Why 70-300 so cheap ?

Graham00

Graham00

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,145
Name
Graham Mc
Edit My Images
Yes
The Sigma 70-300mm f4/5.6 is only £106 and the super DG £179, why are they so cheap and are they good for sports ?
 
There's an obvious answer there.... the elephant in the room that nobody who has visited this thread wants to say because of the subsequent reaction from others...

Worked it out yet?
 
it's pretty sharp if you stop it down to say, f/5.6-6.3, but it's pretty rubbish at more than 250mm. the contrast is quite poor and it's very slow to autofocus. it can be okay in the right conditions though.
 
I don't agree either I've taken some shockingly sharp images with mine too (I've got the APO one) but the only thing that this lens is lacking is a faster AF motor in my opinion. Took this shot with it yesterday:

 
I've got the APO one aswell. Its slow to autofocus, useless in low light, but great on a sunny(ish) day outdoors.
 
Bare in mind that if it has no VR (or equivilent), you'll probably struggle at long focal lengths without a tripod. therefore sports may be a bit of a challenge. :thinking:
 
The key here is that it's the person behind the camera that makes the photographs not the glass - just check out what Chase Jarvis has done with an iPhone if you dont agree.......

I'd say go for it, buy the lens now, use it, enjoy it, be creative with its focal length, learn from it and then move on if you feel the need to....
 
I had the cheaper version. I found it slow, noisy and soft at both the long and short ends. Yes, capable of good results but once you've compared it against lenses from the next tier up you'll never really want to use it again.

They're great for beginners or for people who want to have a longer telephoto in their kit bag, despite it being used rarely.
 
It's great bang for buck if you want a cheap telephoto. I wouldn't say it's crap, they do some great images, but obviously it will be outclassed by lenses costing £300+.

It's an ideal lens if you want a telephoto that you won't be using much, or you are on a tight budget.
 
Question was, whether it's good for sports.

Concensus seems to be slow AF and soft at the long end, and of course F/5.6.

For sports I would say it's not going to be ideal.
 
Things a cheap for a reason, quality is normally the main reason just take it with a pinch of salt and you wont be disapointed.

Except for CornedBeef its cheap but tastes good :D [nom nom]
 
for your £100, you'd probably be better off getting a 1.4x teleconverter for your 70-200... will give you a constant f4 at still really good IQ.
 
£89 for the non apo version Linky.

I bought it for £70 from here, its a nice lens but the auto focus is the big let down for me.
 
its better than the canon 75-300 ;)
I had the APO one and it was a great first long lens and helped me learn. Although I do agree with comments on here. I bought my APO for £90 off ebay and it was money very well spent.
 
kiteninja said:
Things a cheap for a reason, quality is normally the main reason just take it with a pinch of salt and you wont be disapointed.

Except for CornedBeef its cheap but tastes good :D [nom nom]
Click to expand...



:lol::lol::lol:
Nice one!
 
APO version not too bad for the money but it is a cheap lens at the end of the day. Had some decent results with it, but as mentioned above, slow and noisy AF is the main bugbear. My copy doesn't seem to be afflicted with too much of a softness issue at 300mm. Not bad for pseudo-macro work either if you focus manually.

Much better image quality than corned beef (tastes marginally better too).

IMG_1930.JPG


IMG_1929.JPG
 
Aha thanks for the replies = all things considered i think i'll save up for either a teleconverter 2x which are just over £200 or get the new improved shorter Sigma 70-300 for £399.
 
Graham00 said:
Aha thanks for the replies = all things considered i think i'll save up for either a teleconverter 2x which are just over £200 or get the new improved shorter Sigma 70-300 for £399.
Click to expand...

Now for another thread! Watch out a 2x TC will drop you 2 stops of light and they are not compatible with ALL lenses.
 
jammy_c said:
Bare in mind that if it has no VR (or equivilent), you'll probably struggle at long focal lengths without a tripod. therefore sports may be a bit of a challenge. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Matt Sayle seemed to manage ok shooting bikes at 160mph with one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top