Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro lens for Nikon SLR

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Geoff. Hayward, May 10, 2008.

  1. Hi Everone, I use a Nikon D70s with an 18-70 Nikon zoom. I have been
    hankering after a longish zoom and the above lens is much cheaper than the
    Nikon equivalent. One is about £55 and the other £280. Is the Nikon so
    much better or would I be paying for a name? I do realise the Nikon has
    VR - is this the reason for the difference in price? Thanks in advance for
    all information and advice.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoff. Hayward, May 10, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Geoff. Hayward

    Guest Guest

    nikon has a few 70-300mm lenses. the cheapest is the 70-300mm g lens
    which sells for roughly the same price as the sigma and neither are
    particularly great.

    the new nikon 70-300mm vr replaced the older 70-300mm ed. it's a very
    good lens, even without the stabilization. however, the stabilization
    is very useful, especially at the longer end. it also has an af-s
    focus motor so it will focus faster and with less noise than the sigma
    or nikon g lens.
     
    Guest, May 10, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Geoff. Hayward

    Frank Arthur Guest

    You are comparing the prices of the Sigma with the Nikon VR model.
    What is the cost of the Nikon 70-300mm ED model pre VR?
    The 70-300mm ED was a great lens and are being sold used at bargain
    prices. I'm using a 70-300mm Nikon VR model and I really enjoy it.
     
    Frank Arthur, May 10, 2008
    #3
  4. Unless the Sigma is the "APO" version (it will have a red ring around the
    lens barrel), don't get it. It's not that good of a lens. The APO version
    of that lens is pretty good compared to the competition.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, May 10, 2008
    #4
  5. Geoff. Hayward

    Steve Guest

    Not only should it be the APO version, but also make sure it's the APO
    DG version. Older ones were before DG, which is their specifically
    for digital concoction.

    I think you'll find that the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro zoom
    lens is a better one than the equivalent Nikon model, the 70-300
    f/4-5.6D ED or G.

    Steve
     
    Steve, May 11, 2008
    #5
  6. I've owned the red ring Sigma version and now have the Nikon 70-300 VR.
    Other than the macro switch on the Sigma (which isn't true 1:1 macro)
    the Nikon is miles better. However the G non-VR version of the Nikon
    is not as good as the Sigma IMO. I'd save my pennies for the VR
    version if I were you.
     
    Michael Tuthill, May 11, 2008
    #6
  7. The 70-300 VR also has ED glass, and I honestly don't think you can
    beat it for under $500. I'm not really prejudiced against third-party
    lenses - I even have a Vivitar Series 1 that has optical performance
    equivalent to a Nikkor (but not the aesthetic 'feel' of a first-rate
    tool) - but I really do think that the main reason for buying a Nikon
    body is to take advantage of Nikkor lenses.
     
    Tully Albrecht, May 11, 2008
    #7
  8. Geoff. Hayward

    Focus Guest

    Agreed. SLRgear.com rates it very high.
     
    Focus, May 11, 2008
    #8
  9. Many thanks to all who responded, I've taken the general advice and gone for
    the Nikon VR. thanks again.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoff. Hayward, May 11, 2008
    #9
  10. Geoff. Hayward

    Steve Guest

    I wouldn't consider the VR Nikon to be an equivalent lens of the Sigma
    because of the price difference that VR imposes. I picked up my Sigma
    70-300 APO DG Macro for $109 for a used, but in new condition one. I
    don't think you'll find a new condition Nikon 70-300 VR for anywhere
    near that price, or even twice it. You'd only be able to get the
    non-ED version for that price, maybe cheaper. And I think it performs
    better than the Nikon 70-300 lens, even the ED one which is more
    expensive.

    I think VR is great, but for the shooting I've done with that lens so
    far, VR wouldn't have been much help. So I'm very happy with it.
    In most cases I'd say this is true. This Sigma is the only 3rd party
    lens I have. But this case in particular, you have a very cheap
    Nikkor lens (AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300 f/4-5.6 G) or the more expensive
    version (D ED AF) that is outclassed by the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO
    DG.

    Steve
     
    Steve, May 11, 2008
    #10
  11. Geoff. Hayward

    Steve Guest

    If I wanted to spend a lot of money on a lens in that focal length
    range, that's what I would have done also. Since I don't use above
    200mm very much on a 1.5x DSLR, and I already have a Nikon 80-200
    f/2.8, I went the cheaper route with the Sigma for the few times I
    need to get out to 300, and for the macro. And got a better lens than
    the Nikon equivalent non-VR 70-300. Although arguably not better than
    the VR version for 3 times the price.

