Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO Macro Super II A-mount lens reviews
reviews found: 16
 TheGoOse#7053 date: Mar-11-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 1 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 18-250 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Great macro for a zoom Very sharp Nice bokeh wide open |
| negative: | Dies early :( Focus hunting |
| comment: | That lens has a big problem with the focusing ring build quality. Mine died twice: once in warrany, and once again a year after. I has thinking in sending it for repair, but price was too high, and I gave it to a friend that's starting in photography, for him to use it in manual mode. It's a great lens for the price, besides that, but I can't recomend buying it. Maybe the Tamron equivalent doesn't have the focus-ring-of-the-death problem :/ |
; 10MP| mikejhart32#6632 date: Dec-24-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 55-200 Tamron 70-300 Minolta 100-300xi |
| price paid: | 80GBP |
| positive: | Good reach Good Macro Sharp at 70mm APO glass |
| negative: | not sharp at 300 f5.6 Plasticky Noisy AF |
| comment: | You buy a lens like this for its reach, as I did for birdwatching but in poor light (common in Britain)it does not perform, not sharp and AF hunts and is noisy. I have seen a few of these on ebay where the AF is broken, I suspect plastic gears. Gets sharper at 300 if you stop down to f8, f11 better. Super sharp at 70mm. Macro function at 300mm is great for flying insects in good light. |
| landrvrnut22#5233 date: Apr-13-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | $200USD |
| positive: | Great focal range, excellent clarity. |
| negative: | Front element rotates with focus. Slow auto focus. |
| comment: | I have had this lens for a number of years, and has served me well paired with my Minolta Htsi plus. The clarity and color are strong, but the slow aperture makes it useless in low light. It is a bit on the heavy side. It's one major downfall is slow to auto focus, especially on the Htsi plus. It is an excellent telephoto zoom if you are on a budget. So far, it seems to work well on my new to me 7d, but only time will tell. |
| superx2won#4129 date: Sep-23-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | beercan T200-400 Kit len |
| price paid: | 230 USD ( new@2005) |
| positive: | Great zoom, 70-300mm with APO coating. Cheap Light weight |
| negative: | feel plastic |
| comment: | Great alternative to Beercan if you can't get the beercan. It has APO coating , great zoom range, cheap , light weight where beercan lag off. Overall , i quiet like this len, except it build quality. I sold this to get a beercan. |
| BenKinetics#2667 date: Aug-28-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 180mm Macro |
| price paid: | 75 GBP (new) |
| positive: | Cheap Light Good range Decent macro |
| negative: | Plascticky Annoying hood and lenscap Annoying zoom/focus behaviour |
| comment: | Jessops had this going cheap, so it seemed worth a go. It's actually surprisingly good as a general walkabout, don't-care-if-it-gets-bashed lens. The 1:2 macro at 300mm is very good for skittish bugs - I got some excellent pics of a hoverfly in flight using it. It's rather annoying to use, though - the zoom and the focus both extend the same front tube, so to switch to macro you turn out to 300mm and flick the switch. That's fine. But to turn macro off, you need to switch to MF and bring the lens in before you can flick the switch back. Add to this the lens creep and the twist-on hood that's a faff to fit when the front element rotates. My main use for this is to use it with an armored A100 as it's not a big loss if it gets dropped ;-) |
| Hobgoblin#2517 date: Jul-6-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Beercan Sigma 100-300 f4 EX IF |
| price paid: | L40 used |
| positive: | Price Weight performance |
| negative: | None AF is not the fastest but better than many others |
| comment: | The high scores I have given for this lens reflects its incredibly cheap price for the performance. Currently it is available for half the price of the beercan but outperforms it in many ways. It does not match up to the Sigma 100-300 f4 but then it is only 10-15% of the price for that beauty. I have had this lens for two years and used it on a Dynax 5, KM5D and recently a brief run on the A100. Build quality is very good and the lens feels quite robust and well engineered. My experience of Sigma lenses has always been good and I have never yet suffered from the quality control issues that some others seem to report. At settings from 5.6 onwards the lens is quite sharp under most conditions. Colour rendition is good. Bokeh at wide apertures leaves a little bit to be desired but improves from points beyond f5.6. At f8 (my preferred setting for wildlife and equestrian sports) bokeh is not an issue. AF can be a little annoying at times but is reasonably consistent and once the limitations are known there are few unpleasant surprises with a little forethought. Definitely a good choice for anyone on a budget and for those that want a fair performer with a little extra reach than the 70-210 range of lenses. I