| Author: | | New Member Registered: February, 2012 Posts: 17
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 17, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Good IQ, natural colours, affordable | | Cons: | None | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Autofocus: 9
New Or Used: New
| |
I have enjoyed taking photos for 50 years, and shooting Pentax for 40, but I have never spent much money on my equipment, so although I can compare this lens to many others, I'd be surprised if any of them would be found in a professional arsenal. That said, I bought this new, and a second hand Pentax FA 80-320 (for slightly more than I paid for the new Sigma 70-300), with a view to keeping one for myself and giving one to my daughter. I played with them on holiday for a couple of weeks, and found I liked them both very much. The pictures didn't look the same, but I couldn't say I liked one more than the other. In the end I gave my daughter the Pentax, because I have longer lenses than 300, and she doesn't. Since then she has taken many fantastic shots with the Pentax on Safari in Africa, and I like much of what I have taken with the Sigma. Indoors with a big flash bouncing off the ceiling, outdoors with a Circular Polariser zooming in to landscapes and seascapes, and garden birds or butterflies on buddleias. I find the sensor noise on my Samsung GX-20 very annoying if I have the ISO set higher than 100. So trying to shoot my nephew playing Rugby didn't work. I got better results with the Tair 300, even though it weighs a ton, it wasn't on a tripod, and I was focusing manually. Since then, I have picked up a second-hand Pentax K-x, which I find acceptable at ISO 800, so I have now taken photos at Rugby matches with this lens that I felt were satisfactory.
At 300 mm wide open (f 5.6), the Tair (f 4.5) captures more detail. The Revuenon (Tele-Ennalyt) (f 5.6) gets less. The Sigma 70-300 colours look nicer to my eye; more natural. The Sigma 75-300 APO gets less detail also, but its colours are nicer still (though possibly less natural). The Sigma 75-300 non-APO λ-2 also gets less detail; its colours more resemble the 70-300. With the 70-300, CA is apparent in high contrast OOF areas, this is the only time I notice CA.
At 200 mm, only my Komine Vivitar 200 mm (f 3.5) captures more detail, but the Sigma 70-300 (f 4.5) colours are much nicer; you would think that the tigers at London Zoo are black and white if you'd seen the Komine images straight from the camera. Detail-wise, the Sigma 70-300 matches the Tamron Adaptall-2 70-210 Model 52A and the model 46A (both f 4), exceeds by a small margin the Pentax F 70-210 f4-5.6 and the Sigma 75-300 APO (f 4.5), and a larger margin the Sigma XQ 80-200 f3.5, which in turn is better than the Tokina 70-210 f4-4.5, and the Samyang 70-210 f4-5.6. Apart from the Komine, none of my motley array of 200 f 3.5 prime lenses match the Tamrons wide open. Again, I like the colours of the Sigma 75-300 APO the best.
At 70 mm, my Sigma 70-300 captures more detail than my Pentax FAJ 28-80 f3.5-5.6, Pentax F 35-70 f3.5-4.5, Pentax FA 28-90 f3.5-4.5, Pentax FA 28-70 f4, Pentax F 28-80 f3.5-4.5 and Pentax FA 28-105 f4-5.6 PZ. Though I wouldn't necessarily say I prefer the Sigma to the Pentax images.
I have primes that out-resolve my Sigma 70-300 when the primes are wide open at 300 mm, 200 mm and 135 mm (the CZJ Sonnar 135 f3.5), but I have many more (faster) primes that do not. So good if not matchless IQ, nice colours, and fast and accurate autofocus, make for a pleasing package.
My son has the older version of this lens, the Non-APO 70-300 DL. He also obtains good, sharp, colourful results with it. Based on my experience of the colours from the APO 75-300, and how they differ from my non-APO copy of that lens, I would be interested in trying the APO version of this lens, but I am at a loss to understand why the non-APO lens is rated so poorly by so many others, based on the comparisons I can make with other lenses that are reviewed on this site that are more highly rated; the Pentax F 70-210 f4-5.6 for instance.
