Am a bit skint just now so can't afford another decent lens that my Canon 7D warrants,but am needing something with a bit of reach. Has anyone used one of the cheaper 70-300mm lens? Got my eye on the Sigma APO DG Macro one,only £150 new with good examples going for much less on ebay. Am aware most manufacturers have lens in this category and wondering what people thought of them.
I have a sigma 70-300. It's OK...not great... It get used very rarely. Soft images and colours are muted. What about a canon 55-250. I know it's not 300mm, but the reach will be ok on crop? canon do a 75-300 too....as do tamron with a 70-300
I had the 75-300 with my 40D, for the cost £75-80 quid you'd have to give it high marks, focus was slow but generally the images were ok, sold it on with the camera and the new owner likes it too, on the plus side if you drop it it won't cost much to replace. As Si says crop sensor you can times 300 by 1.6, no IS but nothing a fast shutter and tripod/mono didn't fix for me.
I had the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro for my old 20D. It was good for reach and the macro capability was very good, but without IS it was very hard to get decent shots handheld. I now have the Canon 55-250mm IS and that is much better, but I do miss the macro facility. I've prolly got some shots using both that I can post if you want.
The 75~300 is a much maligned lens. Though it's often by reviewers (who don't have to put their hand in their pocket to get hold of apochromatic glass anyway) when it's being compared to said apo lenses. Truth is, nobody makes a 'bad' lens and you have to cut your cloth to suit your cost. The real decision here is, do you buy it now and get out and use it now, or do you put the money you were going to spend to one side and add to it as and when until you can lay it down on a higher specification one, and then miss out on what you can be shooting now. I can't afford to spend out a lot on lenses, not for something that's an occasional hobby like my photography is. What I have done is got two or three lenses that cover the bases on what I like to shoot and I try to play to what strengths they have. My stuff never has that pin sharp, 3D look of 'L' series or 'ED' lenses have. That just the cross I need to bear for limited investment. Never forget the network of reputable camera dealers with access to pre-owned kit either at pre-owned prices. Better than buying online if you're not completely sure what you're after as you can actually mount it up and try it to see if it suits.
Myself I wouldn't bother if I'm honest , Save a bit of money and get yourself a canon 70/200mm f2.8 mki Average price £600/£775 , (2nd hand ) brilliant lens for the money , Or the canon 70/200mm f4 £300/450 .
Thanks for the replies folks,one of the reasons for looking at the sigma lens was for the macro feature,but never thought about the lack of stabilisation. Unless I can pick one up cheap second hand to try it,will stick with my 24-70 f2.8 for the meantime and save the pennies. Ideally a fast 70-200 but that money is earmarked for a quickshifter Maybe go for the sigma 105 macro and a 2x converter for more reach.