have posted some sample images which should give a fair indication of performance. ** Since my original review of this lens in 2007 I have added to my collection of cameras and have used this lens on the A700, A550 and A580 as well as the KM5D and A100. The gears have not stripped despite being used regularly on the A700. Since getting the two A5xx cameras I have come to appreciate this lens even more. Like so many of my other lenses, its performance on these cameras is so much better than it ever was on the A700 which is now relegated to third choice camera. The AF performance is much improved and so is its sharpness. Both of those factors are more influenced by the camera because the same is true of almost every lens I own except perhaps for the Tamron 18-250 which surprisingly performs much worse on the A580 than it does on my other bodies. |
| PieterB#2513 date: Jul-5-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 100€ (2nd hand) |
| positive: | Very high value for money. Sharp (upto 200mm), pretty fast, nice colours. Macro at 300mm |
| negative: | On 300 mm not very sharp, lens hunts. Not brilliant in low light. |
| comment: | I bought this lens second hand for 100€ including a very handy lens bag and of course sunhood. I sold my Tamron 18-200 F3,5-6,3 XR DI2 and bought the 16-80CZ. I bought this lens for the tele end of the business. It was 2nd hand but in fact it was new. (the guy broke his camera just after buying this lens) What I like. The way it's build. Rather good in view of it's price. It is upto 200mm really sharp when stopped down a bit. Between F8-F11 it is really sharp. It starts to be sharp at F6,3, although at 5,6 it is acceptable. On the far end (300 mm) it is not very sharp anymore but decent enough in view of it's price. It focuses fast enough upto 200mm. On 300 mm it is a bit more luggish. On 300 mm and low light, it starts hunting and becomes annoying. For the price the sharpness, colour, an fringing is excellent. Of course, there will be better lenses but not for this price. I have shot some macro's with it at the 300 mm setting. Of course they do not compare to my dedicated macro lens (Sigma 70 mm EX DG) but it is sometimes rather useful to have a macro possibility at 300 mm focal point in order to keep insects staying put. If you need to shoot a lot of pictures in poor lighting, you will be disappointed. Otherwise it is an excellent lens, keeping in mind the price. Don't compare it to a F2,8 which will be silly because that lens is entirely differently priced. I think the price/quality ratio is sublime. |
| tsg_#2062 date: Mar-27-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Beercan, 28-135, 100-300 also own: 28-75 2.8, 50 1.7, 100 f/2, Sig105 2.8, Bigma, et al |
| price paid: | $89 US |
| positive: | Light weight, LOW price (used mint for less than half retail). Nice range, and if you get a good one -- great IQ. Smart buy. |
| negative: | Plasticky build. Incosistent quality control from lens to lens. People might say you're cheap. |
| comment: | I first read about this lens in some dpreview forums, and looked up sample images on pbase.com/cameras. I was really surprised at the quality in some of the pics vs. the price for a s/h or used one. Great IQ. So great that my first real batch required zero PP (just cropping for composition): Click for Gallery I picked one up at adorama (APO Macro Super II) for $89 and have had a blast ever since. If you need to watch your spending and cover the 70-300 range, this is a great option. My one caveat would be that non-EX level lenses from Sigma suffer often from quality control issues... I'm sure there are lousy copies floating around. I am lucky to have mine. Vs other lenses in my collection: This lens outperforms my Min 100-300 easy (but to be fair that lens is non-APO), and doesn't share its CA issues. The range overlaps with my Beercan, and I haven't decided how I am going to choose one or the other now. The beercan has charisma, but it loses from 210-300. It will likely only come out when available lighting is an issue. |
| bharnois#946 date: Jun-26-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 1 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100-300 (1986 Version) Beercan |
| price paid: | 52 USD |
| positive: | CHEAP - $52(US) New Sharp, and amazingly sharp at times. Feels good and shoots great! Good Color using Natural+. |
| negative: | Hunts in difficult conditions. Heavier than Compared lens. Slower focus than Minolta 100-300. Removed my comment about eating batteries as it just isn't so. A few camera settings fixed that. |
| comment: | I LIKE this lens for the picture quality. Blows the old Minolta 100-300 away in that department. I still have to say that autofocus is not as good as the old 100-300. I actually have to say now that I've used it for awhile that the build seems pretty tough. I haven't noticed any loosening or play in the works. I have had some stunning macro shots with this lens. Everything from small butters, dragons, beetles and bees. Now having my second mechanical issue after owning for less than a year but to be honest I used this piece a lot. The first time the focus ring began to skip and I opened up the back to find a bit of plasting embedded in the gear teeth. Now it seems the last tooth is stripped and when I mount it the cam makes it skip and it won't find the bottom. Don't know if it is fixable. (I'll finish and add more comments later. Wanted to create a placeholder for my review. I'll have to downgrade my review for another lens I own as a result of getting this.) |