I have tried this lens with the Kenko MC4 Pz-AF DG 2x teleconverter. In broad daylight autofocus works from 70-200mm, that is, as long as the wide-open aperture is less than or equal to f4.5. I can discern more detail with the teleconverter than I can without it, but you effectively get a 1.4x teleconverter increase in range (300mm to 400mm) for the cost of the 2x teleconverter 2 f stops brightness. But I'm happy for £20.
UPDATE: I managed to pick up a Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO for £35, so I can finally comment on the differences. At 70mm on an APS-C D-SLR there is little between them; the APO seems to give slightly brighter colours is all I can see. The difference gets more pronounced as the focal length increases, but not by much. The MTF diagrams for the two lenses would suggest that most of the difference between the two lenses is to be seen outside the APS-C image area. The DG has a more flexible macro facility; the APO just has closer focus at 300mm. The APO doesn't work any better than the DG with the Kenko MC4 Pz-AF DG 2x teleconverter.
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: October, 2009 Location: United States Posts: 23
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 29, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Cost, utility | | Cons: | Weight, size, softness at 300mm | |
I bought this lens based on reviews on Amazon and my budget. I was just stepping up to a DSLR and wanted a long reach lens but I didnt have the budget for much. I went back and forth between the Sigma and the Tamron and ended up with the Sigma.
The Good:
This is a great starter lens or budget lens. With a 1.5 crop factor it is a 105mm-450mm lens with true macro from 200-300mm (250-450 converted). Thats a lot of lens for $150. The macro is good but takes some getting used to. First you have to go past 200mm, then flip a switch to go to macro focusing. When you are done, you have to do all of that in reverse or it wont retract. The macro focusing is good but most of the time you will want to switch to manual. The zoom ring has a nice positive feel that lets you stop when you want to and go when you want to. Some zooms are a little too "lose" for my taste. Because of its size, hand held shooting needs daylight and even then if you can use a tripod, do. With a tripod, the sharpness is excellent. This lens has a definite sweet spot between 135mm and 200mm, f/8. Shoot in this range and you will get amazing results.
The Bad
This thing is BIG and HEAVY. At 300mm and the full macro focusing, this lens is HUGE!! Do not try using it on a cheep tripod. I did, its frustrating. Because of the size and weight, it flops around more than some lenses. BE CAREFUL! Focus at either end is not a strong point. There is softness and CA at 300mm and at the low end of the f-stops. IF you can shoot f/8 or better, you will get better results.
This is not a "digital" lens. It is a full frame, 35mm film lens that works great on new Pentax digitals. As long as you understand and accept its limitations, you will get a lot of value from it.
This was taken shortly after I bought the lens - 200mm, f/4.5
Also shortly after I bought it, hand held, 300mm, f/5.6
 | | | | | New Member Registered: December, 2013 Posts: 23
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 10, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | sharp enough, good walkaround, budget lens | | Cons: | big and heavy for some users | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 9
Autofocus: 9
New Or Used: Used
| |
Certainly this lens is not a pro lens, and not suitable for pro quality shootings. On the other hand you will have to pay at least five to six times more to buy a similar focal length pro lens like 70-200 f/2.8.
So, for hobbiests like me it is an ideal budget lens to use for nature photography, shooting birds and other animals. 1/2 macro is another bonus for this lens to shoot butterflies, and you don't have to get too close to them cause they fly away easily.
Conclusion, af zoom lens for this price with acceptable results, you should always keep it in your bag, you may always need it...
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: February, 2013 Location: Melbourne Posts: 2,551
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 20, 2013 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Cheap | | Cons: | Hunts - has problems locking in focus | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 6
Value: 6
Autofocus: 4
New Or Used: Used
| |
There are two aspects to this lens , normal 70-300 and Macro 200-300 ..
