|
Hi all. A colleague at work is selling a Sigma 70-300mm F/4.5.6 APO DG MACRO Lens and I wondered if any of you either has one or used one? He's had it about 8 months & it's in immaculate condition. I have a D70 & I'm thinking about taking it off his hands. Any thought? I have a Sigma 28-200mm atm but it's not Macro. By the way, his lens is a Nikon fit. Edited by pistol at 14:05:53 11-07-2006 |
Advice on a Sigma Lens
-
pistol 13,018 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years ago -
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago -
What's 'proper' macro? -
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago -
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago -
deem wrote:
I KNEW you'ld say that.
Owen-B wrote:
What's 'proper' macro?
Like I said, 1:1. -
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago -
Okay, call me a thickie, but I don't get something in the wiki article.
If the magnification is 1:1 (I get that, now), but you're moving the camera forwards or backwards to get it in focus, how is the penny going to be the same size when you place it on the film to compare? Getting closer, or further away, can't you use the focus mechanism to focus? -
I'm not going to reply incase I look really thick as I know nothing about cameras. -
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago -
Deem, that's some serious marco shit man!
Wish I had the time/money to get this far into photography. -
Ah... So there's only one physical point you can be to get it in focus at, say 1:1, and that point is where the coin will indeed be the exact same size on the film as it is in real life...?
Got it.
Don't understand WHY that point is the crucial focal position and also the right distance to get it life size, but that's because I never took physics..gif)
-
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago -
pistol 13,018 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agodeem wrote:
Owen-B wrote:
Ah... So there's only one physical point you can be to get it in focus at, say 1:1, and that point is where the coin will indeed be the exact same size on the film as it is in real life...?
Got it.
Don't understand WHY that point is the crucial focal position and also the right distance to get it life size, but that's because I never took physics.
Physics isn't needed. The lens in question is not nearly as good quality as a dedicated macro, and you have to be about 5 feet away from something in order to get the subject in focus.
It's pretty obvious that a macro feature of a cheapish lens wont match a dedicated £200 macro lens, but I was just pointing it out.
I got the same lens and was chuffed at the prospect of doing macro stuff, but it isn't great quality. It's OK as a zoom though, providing you're using a tripod and the subject is relatively still!
Not trying to be a know it all owen, just telling of my experiences with the lens.
He'd probably let me have it for about £90-100. I wasn't thinking so much about the Macro feature. More interested in a longer zoom for sports photography. A bigger zoom than my 18-200mm. -
smoothpete 37,743 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 17 years agoIf you've got a 200mm i'd save the cash you were going to spend on this and save up for an IS lens, I've got a 300mm Canon and it would be next to useless for sports to be honest -
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago -
deem wrote:
Um... I didn't say a word?!
Owen-B wrote:
Ah... So there's only one physical point you can be to get it in focus at, say 1:1, and that point is where the coin will indeed be the exact same size on the film as it is in real life...?
Got it.
Don't understand WHY that point is the crucial focal position and also the right distance to get it life size, but that's because I never took physics.
Physics isn't needed. The lens in question is not nearly as good quality as a dedicated macro, and you have to be about 5 feet away from something in order to get the subject in focus.
It's pretty obvious that a macro feature of a cheapish lens wont match a dedicated £200 macro lens, but I was just pointing it out.
I got the same lens and was chuffed at the prospect of doing macro stuff, but it isn't great quality. It's OK as a zoom though, providing you're using a tripod and the subject is relatively still!
Not trying to be a know it all owen, just telling of my experiences with the lens.
Cheers for explaining! -
I recently got the non APO version of this lens brand new for £99, the APO version is the newer version of it and is about £160 new.
The one I have is a good lens (they're all similar mechanisms) but does have a few minor problems IMHO.
The front lens group rotates when focussing (bad for filters).
The macro switch is a bit of a pain, you could damage it if you don't follow the instructions carefully. You can only switch to macro between 200 and 300mm, if you try to zoom out with macro on, you could break the lens. Also, you cannot switch between macro and normal while the lens is in the macro focus section, you have to focus on something far away or switch the camera off before flicking the switch, again, it could damage the lens if you do it at the wrong time.
Apart from that, I've found that it is good value for money once you get accustomed to it.
Minimum focus distance is 3 feet at 300mm on macro mode.
Edited by scitzoid pingu at 19:03:05 11-07-2006
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
