Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-16-2009, 05:06 AM   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 103
Photos taken by Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 non APO, (they are nice)

Some photo examples taken by my sigma 70-300 non APO llens, For those people thinkthis lens is not good, please do have a look at this, they are very sharpe.

Flickr Photo Download: IMGP9412
Flickr Photo Download: IMGP9411
Flickr Photo Download: IMGP9323
Flickr Photo Download: IMGP9286
Flickr Photo Download: IMGP9285
Flickr Photo Download: IMGP9433
Flickr Photo Download: IMGP9435
Flickr Photo Download: IMGP9119

06-16-2009, 05:44 AM   #2
Veteran Member
Matthew's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hawkesbury
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 364
Not bad, so how about a review in our lens database?

I agree that this lens is useful when you want a light or cheap tele-zoom. You seem to have a reasonable copy.

I get much more exercise now that I lug around the DA*300. The Sigma was much easier to pack< but neither of my copies performed adequately.

How about writing a review for the database?
06-16-2009, 05:51 AM   #3
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,683
Indeed, you've got a decently sharp copy, and putting it to good use.
Though a little less light than what was available for these captures and you'll find it a struggle to get the results you expect.
This lens's bokeh is also quite harsh for me.
Still, you've done well with it.
Thanks for sharing.
06-16-2009, 05:54 AM   #4
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth - Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 214
i wouldn't say its razor sharp (i have a good copy also)

but...

for the price (i got mine for $199aus) its a very good lens especially around the 200mm length and the macro facility seems to do a good job

so sharpness / features / price ratio its quite hard to beat.. which is why i got mine as a starter lens!

need to get my hands on a good copy of the sigma 70-200 2.8 or the 100-300f4 now.. as i have had a taste

Thanks

Steve

06-16-2009, 06:09 AM   #5
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 103
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by 5teve Quote
i wouldn't say its razor sharp (i have a good copy also)

but...

for the price (i got mine for $199aus) its a very good lens especially around the 200mm length and the macro facility seems to do a good job

so sharpness / features / price ratio its quite hard to beat.. which is why i got mine as a starter lens!

need to get my hands on a good copy of the sigma 70-200 2.8 or the 100-300f4 now.. as i have had a taste

Thanks

Steve
I got this sigma for 99 in the UK
06-16-2009, 06:15 AM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth - Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 214
my point exactly

a bargain!

steve
06-16-2009, 06:24 AM   #7
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada eh!
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 674
I'm currently doing a little experiment with the Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6. I'm trying to keep it on camera as much as possible, then keeping track of what focal length I use most. I'm an unfortunate victim of LBA and I would love to get the DA*300, but I'd like to make sure I actually use that length before investing. Right now I'm not really using the 300mm end that much, and I find that the 200mm area is pretty useful.

My primary subject is my kids, either in the yard, on the soccer field, in the park, etc. Winter sees much more landscape photography, mainly because the kids and I are not out on the lawn or in the park much.

For the price the Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 is not bad at all, just take it for what it is and take lots of photos.

I had it with me at a family function the other day, 14 kids in all and my uncle's place backs onto a golf course with a big backyard. I got the typical "oooooo" "ahhhhhh" when I took out my camera, but most of my cousins just walked into best buy and picked up whatever the sales rep said, including the typical 18-55 lens (or whatever their manufacturer's best "all round" lens was). I saw Sony, Olympus, and a Canon. They all thought my lens was a >$1000 lens, until I told them I got it for about $180 on evilBay NIB. Only one cousin had any idea what aperture actually meant/did, and he was the one with the Olympus
06-16-2009, 06:35 AM   #8
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,683
Thinking of a DA* 300 just for shooting your kids?!? You can't put a price on your family memories I suppose...

For not a lot more $$$, though, the DA 55-300 is a decent upgrade. The 70-200/2.8's are at least double its price. But the 300 is more expensive still...

06-16-2009, 06:43 AM   #9
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 103
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Leaf Fan Quote
I'm currently doing a little experiment with the Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6. I'm trying to keep it on camera as much as possible, then keeping track of what focal length I use most. I'm an unfortunate victim of LBA and I would love to get the DA*300, but I'd like to make sure I actually use that length before investing. Right now I'm not really using the 300mm end that much, and I find that the 200mm area is pretty useful.

My primary subject is my kids, either in the yard, on the soccer field, in the park, etc. Winter sees much more landscape photography, mainly because the kids and I are not out on the lawn or in the park much.

For the price the Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 is not bad at all, just take it for what it is and take lots of photos.