In normal mode this lens works rather well , especially if there is enough light . On a nice sunny day the lens can perform like a champ , take nice sharp pictures , but as the light fails so does the lens ( seems normal for budget lenses ) , and performance suffers with diminishing light .
In macro mode , if everything is right , the lens can work effectively , but you will want a tripod or something as at 200-300 Macro their is a fair bit of movement hand held . Also with more complicated subjects ( last image ) the lens simply refused to lock in the focus , and was stepping in and out of focus constantly ( stuck in a sort of loop ) . With the last picture , I gave up on the auto focus and switched to manual , to be able to take the picture ..
This is a very average lens overall , if you can find it cheap enough it might be worth trying . In good light , and no macro , it might serve your needs well enough , certainly worth a try if your on a budget .
I would recommend this lens with reservation : Macro performance ??? - Low light performance ?? - Used in nice sunlight , it may very well do the job , just expect there to be limitations to what the lens can handle .. Perfect conditions = Good pictures , Bad conditions = not so stellar performance
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: August, 2012 Location: Uppsala Posts: 15
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 2, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $180.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | affordable, nice shots when used properly | | Cons: | few, given the price tag | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Autofocus: 8
New Or Used: New
| |
 i bought this lens as my first telezoom ever. I was actually quite new with DSLR's when I bought it but had extensive experience with primes from the film era. To my surprise, and contrary to many reviews, I believe that the lens delivered some nice shoots, and even so more, given the price tag. This lens is now with my daughter in Kenya and have taken some very nice shots of rare animals, including cervals.
I  can certainly recomend this lens, if the shots are bad. It isn't due to the lens.. | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: November, 2009 Location: Calgary, Alberta Posts: 507
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 14, 2011 | Not Recommended | Price: $90.00
| Rating: 2 |
| Pros: | cheap | | Cons: | cheap, extremely slow AF, poor IQ | | Sharpness: 4
Aberrations: 4
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 6
Value: 6
Autofocus: 1
| |
This was the first "long" lens I owned and had great hopes for such a great value. Once I opened the box and was able to try the lens out I was very disappointed. No matter how hard I tried I could never get a "tack sharp" photo at any focal length. The auto-focus is extremely slow and often continuously searches with no results. You can get these used for some cheap prices but beware, the price reflects the quality of the lens. I've boxed mine up and put it in the closet. I couldn't morally sell this to someone with hoped of receiving a good lens.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: June, 2023 Posts: 53 | | Review Date: June 25, 2023 | Recommended | Price: $233.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | overall Fantastic lens | | Cons: | Its a 70-300mm, May be too heavy | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 4
Value: 10
Camera Used: K5 K100D
Autofocus: 9
New Or Used: New
| |
After using this lens again after 2 years and now able to use it correctly, I can say that it has to be one of my favorite lenses ever. Its not perfect by any means but when you use it for events, wildlife and even portraits it works so well. Images will be at the bottom for reference.
1. Lens Quality/Build. This lens is built exceptionally well, it's plastic but there's a good weight to it, and the zoom functions/focus ring still works with 0 issues 10/10 (was bought new with Pentax K100D)
When at Northern nats you have to use manual focus for everything and its amazing, great fine tuning on the focus and the zoom is just insane, the ergonomics of this lens is amazing. people say "you just get used to it", No when it comes to doing pin point moving targets with constant zooming in and out having the focus at the front is so damn helpful, being able to brace the zoom ring with your palm of your hand while using your fingers to focus is unmatched, want 300mm zoom with crisp photos without any motion blur Hand held? this lens WILL do it, i can use this lens at 1/20th of a second and still have no motion blur (Shake reduction, and coffee).
2. Image Quality and colours. When it comes to image quality its Very good, its not prefect and depending on your aperture and zoom but it won't let you down.
If you want the highest quality stop it down to f10/f11, f8 seems to have a bit softness but wide open f4 its soft but not too bad.
