# 50mm 1.8 or Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto???



## iNick (Jun 5, 2011)

im gonna be picking up a new lens within the ext few weeks. i had planned on the 50mm 1.8 (yes i know all the knocks on it but i just can't afford the 1.4) but iv'e come across the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto that interests me very much. I'd probably use it more for macro than for the normal tele but it seems like a good lens to have overall. anyone have any experience with the Sigma?


----------



## Overread (Jun 5, 2011)

I think you've got to sit down and decide what it is from a lens that you feel that you really need in your setup thus far. Each of the two lenses is a good choice for its price point in the market, yet each offers you a very different lens and set of features. For some one lens will be the superior over the other (for example many say the 50mm is the best, but in my own case the 50mm would have collected dust and instead the 70-300mm was the better tool for my needs. 


So first put your needs on the table.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 5, 2011)

The macro on the 70-300 is not true macro it's a bit of a gimick


----------



## iNick (Jun 5, 2011)

gsgary said:


> The macro on the 70-300 is not true macro it's a bit of a gimick


 
Interesting, how so?


----------



## gsgary (Jun 5, 2011)

My 24-70 say macro but you can't take macro shots it can just focus closer


----------



## iNick (Jun 5, 2011)

Overread, yeah i hear you, im looking more for some feedback on people who have used the Sigma to give me a better idea on weather or not it's sufficient.


----------



## Aye-non Oh-non Imus (Jun 5, 2011)

iNick said:


> ...... I'd probably use it more for macro than for the normal tele but it seems like a good lens to have overall.....


For macro work, get a dedicated macro lens that will do 1:1.

Variable aperture lenses scream unsatisfactory for me.


----------



## iNick (Jun 5, 2011)

Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:


> iNick said:
> 
> 
> > ...... I'd probably use it more for macro than for the normal tele but it seems like a good lens to have overall.....
> ...


 

Understandable, but this lens is right in my price range. unless i can find a 1:1 macro in the same general price range.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 5, 2011)

iNick said:


> Aye-non Oh-non Imus said:
> 
> 
> > iNick said:
> ...



But is it worth buying a lens that won't do what you want it to


----------



## Overread (Jun 5, 2011)

IT depends what you count as "macro" a lot of things that are called macro are not, true macro photos. For example most butterfly, flower and dragonfly photos are not macro photos strictly speaking.

As for lens costs - this gets very grey and you've got to decide on your own priorities. For some getting a cheap versatile lens helps them make the right choices on the expensive stuff later on - for others they already know what they want and just need to get there. The 70-300mm can do shots like this:





as well as hit the 300mm mark, its softer at the long end (there is a slightly more expensive, but noticeably better APO version of that lens with a red ring around the rim which has improved optics). 

whilst a "true" macro lens can do this:





Maybe you only want to take pics or flowers or wildlife and the hoverfly is of little interest to you - or it might be that the hoverfly is everything. Deciding which is important to you is the key. Also the sigma is a great experiment lens - you can play with long range; with close up and see if it takes your fancy before following a more expensive route.


----------



## digital flower (Jun 5, 2011)

After owning both of these lenses I would get the 50mm.


----------



## Ron Evers (Jun 5, 2011)

Put a 50mm lens on a 25mm extension tube & you have a 1:2 macro lens or 50mm tube for a 1:1.  However, you will be very close to your subject this way.


----------



## iNick (Jun 5, 2011)

Overread said:


> IT depends what you count as "macro" a lot of things that are called macro are not, true macro photos. For example most butterfly, flower and dragonfly photos are not macro photos strictly speaking.
> 
> As for lens costs - this gets very grey and you've got to decide on your own priorities. For some getting a cheap versatile lens helps them make the right choices on the expensive stuff later on - for others they already know what they want and just need to get there. The 70-300mm can do shots like this:
> 
> ...


 

This hit it right on the head. i think for me, since im still a noob, the Sigma would be a better option than a dedicated macro. I love the idea of having a true macro lens, and once my ability and my wallet has grown i will be investing the proper amount of money into one. I think the 75-300mm would better help me grow as a photographer.

I do think ill go for the 50mm first though, i think ill get most use out of that at this point in my development. Who knows, by the time im ready for another lens after the 50 i may have the funds/skill to use a true macro to its fullest potential.


----------



## iNick (Jun 5, 2011)

Ron, Ill be picking up some tubes pretty soon probably as well. thats a good option to hold me over for the mean time. thanks!


----------



## Derrel (Jun 5, 2011)

If you buy a Sigma 70-300, you really would be best off buying the APO version of it. You do not mention your camera brand, but there is a 70-300 G Nikkor that sells for $95 or so used. It's cheap, and okay from 70 to 200-220 mm but the longer end has purple CA pretty seriously on high-contrast edges. The Sigma 70-300 APO models, for apochromatic, are designed to tame the CA (chromatic aberration) that tends to occur in longer focal lengths above 200mm. Price range last time I checked was $179 on the Sigma APO model.



With summer coming up, the slow aperture speeds of a 70-300 consumer zoom are not that big a drawback; the f/4~5.6 speed lenses,as well as the f/4.5~5.6 models, are basically "good weather zooms"; fine in the brighter months of the year, not so good indoors or in the darker months of the year. I think for summertime, a 70-300mm would be much more fun,and much more-valuable than a fast 50mm lens.


----------



## iNick (Jun 5, 2011)

Derrel said:


> If you buy a Sigma 70-300, you really would be best off buying the APO version of it. You do not mention your camera brand, but there is a 70-300 G Nikkor that sells for $95 or so used. It's cheap, and okay from 70 to 200-220 mm but the longer end has purple CA pretty seriously on high-contrast edges. The Sigma 70-300 APO models, for apochromatic, are designed to tame the CA (chromatic aberration) that tends to occur in longer focal lengths above 200mm. Price range last time I checked was $179 on the Sigma APO model.
> 
> 
> 
> With summer coming up, the slow aperture speeds of a 70-300 consumer zoom are not that big a drawback; the f/4~5.6 speed lenses,as well as the f/4.5~5.6 models, are basically "good weather zooms"; fine in the brighter months of the year, not so good indoors or in the darker months of the year. I think for summertime, a 70-300mm would be much more fun,and much more-valuable than a fast 50mm lens.


 
That's a solid point, i had thought about that as well actually. I use a T1i btw sorry i didn't mention that. Considering i do most of my shooting outside here in SC where it's BRIGHT all the way till 8pm i might be better off with the zoom.... hmmm decisions decisions....

just checked amazon, the APO model is only $15 more so that's a no brainer. Thanks Derrel!


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Jun 5, 2011)

I second Ron's advice. You could get the 50mm which is probably a more useful focal length than the 70-300 lens overall if you do not shoot wildlife or things where you need reach. You do not need a full set of tubes to reach 1:2 macro. I would think that a 25mm tube would suffice.


----------



## iNick (Jun 5, 2011)

I think I'll go with the 50 for now, I had planned on getting it for a while and already have some
Shoots planned out for it. I also wanted to do a bit of video too. I'll be picking up the sigma in a few months tho for sure. Thanks for all the help guys!


----------

