Time to be with your loved ones

Time to be with loved ones

by sat

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This question already has an answer here:

I am confused about selecting a 70-300mm lens. I have 2 lenses to decide between, the 'Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5 - 5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR' and the 'Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG'. I hear lot of good things about the Sigma lens even though it doesn't have any VR and I wonder if the Nikon is worth the extra investment. I read lot of reviews about the Nikon too but not many seem unbiased.
I have a D7K.
Would appreciate your response.

Edit: I am looking at this lens for a little bit of wildlife and some portraits but all outdoor. I would mostly be holding the lens but plan to get used to the tripod.

share|improve this question
    
What sorts of environments do you plan to be working in (night? day? handheld? tripod? etc). What sorts of subjects will you be aiming for? –  ahockley Mar 9 '11 at 3:59
    
@ahockley added those in the edit –  sarego Mar 9 '11 at 4:12
    
I don't know about these lenses specifically, but I would consider VR essential for hand holding at that focal length. I wouldn't buy the Sigma lens, even for half the price. –  rm999 Mar 9 '11 at 5:02
add comment

marked as duplicate by mattdm, Paul Cezanne, AJ Henderson, MikeW, John Cavan May 17 '13 at 0:29

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote accepted
  • I have the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG.
  • It's very soft in the 200-300mm range.
  • I find myself constantly having to use high iso to get the needed shutter speed for hand held shots, whereas VR would help with this.
  • It doesn't focus well compared to my other lens - its much slower (its not a USM type motor) and tends to hunt a bit.
  • Shots lack contrast compared to my other lenses.
  • Its relatively sharp under 200mm for portrait work, but for portraits nearly any 50 or 80mm prime is a better buy.

I'd look at the Nikon or even the new Tamron with VC that recently came out before I got this again. It feels like a steal of a deal at the price, but for me its not. If you're expecting sharp images in the 200-300 range (which you would want for wildlife shots), the Sigma isn't the lens for you.

Here's a sample from the Sigma, note that the feathers just don't look sharp. enter image description here

share|improve this answer
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.