BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Photography Question 

Danielle E. Rutter
 

Sigma 70-300


I just got a new Nikon D50 for Christmas and am already looking to get another lens. It just came with the standard Nikkor 28-80mm. I'd really like a zoom lens and a macro. Happily, I came across the Sigma 70-300 which is both zoom and macro and I've heard some pretty good things about it... plus it's quite affordable. My question is, is there any way that I'm going to be able to shoot indoor/night sports with this? Not that I have found my niche yet but I don't like to rule anything out. I'd also just like to hear anything anybody has to say about this lens. I like to do lots of research before I buy.

Thanks!!


To love this question, log in above
January 09, 2006

 

robert G. Fately
  Well, Danielle, the 70-300 zoom range is certainly quite popular, but these lenses are not generally speaking fast enough to really be used for darker situations where you want to maintain a fast shutter speed. For that, at a minimum you would probably need to use something more like a 70-200 f2.8 lens - which of course costs a tad more and is also just plain bigger and heavier.


To love this comment, log in above
January 09, 2006

 

Pete H
  Hi Danielle,

I agree with Bob but will go a step further as I may be a tad less "nice" than Bob. LOL

At 300mm, these inexpensive lenses are really "soft." (i.e) focus is not sharp...and, I doubt you can hand hold at that focal length indoors.

Remember; the Nikon has a crop factor of 1.5x, so if you purchase the 70-200 which is faster at 2.8, in essence you have a 300mm when shooting at 200mm.

Need further evidence? Take a look at the NFL photogs on the sidelines. Granted, most of us can not afford to shoot with those "white" lenses we see them using, but I think you'll get the point. LOL
They are using very "fast" glass and VERY expensive.
Get the 70-200@2.8, you'll be happier in the long run.


Pete


To love this comment, log in above
January 10, 2006

 

Jon Close
  While I agree with the 1st 2 posts, and own a 70-200 f/2.8 myself, I would not discourage someone on a tight budget from getting a 70-300 f/4-5.6 zoom. Very economical, pretty sharp from 70-200 and "good enough for government work" to 300mm. Just crank up the ISO to 800 or 1600 to get faster shutter speeds and clean 'em up in post-processing. ;-)


To love this comment, log in above
January 10, 2006

 

Danielle E. Rutter
  Thanks for responding!

So Jon, you would say that because I am nowhere near being able to afford the 70-200@2.8 right now that I should go ahead and get the 70-300? Would you guys agree?

See I'm not really making any money on photography right now. It's just a hobby. So I can't really afford for it to become a really expensive one until I have money coming in as well.

Thanks!!


To love this comment, log in above
January 10, 2006

 

robert G. Fately
  Danielle, the 70-300 could suit you fine, and it is of course more affordable. But to Jon's point, know that you will need to raise the ISO (sensitivity) of the CCD to use it indoors and get fast enough shutter speeds to avoid blurry athletes. And higher ISO leads to more noise (kind of like grain)...you can use a software package like Noise Ninja to reduce that noise. But still, depending on how dim or bright the gym is, you may still not be able to get shots at f4 or f5.6 even at the highest ISO you can set.

Which is not to say don't get the 70-300 - just be aware that, like everything else, there's compromise to be made.


To love this comment, log in above
January 10, 2006

 

Robyn Gwilt
  Danielle, I'm not sure if the 70-300 is for digital, so what about the x1.6 fator? I have the Sigma 18-200 DC 3.5-6/3(for digital) (For my Canon 350D). I love this lens (also can't afford white!!) as its a really great wide angle and a reasonable zoom, as well as having quite a nice Macro - If you check out my gallery, you'll see some pix taken at a rock concert - hand held. I also have the Sigma 28-300 (for my old SLR), so this comes in handy in the bush as on the digital it becomes a great zoom of about 480mm. Hope this helps. I've travelled and hiked with my Sigma, and have not found it too heavy to carry around with me. Hope this helps :)


To love this comment, log in above
January 10, 2006

 

Sharon Day
  I have the Sigma 70-300 APO and liked it well enough until I could upgrade. I took it to a fireworks display last spring and it would not focus on subjects in low light. My eyes aren't good enough for me to use manual in so I would have to say it's not great for low light for that reason. Otherwise I've enjoyed the lens. I like the macro mode on it as well. I do have some sample images taken with it on one of the last two pages of my gallery.


To love this comment, log in above
January 10, 2006

 

Danielle E. Rutter
  Yes my ISO goes up to 1600 but I struggle with my aperture in that I try to set it wide open (with my current lens that can go down to 3.3) but with the ISO at 1600 it won't go down past 5.4 or something like that. Bizarre. Anybody know what that's about?