When it comes to zooming the only time it suffers is all the way zoomed out and all the way zoomed in but everything in-between its 10/10. When i say everything in-between, i mean 71mm-299mm, but on the longer end i have found it focus goes weird after 296mm
When it comes to colours it gives a very surreal but natural look, probably the best explanation of its colours are "ultra realism" its not flat but not deep either, its got the nice digital look that we look for in Plasma displays.
3. Functionality/ Use issues. I have found this lens works best in dryer climates, this lens was used in New Zealand just after the earthquakes, It does function in snow and in -14C but i am unaware if its water resistant. It easily keeps out dust and smoke, when i say smoke i mean dense smoke that blocks out the sun.
The lens seems to be coated well, tire rubber from burnouts comes off well without any issues although i recommend using 2 cloths.
This lens has no issues with direct sunlight, i haven't managed to find any photos that have lens flairs from using this lens, and it doesn't hold heat or cause your hands to sweat when holding it. This lens isn't fragile but if you intentionally try to damage it or get careless with it you can damage this lens but general ware will be minimal. My lens is damaged unfortunately, the main lens to the sensor has massive damage to the coating but it doesn't cause any issues, the top most inner lens seems to have either a small crack or fungus growing on it along with a bit of dust but no optical issues are present.
When it comes to using this lens in general, if your camera is too light or you don't have a counterweight by using a metal tripod plate you will struggle to comfortably use this lens, I use a 230g tripod plate to counterweight the body of the camera specifically for heavy lenses like this and it works fantastic. Although if you have a light camera body even with a counterweight you might struggle as when using my K100D nothing helps counter balance the lens and i can only hold the camera for 2 minutes at a time.
Verdict. if you can get a cheap one, go out and get one. you won't be disappointment
    | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: April, 2013 Posts: 1,237 | | Review Date: January 13, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $166.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | good zoom spread, auto and manual aperture, macro mode | | Cons: | weight, awkward transition from normal to zoom and vice versa | |
Bought this one new primarily for the macro mode. A good auto focus lens that gives a very respectable spread of zoom. The macro mode has a longer minimum focus distance than I am used to but gives a good magnification whilst not crowding the subject. Like Sigma lenses f this type, switching from normal to macro and vice versa needs to be within a certain set of parameters, it took me a little while to get used to it but with time it would become easier. Works well with the older body and the new, generally a very useful lens.
| | | | | Custom User Title Registered: January, 2016 Location: Alberta Posts: 6,806 | | Review Date: July 22, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $70.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Inexpensive, focal range, relatively sharp for what it is, very nice and usable macro! | | Cons: | zoom creep, not tack sharp, not the fastest aperture | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 7
Value: 9
Camera Used: Pentax K-S2
Autofocus: 7
New Or Used: Used
| |
This was one of my first lenses and I was extremely happy with this one for a long time! It was my go-to birding lens forever (I replaced with 50-300 PLM  )
These guys are pretty cheap and can get you come excellent results including some nice macro work!
I was really disappointed with the zoom creep, I ended up buying a huge rubber band to put around the lens to stop the creep - pretty annoying.
Still a decent lens regarding optics though!
| | | | | New Member Registered: June, 2011 Location: Hawai'i Posts: 1 | | Review Date: April 15, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $130.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Versatility of this lens is good under good conditions. | | Cons: | Turns soft under less then optimal conditions | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 9
Camera Used: Pentax K-1 Mark II
Autofocus: 8
New Or Used: New
| |
I had all but written of this lens that I have had for years, but as I moved to the full-frame Pentax K-1 Mark II body, I decided to give it another shot. It was pleasantly surprising how well quality turned out compared to the low price and large range of this lens. Great value under perfect conditions.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: December, 2014 Posts: 152 | | Review Date: May 5, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $75.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp, Macro, Good Value | | Cons: | Need to shoot wide open to maximise light, so very thin DOF. Zoom Creep | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 6
Value: 9
Camera Used: K3ii
Autofocus: 8
New Or Used: Used
| |
I bought this and started to use it with my K-30. The results were very poor.
