Is the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro a good budget telephoto for a Nikon D90?
Asked 1/2/2012
3 views
2 answers
0
I'm considering the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro for my Nikon D90 because I'm on a tight budget and want an affordable telephoto lens. I was also interested in its limited "macro" capability, mainly for occasional close-up use.
I've read mixed things about it: slow and noisy autofocus, average build quality, no stabilization, and only modest macro performance. My main goal is a decent low-cost telephoto for wildlife and general use, not true macro.
Is this lens worth buying as a budget option, or is it better to wait and save for something better? If I can stretch my budget somewhat, are there stronger alternatives in this range?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
7
I have that exact lens, the APO DG version even. Its ... 'ok'. It has really poor contrast is my biggest gripe and the autofocus is dreadful slow.
For pics of slow moving wildlife in reasonable light - it does pretty ok with a little contrast help in post production. Example below:
For macro pics..its well, not very macro. It just doesn't get as close as you'd think and the lack of sharpness really shows compared to better, sharper lenses. It's not terrible but not great. See below:
I've tried and tried and TRIED to get birds in flight with this lens, but the autofocus is far too slow. You get a lucky shot every once and awhile, but it just can't keep up.
I actually find it does portraits pretty decent in the 200-300mm range - which is like a fashion photography range. You don't need it super ultra sharp and you get nice blurred backgrounds. See below:
It feels cheap, especially the lens hood. The hood fits loose and if you're not careful, you can grind the gears in autofocus mode when turning by hand.
Overall its a pretty ok lens, but only if you stay within its autofocus ability and you fix a little contrast in post. If I was shopping again, I'd spend a bit more.
Originally by user1917. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1917
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Based on the shared experience here, this lens is usable but not a strong recommendation. Owners describe it as cheap and "ok," but with weak contrast, limited sharpness, slow/noisy autofocus, and no stabilization. That makes it serviceable for slow-moving subjects in good light, but frustrating for action like birds in flight.
Its "macro" mode is also not true macro and isn't especially impressive; it's more of a close-focus feature than a reason to buy the lens.
So if your priority is an affordable telephoto and expectations are modest, it can work as a temporary stopgap. But if image quality and autofocus matter, the consensus is to skip it and save for something better.
Among the alternatives mentioned, the Nikon 55-300mm is suggested as a better budget choice for a D90. If possible, renting before buying is also a good idea, especially since this Sigma is common on the used market.
Bottom line: acceptable only if budget is extremely tight; otherwise wait and put the money toward a better telephoto.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Which Sigma 70-300mm Nikon lens is better for close-up and macro-style photography on a D90?
Which budget 70-300mm lens is best for a Nikon D5100?
Does image stabilization matter if I’m shooting on a tripod?
Do I need an adapter to use a Sigma 70-300mm lens on a Canon Rebel T3?
Choosing a telephoto zoom for a Canon 60D: 70-300mm vs 70-200mm f/2.8 for wildlife