats
quite possible!)

Click to expand...

The Nikon (like most telephotos) can't focus nearer than about 6 feet. The Sigma has a macro switch which you can use between 200mm and 300mm, which reduces the minimum focus distance. You can get a reproduction ratio of 1:2 with the Sigma at 300mm, which is about half of what a "true" macro lens can achieve. Essentially that means you could fill the frame with an object 2 inches wide. With a macro lens you can get down to one inch.

Both of these lenses are difficult to use, btw, and will make you work hard to get good shots especially in poor light.

ChrisJGoodman said:

Extremely grateful for any more posts on the pros and cons of both
of these...

Thanks guys,

Chris

Click to expand...

I'm a newbie as far as filters are concerned. I usually use UV filters as mechanical protection for the front element of my lenses. You may also find a skylight filter useful (avoids blue casts when photographing under very blue skies, as far as I know...).

Good luck on the other decision!

Basil

Oh, and BTW, the Nikkor has a reproduction ratio of 1/3.9. Actually the old Sigma XX-300 APO Macro lenses have 1/4 reproduction ratios (so the only difference in macro capability is that one lens has written Macro on it and the other has not ), the new ones have 1/2.

Basil