| JimWWhite#936 date: Jun-23-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Great range. Sharp. No vignetting, etc. Great in outdoor light at about F/8. Macro mode is very, very nice to have. Built like a tank. Inexpensive. |
| negative: | A little heavy, but not too much so. |
| comment: | Very good, inexpensive lens to have for outdoor shots of birds, pets, kids, sports, etc. Handles everything I threw at it. Can be picked up on eBay for about $99 US. Came to me in mint condition. I used to use it more but I recently picked up a Sigma 24-135 2.8 which overlaps the botton end of the range for this lens. But I still put it on when I want to reach out. I have a 2x TC that I use it with and it works greats with it. |
| jimb100#795 date: May-16-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70 kit lens, 50mm 1.7, 35-105 zoom |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Good resolution to about 200mm. Lightweight, inexpensive and decent build quality. |
| negative: | Loss of detail over 200mm regardless of F/stop. |
| comment: | This is not a bad lens. Very good detail and color out to at least 200mm at F9. Autofocus hunts a bit in low light, its a little noisy and not too smooth on the zoom, but for the price, it works pretty well. I tried to capture a water bird at approx. 200-250 meters and at 300mm f/9 the image was soft and much detail was lost. At 75 meters and 175mm F8, the image was very sharp with great detail and no color fringing. |
| recnahne#611 date: Mar-22-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 4/70-210 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Light weight, inexpensive, compact size, acceptable sharpness |
| negative: | Moderate build quality, rather slow AF, bokeh not very nice |
| comment: | I purchased the non-DG version, but it works fine on the D7D. The lens is very compact and not too heavy, given the maximum focal lenght of 300 mm. When stopped down two or three steps, the lens produces good results. I don't like the bokeh which under some circumstances looks a little disturbing. Nevertheless, it's probably hard if not impossible to get more focal lenght with acceptable quality for the price of the 70-300, so I definitely recommend this lens for beginners and those who don't focus on maximum quality tele photography. |
| kanzlr#239 date: Nov-25-2005 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | cheap like the feel compact and light |
| negative: | soft at full telefoto, but ok until around 200mm. oftentimes slow af, hunting. |
| comment: | Got it new from ebay for 96,-- for that price you won't get a better lens i think. some straight from the cam JPGs shot with the sigma can be found here: http://kanzlr.smugmug.com/gallery/973961 |
| Claude67#122 date: Oct-2-2005 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | 300f4 G KM 135-400 sigma |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | very light macro mode very usefull decent picture quality |
| negative: | not as sharp as a KM G lens (but it is neither the same price nor the same weight) |
| comment: | Very interesting zoom, with good picture quality in its category, and above all very light |
| Reto#38 date: Jan-3-2005 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Focus limiter. Budget sensitive. |
| negative: | Visible vignetting at open aperture. Built a bit shaky, mechanically nor reassuring, with quite some clearance on manual focusing. Not so sharp at the long end |
| comment: | A clear improvement over an older 70-300mm sigma I used to use (dating back to the 80's). No match for the 70-200 f/2.8 EX though, neither in quality nor in price. |
| former member#24 date: Dec-1-2004 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Reasonable priced lens with decent optical quality |
| negative: | Build quality below par |
| comment: | This is the step-up from the non-APO versions of the normal 70-300. I've used this lens (or rather the I version) a lot, and really liked the color reproduction. It's optically better than the normal 70-300 zooms. It's biggest problem is the ability to last: after 1-1.5 years of use, it was simply not focussing and zooming that well any more. And after a day of use in the rain, AF (and MF for that matter) stopped completely. The macro option isn't that "macro" at all, and is only a plus for those that want to take a picture a little bigger than normal every now and then. This is a good lens for a consumer that wants a little better optical quality, but doesn't want to break the bank over a 80-200/F2.8. I'm sure it'll last at least 3-5 years in typical consumer use. |
reviews found: 16
rating summary
- total reviews: 16
- sharpness: 4.09
- color: 4.19
- build: 3.13
- distortion: 4.31
- flare control: 4.13
- overall: 3.97
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login