Bubbabyte Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 LINK The Camera in the link is one i've been eyeing for a while now, but i'm confused about something. Some reviews, websites have it listed as APO and others don't. Are there different variations of this lens, like newer, some older etc.. and wtf does APO even mean? It's a perfect lens for me as i would like to do some Macro shots, and would like to have a 300mm zoom just incase it's needed. I fully understand that it doesn't have IS, not a big deal for me as i will rarely use it at the 300mm level. Can anyone with this lens confirm it's good/bad etc and that there is only 1 version of the lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noroom Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 I have never tried that lens before, but f4 for a 70-300 that doesn't have IS? No way. That lens would only be good for studio work on a tripod, or in very bright outdoors. Anything else, and it will just be too dark. It's slow and doesn't have IS. Then again, it's dirt cheap for a superzoom. But you do get what you pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rageagainstmachine Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 I have an sigma 70 -300 macro lens i can sell you if you want? awesome nic. only selling as im saving pennies for a 24-70 HSM. PM if interested. cheers forget that, =mines is nikon fit. sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbabyte Posted December 25, 2009 Author Share Posted December 25, 2009 I just reallyi want a relatively cheap lens that has zoom + Macro.. or are all zoom lenses able to pull off macro shots? I've never owned one so i'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpu killer Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Honestly, I just got myself another D70 body and with it came a 28-300 Sigma 3.5-6.3 non-IS. Honestly, I hate using the lens. The super zoom is great but the pictures aren't nearly sharp enough in low light and the colors are pretty faded. I can't really even compare it to my kit Nikkor 18-55 3.5-5.6, colors on the Nikkor are way brighter and the images are a lot sharper. It's a good budget lens especially at the price, but you WILL miss IS (or VR, depending on who you ask), and the overall quality of Sigma isn't all that great. Also, it has small annoying problems such as a REALLY loud AF motor, sometimes AF "hunts" for the subject too long before focusing, if at all, and it won't AF if I'm tilting the lens downwards. Overall I'd say get it if you're on a definite budget, otherwise look for a better prime lens or one with a shorter focal length. I'd even reccomend the Nikkor 55-200 over it. http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/product...&lid=627063 Just my 0.02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5Horizons Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Yeah, there are two versions. APO means apochromatic and is supposed to be better than the regular version. I had the APO version and it was alright. I got some great shots with it (especially macro) but it obviously wouldn't stand up against a Canon L in most cases. It had pretty good build quality for the money and was a fun lens. Slow and noisy AF, but that comes with the territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acoustikrage Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 there are two versions of this this lens, non-apo and apo. the apo version is newer and has better image quality. i own the apo version and bought it after research and reviews said it was one of the best bang-for-the-buck telephoto lenses. that being said, i rarely use it, but it's nice to have a telephoto in the bag. also, the autofocus is pretty loud and slow, not very good for shooting sports but everything else is pretty good. the macro feature is also pretty cool, it's a little tricky to operate though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 I had one of the Macro APO DG ones when I had my Nikon D50. Great little lens for day-time activities. So much smaller and lighter than my 70-200 I have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 I have never tried that lens before, but f4 for a 70-300 that doesn't have IS? No way. That lens would only be good for studio work on a tripod, or in very bright outdoors. Anything else, and it will just be too dark. It's slow and doesn't have IS. Then again, it's dirt cheap for a superzoom. But you do get what you pay for. This... When my D50 was still working I too bought a zoom lenses exactly sames specs, only Tamron branded 70-300. It became more of a macro lense than zoom lense. So my advice would be if you plan on using more the macro feature would be to find a cheap macro for you canon: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbabyte Posted December 26, 2009 Author Share Posted December 26, 2009 This...When my D50 was still working I too bought a zoom lenses exactly sames specs, only Tamron branded 70-300. It became more of a macro lense than zoom lense. So my advice would be if you plan on using more the macro feature would be to find a cheap macro for you canon: is there such thing as a cheap macro for canon? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterC Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 I have this lens, and I really like it. Make sure to get the APO version. (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 is there such thing as a cheap macro for canon? lol New probably not, but i've seen on www.keh.com barely used lense go for half the price. It's like cpu killer said "Overall I'd say get it if you're on a definite budget, otherwise look for a better prime lens or one with a shorter focal length." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giga Veteran Posted December 26, 2009 Veteran Share Posted December 26, 2009 It's not a "true" macro lens with 1:1 magnification. Sigma's site states it 1:2 magnification. Generally, you won't get 1:1 magnification with most any zoom macro lens. I'd go with kenko extensions tubes or the sigma 50mm macro if you're on a tight budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbabyte Posted December 26, 2009 Author Share Posted December 26, 2009 i have no idea what extensions tubes are...lol But i'll google around and see what i can find out.. thanks giga. Also, just got back from Bestbuy.. i'm now the owner of a T1i, Wooo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 i have no idea what extensions tubes are...lol But i'll google around and see what i can find out.. thanks giga.Also, just got back from Bestbuy.. i'm now the owner of a T1i, Wooo! Nice congradz! Bubba, if it were possible to you, would you mind shooting a couple of high ISO on the T1i? 6,400 and 12,800, just a regular snapshot to see realworld performances? I've seen reviews and whatnot on other pages, but they always shoot the same image for ISO tests, so while it does give you an idea, I'de like to see some "real" pics. If possible, if not, no probs :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbabyte Posted December 26, 2009 Author Share Posted December 26, 2009 Nice congradz!Bubba, if it were