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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Agreed. SLRgear.com rates it very high.

 

Many thanks to all who responded, I've taken the general advice and gone for
the Nikon VR. thanks again.

Geoff.

 

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

 

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

 

|
| 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

 

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