Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6(Non APO)

[anco85]

Morning guys. I'd like to dabble in some macro photography, but I can't see myself doing a lot of macro work. Just the odd flower and bug shot.

I've been looking at 2 pretty cheap lenses, the Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 and the Tamron 70-300 4-5.6. What are your thoughts on these lenses?

The extra reach is pretty nice to have and I suppose it'll have it's uses, but I mainly want it for macro work.

I've heard the Tamron is slightly better, but they are impossible to find online in SA

Thoughts?

[Leo Theron]

Want it mainly for macro?

Simple - Buy a (real) macro lens.

Those two that you mentioned are not macro lenses. The are multipurpose telephoto lenses with a facility to focus a little closer.

[Peter Veitch]

Cannot agree with Leo more. You will live to regret the money spent on either of those lenses whilst a proper macro lens will continue to serve you long after the pain of the expenditure has faded from memory.

Another option you might consider, if you have a god prime lense and very steady support, is a set of extension tubes.

[anco85]

Totally with you, but as I mentioned, I don't know if I'll do macro photography enough to justify spending money on a true macro lens. So breaking it down, the Sigma seems like a nice cheap telephoto lens that I'll use for that purpose, but does have some for of macro capability

[Leo Theron]

I was ready to comment again… but decided against it.

[anco85]

Did someone steal your coffee this morning? :P

[Creeper]

One of my first lenses was the Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6. Didn't know what I know now. The lens is.......average to poor. It is okay until you hit 200mm, then it becomes soft. It can't do tracking due to the slow motor inside. And here is the catch. The macro only works from 200mm - 300mm and I think it is a 2:1 ratio, not like a real macro lens. Mine is currently lying on my desk, being used as a paperweight.

So, if you want a Nikon mount Sigma, I'll sell to you for R700.

[anco85]

Creeper, you've got PM

[Henk Coetzee]

Totally with you, but as I mentioned, I don't know if I'll do macro photography enough to justify spending money on a true macro lens. So breaking it down, the Sigma seems like a nice cheap telephoto lens that I'll use for that purpose, but does have some for of macro capability

Don't think of it as only a Macro. My 100,, 2.8 Macro makes a great telephoto (although the focusing can be a little slow).

One of my first lenses was the Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6. Didn't know what I know now. The lens is.......average to poor. It is okay until you hit 200mm, then it becomes soft. It can't do tracking due to the slow motor inside. And here is the catch. The macro only works from 200mm - 300mm and I think it is a 2:1 ratio, not like a real macro lens. Mine is currently lying on my desk, being used as a paperweight.

So, if you want a Nikon mount Sigma, I'll sell to you for R700.

Sounds a lot like the Tamron (which I'll sell you for R695 in Pentax mount)

The other thing to bear in mind is that the "macro" capability on these lenses goes down to 2:1, not 1:1 like a true macro lens and is optically quite compromised.

[anco85]

So what lenses can you recommend that wont break the bank. Would a set of extension tubes work well on a Nikkor 50 1.8?

[SimonDP]

If you need to save money, then start by not spending it. I cannot recommend the non-APO version of the Sigma 70-300, it's not even a good paperweight as it topples over to easily. The APO is better by some margin and should be considered by those on a tight budget. However, the 'macro' designation is a marketing ploy more than anything else, and allows closer focussing at max zoom, giving you a 1:3.3 magnification, not macro by a long shot but rather close-up photography. Used carefully it will yield acceptable results for the first few months, helping you in your learning curve, then depending on your dedication and changes in level of expertice, you'll get frustrated with it and save up to buy a proper macro lens. Before anyone flames me on this, I did own the APO version for two years way back when I was still breaking into photography, it sold my first photos to help me in getting media accreditation for sporting events, and was a nice enough general walkabout lens for everything else. But I moved on when I felt it was good enough anymore and holding me back. I'm not one to recommend you don't buy entry level lenses, there's a serious learning curve to be had using them whilst you wait to get to the next step, but certain entry level lenses are to be avoided even if you're just a little bit serious about your photography.

[Creeper]

If you need to save money, then start by not spending it. I cannot recommend the non-APO version of the Sigma 70-300, it's not even a good paperweight as it topples over to easily. The APO is better by some margin and should be considered by those on a tight budget. However, the 'macro' designation is a marketing ploy more than anything else, and allows closer focussing at max zoom, giving you a 1:3.3 magnification, not macro by a long shot but rather close-up photography. Used carefully it will yield acceptable results for the first few months, helping you in your learning curve, then depending on your dedication and changes in level of expertice, you'll get frustrated with it and save up to buy a proper macro lens. Before anyone flames me on this, I did own the APO version for two years way back when I was still breaking into photography, it sold my first photos to help me in getting media accreditation for sporting events, and was a nice enough general walkabout lens for everything else. But I moved on when I felt it was good enough anymore and holding me back. I'm not one to recommend you don't buy entry level lenses, there's a serious learning curve to be had using them whilst you wait to get to the next step, but certain entry level lenses are to be avoided even if you're just a little bit serious about your photography.

Two thumbs up.

On the otherside. I've seen success with the Nikon 50mm f1.8 with extensions. BUT, and let me state it again, BUT you tend to lose focus functioning, and if you go for the older Nikon without the build in motor, your Nikon (depending on the model) may not allow focusing with or without extensions. But for me, the Nikon 50mm f1.8 is my favourite. It is my standard lens as it fits my style of photography, which is not Macro.

[BrerFox]

.... but I can't see myself doing a lot of macro work.
.... but I mainly want it for macro work.
Thoughts?

Do I REALLY need to tell you my thoughts?

[Big W]

As an beginner I also like to play, from Macro to Moon. I bought a 2nd hand oooooold fully manual 50mm lens with 3 extension tubes and a reverse ring for only R250. With this setup I can get very, very, close.

Look at this photo taken with that setup, ok I added a few more extension tubes (cheap ones as with the reverse ring you lose all camera control anyway).
http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/galler...t-eyes&cat=500

[anco85]

Do I REALLY need to tell you my thoughts?

Sheesh, some of you people really need to learn to relax. Pre long weekend stress?

Andre, using something mainly for macro and not doing much macro are not the same things, believe it or not.

I want the lens to play with macro, that doesn't mean I'll spend 90% of my day taking pictures of bugs and hence the need for a cheap lens.

You dig?

[Henk Coetzee]

As an beginner I also like to play, from Macro to Moon. I bought a 2nd hand oooooold fully manual 50mm lens with 3 extension tubes and a reverse ring for only R250. With this setup I can get very, very, close.

And if you hang around the forum long enough, you'll see that it's not only beginners who use a rig like this.

Andre, using something mainly for macro and not doing much macro are not the same things, believe it or not.

I want the lens to play with macro, that doesn't mean I'll spend 90% of my day taking pictures of bugs and hence the need for a cheap lens.

IMNSHO, if you want to play with macro, get a macro lens anyway. Without one, your playtime will be seriously frustrating. Cheap lenses generally aren't worth the money, with a few obvious exceptions, none of which are macro lenses.

The one exception I've found with a zoom doubling as a macro lens is this one, although it also doesn't focus to 1:1, and comes with a small-sensor camera attached.

You dig?

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig."

Clint Eastwood in "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

Not sure if a macro lens can be equated to a loaded gun.

[Dodging]

I had one of them Sigma 70-300 Macro lenses. I must be honest, I enjoyed using it until I eventually found it's limits. Up to that point I had a blast with it though

In terms of macro shots, these were some of the better ones I got:








So it's not a brilliant lens, but it's ok for the price. I'd suggest buying it 2nd hand though - then you can sell it for what you paid for it at a later stage