Sigma 70-300mm

cian1500ww

Anyone know much about the lens below:
http://cgi.ebay.ie/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&Item=330326551588&Category=30070&_trkparms=algo%3DLVI%26its%3DI%26otn%3D1

I've decided to get a Nikon D60 and I was wondering would the above lens suit motorsport photography ? Basically rallying to be exact :cool:

Thanks in advance for any help

Kintarō Hattori

I got the APO version of that lens last year in Conns in Dublin for €200. It's a popular zoom lens as it's relatively cheap. It's a good all rounder for the money. Between 70-200mm it's sharp but it's a little soft between 200-300mm. For that price though on eBay this shouldn't be an issue. I looked at several reviews online before I made my purchase and all were highly positive.

Below are some shots I've taken with the APO version of the lens:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/liamandagnieszka/3508997832/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/liamandagnieszka/3504933795/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/liamandagnieszka/3505240992/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/liamandagnieszka/3433019446/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/liamandagnieszka/3412294097/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/liamandagnieszka/2781994613/

I hope that helps and gives you some idea as to the quality of the lens.


EDIT - Whoops I just noticed you intend to use it for a specific purpose. I've found it tends to hunt quite a bit when set to auto focus so if you need to fire shots off quickly you'd need to focus manually.

Brndn

I know a few guys using this for motorsport,the front element is only around 58mm so it fits through the wire fence at Mondello! It's also light which is a bonus, I have a 70-200 2.8 which is heavy, you'd feel it after struggling up the hillside at Arigna for Rally Ireland

cian1500ww

Thanks, I think I'll go with it so, better get the camera first !!

AnCatDubh

As a value lens the sigma 70-300mm is great but remember that it is value. You can literally spend thousands of euro on getting the perfect lens.

I have the Sigma in a Pentax fit. It gives a great range at 300mm but you will find distortion in the form of fringing at either extent of the focal range (70 or 300). In between it isn't as noticeable.

Saturation and contrast are only average with it, but you can put that in through post processing if you wish.

I haven't shot motorsports with it, however I would think (and someone correct me if they have experience to the contrary) that the autofocus isn't particularly quick. This isn't a problem if you are using it to shoot candid portraits but if you are expecting it to instantly focus on a moving vehicle then i doubt it would perform. Having said that I'd be guessing if I were to shoot motorsport with it, the most success would be with a fixed manual focus being used.

It's slow which is essentially saying that it needs good light to perform well - a fine summers day is the best. Its aperture of f4 - f5.6 will cause you grief in low light conditions - as an evening progresses or at dusk or a dull day. Essentially, your camera will have to slow down the shutter speed or up the ISO to compensate for the lens's lack of ability to get to larger apertures (lower values).

I can't vouch as to how it performs on a Nikon but anytime its mentioned on the forum it gets great 'value' based reviews. There are far better lenses out there but not at the kind of cost.

The eBay price seems pretty average - not a bargain but not a fantastic deal either. Its a bit more than what I paid for mine about two years ago but I see the seller has a non autofocus (on D60) for 95 euro - which is more like what I recall paying for mine. Perhaps the difference is having the motors in the lens for the autofocus.

Having said all of the above, I actually love mine and it finds regular use (at least until i get something better that covers that focal range).

If you search you will find many threads on the subject like this one.

AnCatDubh

Oh, should also have said that its sharpness is acceptable, but I find even when properly focussed I look at similar images that others will have taken and long for the sharpness at 100% -- to compensate for this remind yourself that no one in reality will view images at 100%, this only becomes relevant with large format prints should you go there.

For sharpness i've my sights on a Pentax DA 2.8 50-135 SDM - ( insert suitable :drool: tag )

And one last thing, its bokeh is also is worth noting as its wonderful probably due to the focal lengths its operating at.

Again, Verdict = Great lens for the money.

Thirdfox

A trade off could be the 55-200mm VR Nikkor. Cheap and great optics, but you lose 100mm (gain VR and lose some light as its an 4-5.6 lens too). As it's a 52mm thread lens any filters you get for your kit 18-55 will work on this lens too.

cian1500ww

Thanks again everyone, the focus might be a problem but I did see this lens on ebay too: http://cgi.ebay.ie/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260405842834&_trkparms=tab%3DWatching

Thirdfox

The common consensus was that the old 70-300 (the one you've linked to) is much poorer quality compared to the new 70-300mm VR Nikkor (which some use instead of their pro 70-200 f2.8 lens) Remember to check the reviews and decide if it's good enough or not.

Mycroft H

^ and remember that sigma is the non APO version, known to be very soft at 300mm. The APO version is much better

Nforce

As the others have rightly pointed out, you'll find that the lens may not be fast enough for shooting fast moving targets. If the autofocus isn't up to scratch you'll probably be disappointed with the results.
I'm using a 70-300VR f4-5.6 lens to shoot fast moving aircraft and find this very good (providing it's a nice bright day) but it's not really quick enough on dull days....therfore I'm looking to get a fast 70-200/80-200 F2.8 lens at the moment.

Anouilh

I bought this lens a year ago in Conns Cameras, as I needed a versatile lens and did not need an expensive macro Canon.

