SIGMA 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DL Macro Super II. Does somebody have one??

[Otavio]

Dear all. I would like to know if somebody has this lens (or have any experience using it). My concerns are about the autofocus and the optical quality of the lens. Of course one cannot expect a superb quality as it is a budget lens, but would it be reasonable for using under "Good light conditions"? I would use it (if I ever buy it) to shoot birds/planes/landscapes, during daytime and under good light conditions, mounted on a D5100.

Note: Build quality is not a major concern, as I will use it occasionally and I consider myself a good "caretaker" .

Thanks for any feedback on this!
Regards

Otávio

[cyracles]

Why not instead go for the DG variant(i use canon though), it is budget too. I own one and from several experimenting and advice from folks here, it is a pretty decent lens. It is not good in low light but generally for outdoors portraits, birds etc.is is a wonderful lens.
For lighting conditions, it depends on what you mean by "good" . Just remember it is not great in low light.
All the best!

[Otavio]

Hi Ife. Thanks for your feedback. Actually the DG is really quite similar in terms of price. The difference is on lens coating. One question: The lens you have are also APO (Apochromatic), besides of being DG?

By good light conditions I meant daytime, blue sky, no fog. It is what I usually have here, so your comments are very useful to me, when you mention "generally for outdoors portraits, birds etc.is is a wonderful lens", as this is just what I need! Do you consider it good even at a focal length of 300mm? Does it not cause much chromatic aberrations at this point?

Thanks for your answer!

[GrahamH]

I had a bad experience with the Sigma 70-300, in all it's recent incarnations.
I bought a cheapie one and 400 shots later the autofocus ring stripped. Back into the shop (close by, for Ontario it was Gentec), 2 weeks later it was fixed. 200 shots later, same thing, back to the store, they replaced it (thanks Henry's) no questions. Few hundred shots later, same thing, back to Gentec. They gave me the top 70-300, f4-5.6 to use, same thing happened. Took the camera body (Sony A350) into the customer service, they checked it out, focussing motor fine. Every time I used a new 70-300 or a refurbished/repaired one, it broke within a few hundred shots, worst was after 50 shots, best was 800.
They were claiming I was handling the lens incorrectly, that it was the camera body that was defective, that no-one else had this problem. I had three other lenses, kit lens, 500mm cat, and a tamron macro, none of these have had a problem before, during or since the sigma lens issue.
The actual service department were great, but I dealt with a salesman at a Henry's show and was insulted by him (he insisted loudly in public that I was mishandling the lens, despite my protestations and examples to the contrary).
Spent thousands on equipment, never again with Sigma.
Personally the extended bad experience has put me off for life (well, the last 4 years and counting).
I know it's irrational and many other people are satisfied.

For the shots I did get CA was a problem on most of the egret shots I tried to get, nasty purple ring. But it was a cheap lens.
Graham

[Otavio]

Hi Graham, thanks for your valuable feedback on this issue. Sorry to insist on this "painful past issue" but with regards to the picture quality at focal length of 300m with this lens, what would you say?

[revi]

I've had the same problem with the combination Sony body (A330 in my case) and Sigma 70-300. Searching the web,
it seems that the Sony bodies can put too much torque on the focusing system of the Sigma lens (i.e. the body's
motor is too powerful...). So I too stay away from non-motorised Sigma's.
Note that the problem seems to occur ONLY with Sony bodies.

[Otavio]

Thanks Remco. In my case it would be a motorized lens and running on a Nikon body, so maybe I would not have this issue. Regarding the pictures quality, at a focal length of 300mm, under good light conditions, what could you say about this lens? Regards...

[GrahamH]

Hi Octavio, One image (original at 14Mp, downsized here to 666kp).
IQ at 300mm, not too bad.
Great for smaller prints, or viewed from a normal distance unless someone is super picky.
Example below SOOC (adding contrast would improve it signficantly, ditto sharpening) taken 8/08.
Hope it helps.
Graham
EXIF - f9, 1/160s (flash), 300mm on a 70-300 Sigma, body Sony A350.
May not be exactly the same lens, but gives an idea as to IQ.

[GrahamH]

And pixel for pixel of the centre of the flower and bug.

[cyracles]

Hello Otavio, the lens is only DG. I took a shot today which i will show my CiC teachers here to critique later on. It was done at 300mm with the same lens and indoors.

All the best!

[cyracles]

[Otavio]

Graham, thank you very much for your kind response. The image is of great value and will help me to decide. I like the IQ (it seems enough). Cheers...

[Otavio]

Thank you, Ife. The image quality is really not bad, even being done indoor! Kindest regards!

[pnodrog]

Otávio I purchased an earlier version in the early 90's and used it extensively until earlier this year. If I did not like it I would not have used it for so long. The following was shot using it on a Nikon F90x with Velvia film and was scanned in but is an indication of its quality.

[pnodrog]

Just found another shot using the lens last year on a Nikon D200 1/500 f9 set at 220mm

NOTE: This was taken using the 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 D APO macro version that will go full frame there are cheaper versions.

[Otavio]

Hi Paul. Many thanks for your valuable feedback! I'm about to decide going for it, as I don't need a higher level of Image quality than what you just showed with these 2 (GREAT) pictures! And I will go for the DG APO Macro version. It is just a bit more expensive. Thanks again!

[Manfred M]

My major concern with Sigma is quality. We bought my wife a 150-500mm last year for a trip to Africa.

A number of websites expressed concerns with Sigma build quality and quality control. One of our neighbours has the lens and is quite happy with it. It died twice within the first six months we had it. The first time the autofocus electronics, image stabilization and focus motor went and a few months later (during our trip to Africa) it died again. This time it was just the autofocus and image stabilization electronics.

Optically, the lens is fine. Yes the general build quality is lower than the gear by the camera manufacturer, but I'm sorry, the electronics should not be failing that frequently. Needless to say, we will not be buying another Sigma product.

[pnodrog]

I have had totally the opposite experience with Sigma but I have never bought one of their cheaper lenses. The build quality of my 15-30 is very solid and the 70-300 is not quite as robust but has lasted about 20 years.

[Manfred M]

I have had totally the opposite experience with Sigma but I have never bought one of their cheaper lenses. The build quality of my 15-30 is very solid and the 70-300 is not quite as robust but has lasted about 20 years.

The 150-500 is not a cheap lens - it is running around $1300.

[pnodrog]

Sorry Manfred - I was referring to the lower quality lenses that all the manufactures make. You usually get what you pay for. I had a brief look at a 150-500 and it seemed to be reasonably well built. Just been searching the internet "Sigma quality control" and the overall opinion was more positive than negative. It appears we have had totally opposite experiences with Sigma products.