I've never understood the whole digital/non digital lens thing. Can somebody explain why my 300mm would be a 460mm with digital? Regardless, I do know that you can use it with digital, and the results are quite nice, because in my research about this lens I found somebody who used it with their D70.

Thanks!


To love this comment, log in above
January 10, 2006

 

Robyn Gwilt
  Danielle, go to the top of the page and type in Crop Factor - and gazillions of explanations will pop up. I know what it is, but can't explain it as eloquently as some of the others:) But basically the sensor on your digital is smaller than a standard 35mm negative/film, and you have to factor in about a 1.5 (I think for Nikon) and x1.6 for Canon. So, if you're using a straigh SLR (non digital lens) your 70-300 becomes a 112mm-480mm - so in essence what you lose on the wide angle you gain on the zoom.


To love this comment, log in above
January 10, 2006

 

robert G. Fately
  Gee, I just wrote an entire note about the digital versus non-digital thing (to clarify Robyn's comment) and somehow it got lost when I hit the wrong key. Darn computers! So I'll try again:

Understand that the focal length of the lens is the number you talk about in MM (millimeters). A 300MM lens is a 300MM lens, regardless of what camera it is used on. Now, the tricky part comes in when you have to factor the size of the image-making layer to the equation, because this effectively implies the angle of view of the lens.

That is, let's start with a 35Mm film camera, where most folks know that a 50MM lens is "normal". This is because the angle of view of a 50MM lens on the 24x36MM area of the film frame is about what the naked eye sees (there's a lot more to that story, but just take it for granted, okay?).

So, a 300MM lens on a 35MM film camera is about a 6 power magnification. But for folks who use 8x10 inch view cameras, a 300MM lens is normal - that is, the angle of view it provides to that much larger film area is again, about equivalent to the human eye.

If you want to get a sense of this, take a piece of paper and a ruler. Draw a 1 inch tall line on the left side of the paper, then measure a spot that's 300MM to it's right and put a dot right in the middle of that 1" line. Now use the ruler to draw a triangle - with the dot at the apex and the two sides drawn from the dot to the to ends of the 1" line on the left side of the page. Note that angle of view.

Now draw a 8" tall line over that 1" line, and redraw the two sides tot he triangle starting from that dot that's 300MM to the right. Can you see the angle for the 8" line (which is one side of the 8x10" film) is much wider than it is for the 1" line (which represents the edge of the 35MM film frame)?

BAsically, the smaller the film or chip area, the shorter the lens needed to be "normal". Or, conversely, a lens that is normal on one format will behave like a different kind oflens on a different format.

That's what the "crop factor" thing is all about. The chip size is smaller than the 24x36MM frame size of a 35Mm film camera, so the 300MM lens on the digital behaves like a 450MM lens (whatever) on the film camera. Similarly, a 35MM lens on a digital camera is more-or-less the normal lens, equivalent to the 50Mm lens on the film camera.

I hope that makes some sense...


To love this comment, log in above
January 10, 2006

 

robert G. Fately
  [I stopped before I went to long]

The only reason the "crop factor" concept was created is because most people, particularly those in the market for DSLRs, are used to thinking in terms of the focal lengths they'd use on their film cameras. We all think of 85MM as a portrait lens, 20MM as an ultra-wide, etc. SO to make things a bit simpler, the manufacturers talk about the crop factor as a way of giving you an easy translation - now you know that on your 1.5 crop digital you can use a 55Mm lens for portraits and you need to get a 12MM lens to be an ultra-wide.

Remember, to medium format shooters, the 80MM lens is "normal", and the 38MM lens on the Haselblad SWC is an ultra wide angle lens in that world.

Now, there is a potential differentiator between a regular lens and one made for digital, but it has nothing to do with focal length. "Digital" lenses are often multicoated on the the rear elements, because the CCD chips are much more reflective than film and can cause flare more ealisy within the cavity of the camera. They also claim to be of higher resolution, because some CCD chips are actually higer resolution that some films (though that latter point is still debated).

I hope that helps, at least a bit.


To love this comment, log in above
January 10, 2006

 

Robyn Gwilt
  Thank you Bob - Danielle now you know why I didn't try to elaborate more, coz I just couldn't :)


To love this comment, log in above
January 10, 2006

 

Danielle E. Rutter
  Wow! That was quite a lengthy explanation. Thanks! I may have to read it a couple times before I understand it, though. :)

I think I'm going to get the lens, though, because as nice as it would be to have some glass... I know that's not enough close to being in my price range. It will give me some limitations but I can deal with that.

Thanks everyone for all of your help!


To love this comment, log in above
January 10, 2006

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.