Is this lens any good?

D0c

D0c

Suspended / Banned
Messages
350
Name
Michael Bird
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got a 1000d with the kit lens but need a telephoto lens.

I've found this one a Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG MACRO it is a telephoto and a macro lens. It's also pretty compact. My main interest would be the zoom side of things but having the benefit of macro would be a plus as it's something I would like to dabble with in the future.

But on the other hand is it best to get a telephoto lens only and a seperate macro lens.

The lens is here what do you think of it....

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod180.html
 
I can't speak from personal experience but read a few reviews as nobody seemed to be answering your query.

Reviews seem to cite the lens being okay on the wide end but going very soft once you pass 100mm. The macro tag is not true macro but just a marketing tool and implies some close focus ability (0.5m).

Taking those factors into account then I suggest you'd be better buying something more like the EF28-135 IS which is usable through most of its range. If you need longer than 120mm then look elsewhere.
As a general rule, the bigger the difference between the wide and long end of a zoom then the more compromises there are in the design of the optics.

HTH

Bob
 
I agree with Bob there. Conventional wisdom says that going from wide angle to quite a long telephoto is a bit of a stretch. The idea is very appealing I admit, but there's likely to be a quality compromise in practice.
 
I have no first hand knowledge of this lens but I am led to believe that the 28-300 superzooms are not very good.Probably the ideal zoom would be the Canon 70-300mm USM with IS but it doesnt come cheap.A budget alternative would be the Tamron 70-300 DI 11.I had one a few years ago and it performed well but does need decent light otherwise its too slow.
Pete.
 
Thanks for the responses. I've read a few more reviews and have to agree.

Most of them do say that the telephoto side gives very soft images. back to the drawing board.
 
There's frequently the idea that "I need mm's...and the more the better".
MM's are generally the things that cost the money and it's easy to get into to a situation where you buy low quality mm's that you don't really need instead of buying fewer but higher quality ones for the same outlay.

Worth thinking about ;)

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
There's frequently the idea that "I need mm's...and the more the better".
MM's are generally the things that cost the money and it's easy to get into to a situation where you buy low quality mm's that you don't really need instead of buying fewer but higher quality ones for the same outlay.

Worth thinking about ;)

Bob
Click to expand...


Now why doesnt advice that good come in the camera box ?
Pete.
 
Ive got this lens and found it to be ok i got it mainly for the 28 to 300 range so i dont have to change lens when out. it is a bit soft over 100 but im shooting motor sport (banger racing) and the 300 zoom was perfict to take pictuers of the cars on the track from the stand and it doesnt really matter if there a bit soft.

so id say it depends on what you want it for.
 
Have a look at the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro.
Jessops have just put it up to 149.99 from 127,but is still a fair amount of lens for the price..
Like others,it isnt the fastest lens around,and does like to get plenty of light,but even at 300mm the images arent too soft.
Seen some cracking shots on here taken with the same lens!
(Now if only i could get some :D)
Ultimately unless you want to spend a lot more money,you have to compromise a little either on reach or IQ.
For me though-The compromise seems quite small,and it serves its purpose well.
 
I'd say the 28-300 would be too much of a compromise in terms of quality, but as a walkaround lens it sure offers a good range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top