New Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG OS

[mikeriach]

Does anyone know if the barrel rotates during focusing?
Sounds like a good deal for those baulking at the Sony G lens.
Mike

[David Kilpatrick]

It's better than the Sony G a lot of the time - at least, our sample of the Sigma is better than our Sony G, especially at long distances and longer focal lengths. It does not rotate, and the lens is much smaller, and the OS is very stable without swimming. One of the best teles I've used.

David

[stevecim]

David

does it have screw drive AF?

[MarcoC]

David - does it blow the old Minolta 100-300 APO out of the water then?

It's better than the Sony G a lot of the time - at least, our sample of the Sigma is better than our Sony G, especially at long distances and longer focal lengths. It does not rotate, and the lens is much smaller, and the OS is very stable without swimming. One of the best teles I've used.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

It has micromotor AF not screw drive - SAM type. But it feels and acts just like screw drive really. It's must better than the 100-300mm APO.

Example at 250mm, 1/250th, f/8, hand held with OS, A900:

[email protected] (127.68 KiB) Viewed 6672 times

100% detail:

[email protected] (38.64 KiB) Viewed 6672 times

You can see the shutter speed has not frozen the movement of the girl in front, and the lens is focused on the woman behind, resolving the stitches on the back of her hat. Apart from anything else, it's got a lovely tonal quality and the pictures look smooth - like the G lens (the older 100-300mm APO never quite had that smoothness, always a bit sort of raggy or wiry in bokeh for me).

If the Sigma had real HSM, I'd be selling my G just because the Sigma can pop into bags where the G with its enormous lens hood is a really difficult fit.

David

[Birma]

Perhaps an odd comparison, but what about v. the beercan (especially for close-up shots)?

[David Kilpatrick]

Big issue for me, the close focus is 1.5m only, and this is another reason I'm not selling the G. Even the old apo 100-300mm had a good close focus. 1.5m means I lost many shots last month. Example, we had a very attractive zoo guide in Arizona (the girl shown in Photoworld kissing a tiger through the wire). She sat me and Shirley right next to her behind the driving seat because we had serious cameras and she said we would want to be able to get out of the door and back quickly (hard luck on the rest of the bus!).

Then she got two ostrich eggs from near the road and brought them in and held them up next to her face for everyone to see - and even though I could have framed a face/eggs picture at 70mm, I couldn't get one because of the 1.5m limit. I could push back in the seat enough for about 1.2m and she moved back when she saw I was having trouble - but no use, she was 1 foot in front of the focus plane no matter what and I just signalled OK despite losing a great shot.

This is also an issue with some of the new IS/VR Canon/Nkikon 70-200mm zooms and Sigma's new 70-200mm OS lens. They lose the close focus, or don't improve on already bad close focus limits. I really value lenses which do not run out focus at five feet - that's a long way away.

David

[mikeriach]

Maybe getting time to offload my Tamron 70-300 and Minolta 100-300APO.....
The Minolta has to be the ideal compact travel lens as it is so small and compact.
Mike
PS the 70-400G will never be a compact travel lens!

[Birma]

This is also an issue with some of the new IS/VR Canon/Nkikon 70-200mm zooms and Sigma's new 70-200mm OS lens. They lose the close focus, or don't improve on already bad close focus limits. I really value lenses which do not run out focus at five feet - that's a long way away.

Is there a design restriction that is leading to this reduction in close focusing ability in telephoto lenses? I would have thought that even 3 feet as a minimum focus distance would be ok / much more useful.

[David Kilpatrick]

I think the restriction partly relates to using in-lens stabilisation. It is a pattern which is being repeated with longer or faster zooms (doesn't seem to affect wide/midrange). I think it is a major step backwards, I agree that 3ft is acceptable but my real crtieria are twofold:

a) Height - can you photograph something on the ground near your feet comfortably, or kneeling/bending
b) Arm reach - is is physically possible to hold the camera in one hand, and reach out to stabilise or hold a subject in your left (example, pulling a flower on a tree down to a position where it has a good background, or holding something printed like a ticket)

For the first, 1.1-1.2m is a really good minimum focus, you have some leeway to stoop, bend, kneel or for the object to be above ground level (cat, dog, baby on floor shot vertically etc). For hand-holding objects, 0.5m is about the furthest restriction you want to have.

David

[MarcoC]

Can this new Sigma lens be used on full frame without a crop factor, or is it an APS-C lens?

Also wondering if a700 users might still suffer from "the camera has stripped the gears from my Sigma lens" issues or whether later Sigmas are not so badly affected by this?

I think the restriction partly relates to using in-lens stabilisation. It is a pattern which is being repeated with longer or faster zooms (doesn't seem to affect wide/midrange). I think it is a major step backwards, I agree that 3ft is acceptable but my real crtieria are twofold:

a) Height - can you photograph something on the ground near your feet comfortably, or kneeling/bending
b) Arm reach - is is physically possible to hold the camera in one hand, and reach out to stabilise or hold a subject in your left (example, pulling a flower on a tree down to a position where it has a good background, or holding something printed like a ticket)

For the first, 1.1-1.2m is a really good minimum focus, you have some leeway to stoop, bend, kneel or for the object to be above ground level (cat, dog, baby on floor shot vertically etc). For hand-holding objects, 0.5m is about the furthest restriction you want to have.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

No gear stripping danger, it has a motor in the lens. And it is full frame, as my A900 shots indicate

David

[MarcoC]

Well at around £310 it seems a bit of a bargain in theory then. Will we now see lots of 100-300 APOs on ebay I wonder?!

No gear stripping danger, it has a motor in the lens. And it is full frame, as my A900 shots indicate

David

[Harpooner]

I wonder how this will compare with the new Tamron 70-300?

The Tamron is at least 3 to 4 weeks away from coming into the UK according to Intro 2020

[stevecim]

Hi David

How is the CA on the sigma lens compared to the older Tamron 70-300 Di II macro also does the new Sigma lens extend when zooming ?

Cheers, Stephen