After days of rain and cold temperatures, the temps gone up to day, the sun is out and the insects are making up for lost time, feeding and pollinating. This is the kind of day the Sigma 70-300 macro was made for.

Some of those lined up at the lunch bar.











There are a few more images than I posted if you want to see them all click here.

[normhead]

OK, you asked for it. You're going to get a story.

I bought my *ist in 2004 or 2005. It's the model that was supposed to be FF but ended up APS-c because Phillips, who were supposed to supply the sensor for it came out with a sensor that was only functional at 25 ISO. Pentax bailed and put a smaller sensor in the *ist. I beleive it cost me over 2 grand, but hey, I was working then, family income over 100k, what's 2 grand?

SO basicly, there was no digital glass for Pentaxes at that point. My version of this lens is a (and I'm reading this off the box it came in, 70-300mm F4-5.6 II Macro Super. No DG (digital glass) no nothing. It's selling points? It's version II and it's "SUPER" in capital letters. It's not in the lens database. I can honestly say I would not have bought the *ist if it hadn't been for this lens. I was humming and hawing and the saleman said "You should try it with this lens." The lens just blew me away. I had an MF Tamron 30-300 macro I'd planned to use for my telephoto. And it was only $280. I bought the camera essentially so I could use this lens.

I have the box because I was ready to sell it last time I went to Toronto. I figured sell two of my 3 18-55's and this and see how close I can get to a Tamron 70-200. Anyway it didn't happen.

SO here is the thing with this lens. It's very strong from 70-150. It's very strong close in. IN fact the degree of magnification I get with this lens 10 feet or less is probably the equivalent of a 400 or 500 mm lens if you're talking fixed length as in the DA*60-250 or DA*300. So even though the plan was get the DA*60-250 and sell it, it still has a place in my bag.

I no longer use the long end of it except for macro and close up, less than 150 feet. ALthough it stacks up very well with any lens I own up to 150mm. At 90 mm you can't tell it's a cheap lens, until you look at images shot with the Tammy 90 or the DA* 60-250.

For macro work, I don't have anything that magnifies as big. My first two swallow tail butterfly images (not posted) , the Swallow tail was too big for the frame, from 7 feet away.

So anyway, that's the story of my 70-300. I went through the first few years of my DSLR life with this lens and a kit lens. And I recommend the same for anyone starting out. It's not the best out there. But it does a lot, and a lot of the things it does, it does very well. It just doesn't do everything it does exceptionally well. Discretion is needed. And also, because of that, it's prone to getting left home. I have too many shots I don't like because I tried to use it out of it's strength, and ended up wasting an opportunity by over estimating it's IQ from 200mm-300mm at distances over 100 feet. It really can take an image with such low IQ it's un-useable for me. Although if it's the only lens you have, it's still remarkable. It's soft 300mm is way better than crisp 135 mm, if that's all you have, and the subject is 200 feet away.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-06-2012 at 09:15 AM.

[MSL]

Interesting story, and you certainly make the most out of that lens. And also some interesting food for thought about using lenses where they excel and not just where they are able.

[dcmsox2004]

beautiful colors, wonderful dof and clarity, well done! dave m

[slowpez]

Thanks for the info Norm. My husband had that one on his short list along with the Tammy 90 for macro. From what you say, I think I'll convince him the Tammy 90 is what he wants.

[normhead]

Thanks for the comment dave m

From what you say, I think I'll convince him the Tammy 90 is what he wants.

The Tamron 90 is so far above the Sigma 70-300. You'd expect that because it's a prime, but it goes beyond that. The DA 100 is also an exceptional lens from what I've seen. So close to the Tammy that it pretty much comes down to WR or not WR. The build quality of those WR lenses is not to be sneezed at. If I was going to get just one between the Tammy and the Sigma, it would be the Tammy. The Sigma is a "my first lens" type of lens. I don't think anyone buys a DA* and then says "I need to fill out my lens collection with a Sigma 70-300."

[MSL]

So anyway, that's the story of my 70-300. I went through the first few years of my DSLR life with this lens and a kit lens. And I recommend the same for anyone starting out. It's not the best out there. But it does a lot, and a lot of the things it does, it does very well. It just doesn't do everything it does exceptionally well

Norm - 2 follow ups.
Does it do macro only at 300mm or at some range and what is the maximum magnification?
In its weaker range - say about 150mm for ever distant objects - does it work well enough to be considered a "snapshot" lens

[Rupert]

Some very fine shooting there Norm! Love the colors and the nice sharp images! The last butterfly is my favorite...perfect!
Regards!

[normhead]

Thanks for commenting Rupert. I got so busy answering MSL I almost missed you there.

It does macro from 200-300. I'd consider 70mm to be a bit long on APS-c for a snapshot lens. Minimum focusing distance is about 4 feet. it's fine for snapshots.

As for buying the lens today. A lot of lenses have been released in the last 8 years. I'd certainly want to look at a few more options if I was buying today.

Here's a shot from from my *ist years ago , 1:1 crop. Not too bad, but certainly not top rate. Cranked out to 210 mm, so well out of it's comfort zone, probably 250 feet way, also well out of it's comfort zone,



However, as a snapshot, there's nothing wrong with the picture.