I nearly returned it, since it was sold to me as the APO version, but wasn't.
Then my K-30 broke, and I tried it with a new K3ii. The results were on a different planet.
The Macro capability gives great results, being able to close focus on the children for outdoor portrait shots, and on bugs and birds. Quite why it behaved so differently on the two cameras, I have no idea.
I'm just waiting for a dark clear night to attempt an astro shot with it.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: February, 2014 Posts: 241 | | Review Date: June 9, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Cost Good sharpness | | Cons: | CA but not as bad others have mentioned | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-50
Autofocus: 7
New Or Used: Used
| |
I just got back into the photo game having learned ages ago on a Minolta film camera. I bought this used from the marketplace here and have been having a lot of fun with it. CA can be manages. For example the Cedar Waxwing has pretty high contrast but no CA.
The lens is great when you have a good target such as a perched bird. It can be frustrating when trying to pick up a fast moving object. The macro only works at 300mm but I've gotten some nice shots using it.
It is a little bulky compared to the Pentax 55-300 but not so much that I would consider an issue for me. Best sharpness is a stop or two down from wide open.
I know this is not prime sharp but none the less it is pretty darn good for under $100 lens. At full retail I would likely opt for the Pentax 55-300 but if you are on a budget and can get a good price on a used copy I say go for it.
 Cedar Waxwing. © Ted Werth by tw0759, on Flickr
 IMGP2879 by tw0759, on Flickr
Maco function:
 IMGP2981 by tw0759, on Flickr
 IMGP2015 by tw0759, on Flickr
 2014-04-12 14.17.23 by tw0759, on Flickr
 IMGP1503 by tw0759, on Flickr
 IMGP1477 by tw0759, on Flickr
Not a 100% crop but probably 75-80%
 IMGP3723 by tw0759, on Flickr
Near 100% crop - Edited to sharpen detail.
 2014-04-12 14.28.30 by tw0759, on Flickr
| | | | | New Member Registered: September, 2011 Posts: 15 | | Review Date: April 15, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | lightweight, wide zoom range, macro | | Cons: | Chromatic aberration | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: Sony Alpha A700
Autofocus: 7
New Or Used: New
| |
Cheap lens, good price-performance ratio. Sweet point at F8 and around 200mm, moving to the extremes gets worse but not bad. I'd recommend it.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: November, 2012 Posts: 66 | | Review Date: May 26, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $170.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Cheap, light, sharp, fast AF, 1:2 Macro | | Cons: | CA , font element rotates, poor macro | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Autofocus: 10
New Or Used: New
| |
I rate this lens 10 because it is great for its price.
I have used this lens quite a bit on my K5 and I like it. I use it in situation where I need different focal for fast subjects. For example, it is very convenient in amusement parks and animal shows. The AF is very fast and pictures are ok. So, I am very satisfied with the results.
My copy is decent sharp at all focal lengths. I got excellent results, very sharp at 70 mm, not as sharp as my FA77 but enough. It is weaker beyond 200 mm, but it can still give acceptable results even at 300mm in good light.
It shows some CA in situations with high contrast but it is easily corrected in PP.
The front element rotates during focus. This is problematic with filters.
I never got a macro shot that I really like with this lens, so I would not recommend it for that.
It is light, cheap and very efficient in good light, so I recommend it as a very useful zoom.
| | | | | New Member Registered: April, 2012 Posts: 4 | | Review Date: April 10, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $125.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Macro function, good value for money. | | Cons: | Slow focus | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 6
Value: 8
Autofocus: 4
New Or Used: New
| |
Cheap lens, good value. The downside though is that it's AF function is quite slow, so if you're an amateur sports photographer that needs to focus quickly, either use MF or go for a different lens. That's the biggest downfall for this lens.
| | |
;)
;)
;)
