Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 - has anyone used it?

[CourtJester]

I'm a bit weary about purchasing 3rd party anything involved with electronics, but with the price of this lens I did some exploring. Taking a look at a lot of macros on pixel-peeper, this lens seems to perform admirably. Has anyone used it? Have you been happy with the results compared to Nikon lenses?

[OsmosisStudios]

I avoid 3rd party lenses, though some relish in them.

In this case, I'd have to pretty enthusiastically recommend the Nikon variant: just make sure you get the f/4.5-5.6 VR version. it's leaps and bounds better for a not a huge price difference to the SIgma counterpart.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I avoid 3rd party lenses, though some relish in them.

In this case, I'd have to pretty enthusiastically recommend the Nikon variant: just make sure you get the f/4.5-5.6 VR version. it's leaps and bounds better for a not a huge price difference to the SIgma counterpart.

I was wondering how long it'd take Osmosis to jump in with the 70-300

[Shokinen]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

I was wondering how long it'd take Osmosis to jump in with the 70-300

Still, you have to admit the Nikon 70-300 VR is a nice piece of glass for 600 Canadian bucks.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

I was wondering how long it'd take Osmosis to jump in with the 70-300

What, like there's a problem with that? :P

[Almond.Butterscotch]

No problem at all, and yes, it is a nice lens.

[deqwan22]

i've been using it so far..it works beatifully with my d5000

[jnelson]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

In this case, I'd have to pretty enthusiastically recommend the Nikon variant: just make sure you get the f/4.5-5.6 VR version. it's leaps and bounds better for a not a huge price difference to the SIgma counterpart.

I know the Nikon is obviously better optics, but the cost is pretty significant. On BHPhoto the Nikon retails for $590 and the sigma goes for $160 (or $210 for the APO model). I can see where the OP finds this questionable, I am still wrestling with the two options myself. Maybe i need to see $450 worth of difference when i compare images side by side? (thats not to be meant in a sarcastic manner, i sincerely would like to see the optical differences)

[FDCPR]

Maybe take this into consideration, that particular Sigma lens (70-300) I gave one away a few months ago and I don't make it a habit to give anything for free. I like some of the Sigma lenses, but that particular one just wasn't for me. Go with the Nikon recommended here and I think you will be much more pleased.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by jnelson

I know the Nikon is obviously better optics, but the cost is pretty significant. On BHPhoto the Nikon retails for $590 and the sigma goes for $160 (or $210 for the APO model). I can see where the OP finds this questionable, I am still wrestling with the two options myself. Maybe i need to see $450 worth of difference when i compare images side by side? (thats not to be meant in a sarcastic manner, i sincerely would like to see the optical differences)

Which 70-300s are you comparing?

Sigma 70-300, APO or otherwise, its about $150. But it COMPARES to the Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6 (NON VR), which retails for about $125.

The Sigma 70-300 OS (optical stabilizer) is about $400 and compares to the Nikon 70-300 VR, which goes for $500.

$100 for Nikon branded, better IQ and better VR? Sign me up!

(*all prices current midnight November 10 2009, Adorama, New Items only)