The apo version is usually recommended and seems to be worth the extra few euros. It has been reviewed often on the Boards and a search will give you plenty of links to good advice.

This might help:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055453330&page=2

One detail... it is a heavy lens and if you are planning travelling by airline, this is now a consideration. Also, it is tiring to use at first and, when hand-held, needs a bit of practice to stop kickback. Men may not find this an issue, but it may be worth thinking about if you have fine wrists.

I often use a tripod for flower and insect macro shots.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77969956@N00/2966724496/


It is a "slow" lens, as has been pointed out, so would be very frustrating as a sports lens.

It really is nice for portraits, however.

Thirdfox wrote: »

A trade off could be the 55-200mm VR Nikkor. Cheap and great optics, but you lose 100mm (gain VR and lose some light as its an 4-5.6 lens too). As it's a 52mm thread lens any filters you get for your kit 18-55 will work on this lens too.

I sometimes borrow a Nikon D40 with this lens and it is very different from the Canon with the Sigma apo macro.

It is much sharper and seems to capture light in a more moody way overall, with more vibrancy. The longer the lens, the less light, is probably the reason.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77969956@N00/3468526621/

cian1500ww

Thanks again everyone, would anyone have any good recommendations for 200/300mm lens no dearer than €250 ?

Anouilh

You might consider buying second hand in that price bracket?

Zoom lenses seem to have an average price of about 400 euro is you want to get really good results.

Perhaps if you describe the sort of photos you mostly take, people can help a bit more. Sports photography needs fast (expensive) lenses, I think.

This link

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=60007212#post60007212

contains information on the Sigma zoom.

Calina

Anouilh, that link does not contain information on the Sigma 70-300 zoom, not by my reading of it anyway.

OP, I strongly recommend that lens as a start off zoom lens for Canon users. It's not particularly fast in terms of light but if you're in the open air shooting day time you'll get away with daylight photographic murder. I've used it extensively shooting watersports - kitesurfers - for the simple reason that it's a light mobile lens. Autofocus not the fastest, but it's not really that bad either. Make sure you get the APO version though and forget the top 50mm - they are soft.

A lot depends on how financially seriously you want to take this to be honest. As a starter lens the Sigma is not a bad choice and more specifically it gets you better info on where you might want to go from there.

Nforce

I'd recommend the 70-300mmVR as a good starter lens. The vibration reduction could prove useful as you'll probably be shooting handheld? You'd get a secondhand one for ~€300.

Stephen

I bought the non-HSM (i.e. no motor) APO version of this lens when I got my Nikon D50 a few years ago. It was grand as a starter lens but I did find the slow focussing and softness of it quite irritating. As mentioned, unless you've got blinding sunlight its not going to be good for sports. That said, a decent sports lens is going to set you back many times the cost of this lens.

Short version: Good for the money, but not exactly amazing. It can do macro as well but the depth of field is so razor thin you will definately need a tripod.

cian1500ww

Well maybe I should look for a lens with less magnification, maybe a 70-200mm. That way maybe I could sacrifice magnification for better aperture ??

Anouilh

The Flickr groups are excellent for the questions you are asking. This is interesting:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canonlens/discuss/72157609509420520/

A search for any lens that interests you will give links to many pages where posters compare the pros and cons of various lens types.

I'm going to get a 50mm f 1.8 prime soon, but since you need to zoom in from a distance this might not be your best choice.

What sort of magnification do you need?
I particularly like the Sigma you started the thread with for photographing flowers high up in trees.
It gives some dreamy effects, though, as already mentioned so often, it can be soft when fully extended.
Some people actually like the softened effect, though I expect that most admire a razor sharp image.

cian1500ww

Totry and be exact as possible, the lens will be used for taking pictures of rally cars more than likely from a distance for safety purposes.

Anouilh

There are some very lively Rally Cars groups on Flickr, as a quick search will show. Joining and asking for specific advice and tips could help.

I found this

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses/129604-best-lens-sports-wildlife.html

but it mostly mentions tantalisingly expensive lenses.

cian1500ww

Anouilh wrote: »

There are some very lively Rally Cars groups on Flickr, as a quick search will show. Joining and asking for specific advice and tips could help.

I found this

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses/129604-best-lens-sports-wildlife.html

but it mostly mentions tantalisingly expensive lenses.

Ok will do, thanks. Is there anywhere apart from adverts.ie that sells secondhand photography equipment ?

Calina

cian1500ww wrote: »

Totry and be exact as possible, the lens will be used for taking pictures of rally cars more than likely from a distance for safety purposes.

There's a thread on the WRC in Sligo here somewhere (do a search on WRC). Also Challengemaster and Ricky91T have shot some rallying from time to time.

If you're looking at 70-200, there's a rather nice Canon lens but it may well be out side your price range...

other than that I can't really help.

cian1500ww

Calina wrote: »

There's a thread on the WRC in Sligo here somewhere (do a search on WRC). Also Challengemaster and Ricky91T have shot some rallying from time to time.

If you're looking at 70-200, there's a rather nice Canon lens but it may well be out side your price range...

other than that I can't really help.

Interesting, will do. Yeah I'm on a tight budget which is why I initially thought the sigma would suit. I guess I'll have to keep looking, maybe a good secondhand one would come up