possible to you, would you mind shooting a couple of high ISO on the T1i? 6,400 and 12,800, just a regular snapshot to see realworld performances? I've seen reviews and whatnot on other pages, but they always shoot the same image for ISO tests, so while it does give you an idea, I'de like to see some "real" pics. If possible, if not, no probs :) Yeah np... here is a testshot, at 12k, 6400 and 3200 of the same image. I put all 3 files in a zip for you untouched. IMO i dont think it's as bad as people make it out to be, these pics were in REALLY low light conditions and below is what i was able to do with a 12k ISO image, a run through a noise filter then resize, and this is what you have, i think it's totally salvageable. However for some reason PS CS4 will not open RAW 12k or 6400 images, it says it is "not the right kind of document".. no idea what that's all about. LINK TO ZIP Draconian Guppy 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 Yeah np... here is a testshot, at 12k, 6400 and 3200 of the same image. I put all 3 files in a zip for you untouched. IMO i dont think it's as bad as people make it out to be, these pics were in REALLY low light conditions and below is what i was able to do with a 12k ISO image, a run through a noise filter then resize, and this is what you have, i think it's totally salvageable. However for some reason PS CS4 will not open RAW 12k or 6400 images, it says it is "not the right kind of document".. no idea what that's all about.LINK TO ZIP Thanks! Gotta say, ISO 3200 and 6400 look very good and 12,800 seems really useable! No idea on the CS4 thing though :s never had a camera that goes past iso 1600 so really can't help :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbabyte Posted December 27, 2009 Author Share Posted December 27, 2009 Thanks! Gotta say, ISO 3200 and 6400 look very good and 12,800 seems really useable! No idea on the CS4 thing though :s never had a camera that goes past iso 1600 so really can't help :p Turns out i just needed to update Camera Raw to 5.6. But I agree about the ISO levels, alot of the reviews make it seem as though anything above 3200 is absolute waste. I dont think it is at all, perhaps for large print, but for web view you could totally salvage a pic at 12,800. It's nice to have incase the situation arises. I will say however that you if you are planning on buying the camera based on HD video, you may want to rethink it, cause it's a bitch..lol It's nice to have, and video with nice DOF is rare with most HD video recorders, however focusing is a bitch and noticeably noisy. But then again i haven't tried it outside in the light yet, so who knows, maybe it's a bit easier in alot of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 Turns out i just needed to update Camera Raw to 5.6. But I agree about the ISO levels, alot of the reviews make it seem as though anything above 3200 is absolute waste. I dont think it is at all, perhaps for large print, but for web view you could totally salvage a pic at 12,800. It's nice to have incase the situation arises. Yeah I would have to agree the 6,400 looks really good! Hence why I asked you in the first place. Some reviewing sites ( like dpreview & dcresource, the latter not so much) tend to forget we're not all pro's and don't need out image 100% clean for a normal 8x6 print :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbabyte Posted January 12, 2010 Author Share Posted January 12, 2010 So i found a deal on a barely used Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro lens, used a few times, no scratches etc.. $200CA, is that a decent offer? It retails at Henry's for $319, and it is the APO version. Anyway i'm excited about it. I know alot of people will say it's a cheap lens etc.. well i'm not looking to spend alot and it offers telephoto and macro in the same lens and that's really what i wanted. Keep in mind that 90% of my pictures taken in the last year and a half are with the 50mm $99 lens, so this lens can't be all that bad :p I'm super excited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbabyte Posted February 20, 2010 Author Share Posted February 20, 2010 I need some advice with this lens guys.. it's my first telephoto lens so i'm confused as to if it's just a lens issue or am i doing something wrong, most likely the latter. It seems my images at around 220-300mm are extremely soft, as if there is NO focus point. I understand there is no Image stabilization so i make sure i keep the shutter speed relatively high as well as the aperture. 300mm shots in macro mode are tack sharp, but non macro i cannot get a clear image to save my life. From what i've read alot of people have this issue with this lens, but then there are people like THIS GUY who seem to think it's the photographer because he has gotten some clear shots. My questions are when shooting at long range, do you need a really narrow aperture like f11+ to get a good focus point? Here is a sample image, untouched. ISO 100 F5.6 1/250s, center focused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 +1 photographer I had that same lens, but on Nikon mount, I had a hell of time getting it sharp/focusing past 200m, it seemed that if I moved by just a tiny bit It would blur out slightly even at low ISO/ faster shutter. My advice try >200m shots on a very very well lit subject and see if you get the same results, and/or different scenarios with light/nolight/flash/etc. Edit if you do, how easy is it for you to return/exchange the lens? edit2: Like the photos on the link you posted are on beach and/or studio lit subject maybe, exactly the scenario I mentioned above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbabyte Posted February 20, 2010 Author Share Posted February 20, 2010 yeah that's kinda what i'm thinking. I've only had a few chances to test it out, and it's mostly been later in the day and cloudy so not the best lit conditions. I think when i get a nice bright day i'll take it out again and test it. What would be the low point for shutter speed to avoid blurring when moving the camera. I figured 1/250 or 1/500 ish would be enough, but apparently not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 yeah that's kinda what i'm thinking. I've only had a few chances to test it out, and it's mostly been later in the day and cloudy so not the best lit conditions. I think when i get a nice bright day i'll take it out again and test it. What would be the low point for shutter speed to avoid blurring when moving the camera. I figured 1/250 or 1/500 ish would be enough, but apparently not. wiki quote 1/2000 s and 1/1000 s: Used to take sharp photographs of moderately fast subjects under normal lighting conditions. 1/1000 s is the slowest speed that will reliably prevent image shake in unstabilized handheld shots.[7] ( notice the "normal lighting conditions"). From here. Though my 2cents would be that 1/500 would be enough :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 Could also be that you have a $200 lens...? There's a reason people shell out $1800+ for the 70-200mm f2.8 IS/VR lenses. Draconian Guppy 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts