| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/30/2006 09:29:42 AM · #1 |
Hi, Was wondering if somebody could give me a heads up on the differences? I am looking at the sigma 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 DG APO macro for canon. However, I have just noticed that there is also a macro super, and a macro super II! They all seem to cost around the same, but what is the difference? The reason I am thinking about buying this one is cause I have no money to buy an expensive lense, but i really want a telephoto and macro lens. This seems to be it. Any recomendations as to which one i should choose and why? Any help would be very appreciated! Cheers,
Phil |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 09:38:47 AM · #2 |
While I dont have any of those lenses, I heard the 70-300 is a great lens for the price. Check out the Sigma lenses here. If I read it correctly, the Super II has more magnification and is lighter. Other than that, they appear to be the same in view angle, min focus dist and filter size.
Edited for early morning spelling errors.
Message edited by author 2006-07-30 09:39:13. |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 09:42:20 AM · #3 |
| Thanks Mr Ed. Left you a comment! |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 09:53:18 AM · #4 |
| Not sure what the difference is, but I have the super II and I love it. I've surprisingly taken some great concert shots with it. With low light, no flash, and from about 15 rows back on the floor. There were people who asked me if I used "L" glass! For a lower priced lens, it's really great in my opinion. |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 10:06:14 AM · #5 |
I own thisone and I have nothing to complain about. I took some macros today I'll post them later. It's not L for sure. I shot with my camera on a sesion with 70-200 4 L and with my Sigma and you could easily tell the diff. But for the money I really love it.
Just noticed I have the 5th spot on this lens. Hehe(for Canon...)
Here is my personal favourite one
Message edited by author 2006-07-30 12:12:39.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 10:06:17 AM · #6 |
I have it for my Nikon and I love it....it has barely been off the camera since I got it. I ALMOST love it as a walk around lens but you miss a bit wide.....I might get the Sigma 28-300mmm which also has macro for this reason (or wait till I can get the Nikon 18-200mmm....someday).
 Macro  Normal |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 10:15:24 AM · #7 |
| thanks yall! Left ya comments :) |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 10:26:16 AM · #8 |
| I own this one and think it's the most rotten lense i have ever used. It's good for macros if you can stand 3 feet behind your object, but it's far too heavy, u can only use it with a strong tripod. The AF is too slow, I haven't got a single sharp photo made in AF mode using it as a tele. I heard the APO is better, but it still is heavy. |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 10:26:44 AM · #9 |
BTW When I bought it I could not refrein for buying a Canon 50/1.8 with it. I checked your profile. Buy one!
Message edited by author 2006-07-30 10:27:02.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 10:32:04 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
I own this one and think it's the most rotten lense i have ever used. It's good for macros if you can stand 3 feet behind your object, but it's far too heavy, u can only use it with a strong tripod. The AF is too slow, I haven't got a single sharp photo made in AF mode using it as a tele. I heard the APO is better, but it still is heavy. |
A friend of mine frumoaznicul confirmed the diff between the two. The APO is far better.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 10:32:25 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
I own this one and think it's the most rotten lense i have ever used. It's good for macros if you can stand 3 feet behind your object, but it's far too heavy, u can only use it with a strong tripod. The AF is too slow, I haven't got a single sharp photo made in AF mode using it as a tele. I heard the APO is better, but it still is heavy. |
The APO version is dramatically better, yes. |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 11:00:20 AM · #12 |
Taken today AV mode EV -0.33
100%crop
ISO400
F5
1/400
focal lenght 190
Taken in RAW no adjustment straight from the camera
Some 30 sec levels and USM 125/0.8 at the resized one
Message edited by author 2006-07-30 11:06:05.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 11:11:53 AM · #13 |
hi tapeworm jimmy,
i recently bought this lens.. an excellant one and i use it all arround too, i have these comments for disadvantage
the min focus distance is a bit far specially if you're shooting indoors. but its alright. Its a telephoto lens anyway
also the far end of the focal length is a somehow soft at 300 mm .. stopping down to f/11 usually fixes that..
noisy a little and focus slowly, but when you lock in on a moving object it keeps the grip... those disadvantages don bother me considering its price which is more than great for the quality of pictures it produces.. a good quality glass would cost far more than that..
this is a shot i took recently
Message edited by author 2006-07-30 11:14:15. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 11:46:46 PM EST.