    Steve
     
    Steve, May 11, 2008
    #11
  12. Geoff. Hayward

    Norm Dresner Guest

    |
    | On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:13:03 +0100, "Geoff. Hayward" <>
    | wrote:
    |
    | >
    | >| >> Hi Everone, I use a Nikon D70s with an 18-70 Nikon zoom. I have been
    | >> hankering after a longish zoom and the above lens is much cheaper than
    the
    | >> Nikon equivalent. One is about £55 and the other £280. Is the Nikon
    so
    | >> much better or would I be paying for a name? I do realise the Nikon
    has
    | >> VR - is this the reason for the difference in price? Thanks in advance
    | >> for
    | >> all information and advice.
    | >>
    | >> Geoff.
    | >>
    | >Many thanks to all who responded, I've taken the general advice and gone
    for
    | >the Nikon VR. thanks again.
    |
    | If I wanted to spend a lot of money on a lens in that focal length
    | range, that's what I would have done also. Since I don't use above
    | 200mm very much on a 1.5x DSLR, and I already have a Nikon 80-200
    | f/2.8, I went the cheaper route with the Sigma for the few times I
    | need to get out to 300, and for the macro. And got a better lens than
    | the Nikon equivalent non-VR 70-300. Although arguably not better than
    | the VR version for 3 times the price.
    |
    | Steve

    I've been using the 70-300 ED lens for IIRC at least 5 years and I love it.
    Is it the best telephoto lens ever made? No. Is it the fastest? Again No.
    But for the money -- certainly at the time -- it couldn't be beat for its
    combined performance/price ratio. Anyway, I very often use the lens at
    close to the long end and for many reasons -- mostly because of a desire to
    keep the ISO down to get the best quality picture, I find that I'm shooting
    at 1/100 - 1/150 second instead of the "recommended" 1/300 (1/focal length)
    and occasionally pay a penalty with motion blur. Since I got the new D300
    I've started using Auto-ISO and can set the minimum shutter speed high
    enough to keep motion to a minimum and the camera's performance -- at least
    to ISO 800 or so -- doesn't produce any significant penalty in image
    quality.

    BUT ... I'm still looking longingly at the new VR lens because the VR could
    again allow me to keep the ISO low. But it's a tough decision, weighing
    spending almost $500 on a new lens of the same focal length I have -- and a
    damn sharp one at that -- against applying that money toward getting the new
    VR 105 macro to replace an aging, almost 10 year old Tamron 90mm macro --
    and a manual focus Nikon 55mm AI which only operates with autoexposure in
    the Aperture Mode. The way things are, I've got at most enough money to
    purchase one VR lens. An additional restriction is that I still shoot a
    reasonable percentage of my shots on film with an F100 so I can't use any
    digital-only lens.

    SO ... Is the optical performance of the new 70-300 VR lens significantly
    superior to the older ED version?
    TIA
    Norm
     
    Norm Dresner, May 12, 2008
    #12
  13. Geoff. Hayward

    Steve Guest

    I don't have direct experience with the VR version of the lens. I've
    only compared the Nikon G, D ED and the Sigma APO DG and for me, the
    Sigma came out on top.

    I know people here have varying opinions of Ken Rockwell's reviews but
    I think he covers these particular lenses very well.

    Here's the 70-300 D ED: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300af.htm

    and here's the 70-300 VR:
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm

    A summary if you don't feel like reading the whole thing, he likes the
    VR version much better *but* since it costs so much, for not much more
    you can get the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D. The extra stops of aperture let
    you take a shorter exposure and pretty much make up for the extra
    stops that VR gives you with the smaller aperture but longer exposure.
    But the larger aperture makes it a more versatile lens because VR can
    only stop camera shake. It can't stop subject motion like a faster
    shutter with larger aperture can. Of course, you pay a price in
    dollars and a larger, heavier lens that can't go all the way out to
    300mm. But the 70-300 is really only very sharp up to 200mm anyway.

    Anyway, to answer your question simply... yes, the VR version does
    seem to be significantly better optically than the D ED version. And
    it's a much better small 70-300 lens they probably anything else out
    there.

    Steve
     
    Steve, May 12, 2008
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.