Forum Member Registered: March, 2020 Posts: 70 | | Review Date: June 14, 2022 | Recommended | Price: $25.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | CAs well-controlled, sharp when stopped down, macro mode at 300 mm (up to 1:1 with accessory lens) with tons of working distance, creamy bokeh | | Cons: | Really quite soft wide open (especially at 300mm and in macro), macro mode realistically for tripod work only, overblown highlights in otherwise well-exposed scenes, AF can hunt | | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 6
Value: 10
Camera Used: APS-C, FF
Autofocus: 6
New Or Used: Used
| |
The lens I have here is the 1994 variant of the APO Macro, not the Super released in 2000 which according to an old review on Shutterbug “feature[s] an entirely new optical formula while keeping the best of [its] predecessors' capabilities”. Hence the separate database entry.
I bought this one as a companion to my 70-210mm APO Macro because I already had the matched accessory macro lens as well as the proprietary hood. It has the same 1:2 macro mode at the tele end, here with a MFD of 0.95 meters. Otherwise it’s 1.5 meters throughout the focal range. This can be reduced with the matched achromatic macro lens which was, I believe, sold as an optional accessory. Either way, there’s more than enough working distance to take photos of bugs, butterflies and other creatures that would be easily spooked by moving too close. While hand-held shots are difficult but possible thanks to the high-ISO performance of modern bodies, it’s really more of a mono- or tripod affair. You’d also want to stop down to at least F8, ideally more.
AF was fine, just not the best or most accurate in macro mode as one would expect. Still, nice to have AF-C available when you don’t want to set up a tripod.
My copy was disappointingly soft wide open compared to the 70-210mm. When stopped down, performance as an ordinary telezoom was more than acceptable. Better up to 200mm, worse further out. This lens also appears to be very well-corrected because I don’t remember seeing any ugly fringing. Same applies to vignetting or geometric distortion. OOC contrast, color reproduction, glare resistance and ghosting (resp. lack thereof) certainly seemed to be above average compared to some of my other film-era lenses as well, which is nice.
Bokeh appeared to be more or less the same as with the 70-210mm, too. To quote myself: “neither plain nor busy, just creamy to very creamy depending on distance-to-subject and the aperture”. However, one important difference was a strange tendency to overblow highlights in otherwise well-exposed shots such as a spider sitting on sun-lit leaves. Most of the my other lenses did not seem to struggle as much in the same situation.
Conclusion time then. This Sigma can offer great IQ when used properly, but I think I’ll stick to the 70-210mm. More practical and overall more consistent performance. Then again, may just be my particular copy. Still worth a try if you absolutely need that 300mm reach and want above-average quality without spending a fortune.
 | |