I had it with me at a family function the other day, 14 kids in all and my uncle's place backs onto a golf course with a big backyard. I got the typical "oooooo" "ahhhhhh" when I took out my camera, but most of my cousins just walked into best buy and picked up whatever the sales rep said, including the typical 18-55 lens (or whatever their manufacturer's best "all round" lens was). I saw Sony, Olympus, and a Canon. They all thought my lens was a >$1000 lens, until I told them I got it for about $180 on evilBay NIB. Only one cousin had any idea what aperture actually meant/did, and he was the one with the Olympus
Note that the 300mm on your sigma has a big big different than the 300mm on the DA*. 300MM on sigma is alot shorter than the real 300. if you are not using the 300mm end much on sigma then I am sure you are better off getting the 20mm 2.8 which is smaller in size and has a larger apecture.

If you find your sigma sharpe enough there is no point getting the 20mm 2.8 tho. DA* are all too much over priced.
06-16-2009, 07:02 AM   #10
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 103
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Thinking of a DA* 300 just for shooting your kids?!? You can't put a price on your family memories I suppose...

For not a lot more $$$, though, the DA 55-300 is a decent upgrade. The 70-200/2.8's are at least double its price. But the 300 is more expensive still...
Yes 55-300 is a very useful range
06-16-2009, 07:17 AM   #11
Veteran Member
bwield's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 444
??

QuoteOriginally posted by m42geo Quote
Note that the 300mm on your sigma has a big big different than the 300mm on the DA*. 300MM on sigma is alot shorter than the real 300. if you are not using the 300mm end much on sigma then I am sure you are better off getting the 20mm 2.8 which is smaller in size and has a larger apecture.

If you find your sigma sharpe enough there is no point getting the 20mm 2.8 tho. DA* are all too much over priced.

Sorry, do you mean the size of the lens, or the actual focal length is different when the 70-300mm is at 300mm and the DA* 300mm.
And if so, why would the 300mm DA* be a different focal length the the Sigma at 300mm?
06-16-2009, 07:19 AM   #12
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 103
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by bwield Quote
Sorry, do you mean the size of the lens, or the actual focal length is different when the 70-300mm is at 300mm and the DA* 300mm.
And if so, why would the 300mm DA* be a different focal length the the Sigma at 300mm?
Hi, I am talking about the focal length, I can not explain to you why this is but most zoom lenses are like this, like the sigma 70-300 it is more like 100-250, the wide end will not be as wide as mix focal length lens and the long end also are not as long.
06-16-2009, 09:20 AM   #13
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,070
I have been using that lens also with some good results. For the price it is a very good piece of glass. I use mine for sports and also some wildlife shooting. It works best on sunny days with good light. I find it very sharp up to about 200mm range and it softens a little up to 300 but stopping down to f8 or more it still does a very good job. The close up/macro feature is nice also.
06-16-2009, 09:47 AM   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,315
QuoteOriginally posted by m42geo Quote
Hi, I am talking about the focal length, I can not explain to you why this is but most zoom lenses are like this, like the sigma 70-300 it is more like 100-250, the wide end will not be as wide as mix focal length lens and the long end also are not as long.
It seems that internal focus/internal zoom lenses will only get to the longest focal length when focused at infinity. Some optical trickery involved here.
06-16-2009, 12:00 PM   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NJ, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,270
QuoteOriginally posted by m42geo Quote
Hi, I am talking about the focal length, I can not explain to you why this is but most zoom lenses are like this, like the sigma 70-300 it is more like 100-250, the wide end will not be as wide as mix focal length lens and the long end also are not as long.
I have read about the phenomenon to which you are referring. IIRC, it doesn't really affect the short end of the zoom - and certainly the 70mm focal length on my Tamron 70-300 really is around 70mm. I wish I could dig up the article... but, another IIRC, the 300mm end of many "cheap" zooms is really like 280mm or so.

I think these cheap zooms offer great value, but if you really need/want speed and nice bokeh, and even more sharpness, you gotta pay the $$.

As far as the picture links, the photos look a bit soft to me, and some are underexposed. I think a little USM and levels adjustment would help.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
apo, download, flickr, k-mount, pentax lens, photo, sigma, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm Traveling, Want Inexpensive Telephoto Zooms : Pentax 55-300 Or Sigma 70-300 APO Christopher M.W.T Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 32 01-01-2010 07:48 PM
Sigma 100-300 APO vs New Pentax 300 dylansalt Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 07-24-2008 05:44 AM
Sigma 75-300 APO vs Tamron 75-300 Timbuctoo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 03-17-2008 05:47 PM
For Sale - Sold: Quantary 70-300 f4-5.6 LDO Macro (AKA Sigma 70-300 APO) K10Perry Sold Items 6 02-25-2008 09:39 PM
Pentax FA J 75-300 lens vs. Sigma 70-300 APO DG Clem Nichols Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 04-09-2007 07:51 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:38 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top