# Sigma 70-300mm APO or Nikkor 700-300mm G?



## maxmg (Sep 1, 2006)

I have a Nikon D50 with the standard lens included, and am looking into a cheap telefoto lense to go to about 300mm.  I've been looking up lenses on the web for the past few days and reading many reviews on these two lenses: 

The Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG  ($180-200)
The Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G   ($120-150)

No reviews I have found compare the two.  They both seem to have the same short-comings.  One, however, is more money, and is suprisingly the Sigma, not the Nikon.

Which would you recommend I buy?  And, if you recommend the Sigma, would you tell me I should definitely go for the APO or should I save a bit and just get the regular DG because it doesn't matter that much any way?

Thanks for the help!


----------



## JIP (Sep 1, 2006)

I have found (working in camera sales) the Nikkor G lenses are pretty crappy construction-wise in general but I might consider moving up to a better Nikkor lens.


----------



## maxmg (Sep 1, 2006)

Well, in an ideal world I would get the Nikon 18-200mm VR.  ($700)

However, I am on a budget and can only afford a lens that doesn't have the same quality.  Out of the ones I mentioned which lens would you recommend I buy?  Or, is there a lens of the same pricerange (or a little more)  which I failed to mention which would probably be a better choice?

Thanks for the help!


----------



## dsp921 (Sep 1, 2006)

Well, an ideal lens would really be the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, but that's another story.
I don't know anything about the Sigma, but I would recommend the 70-300 ED over the G.  It is built infinitely better and is slightly better optically.  I've had both and gave the G away after a couple of uses.  Kept the ED a little longer.


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Sep 1, 2006)

Having just bought the Sigma for my Canon I can say I quite like it, although I don't have the Nikon lens to compare it against.

Not sure about the Nikno lens but the Sigma is also a macro lens between 200-300mm and feels quite well made.:thumbup:


----------



## maxmg (Sep 1, 2006)

dsp921 said:
			
		

> I don't know anything about the Sigma, but I would recommend the 70-300 ED over the G. It is built infinitely better and is slightly better optically. I've had both and gave the G away after a couple of uses. Kept the ED a little longer.



Well, judging by these reviews I'd say I'd probably be better off with the G because the difference isnt that great and save more money.  http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300af.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm

Or are those reviews bad?

I have also been told sigmas arent that great construction-wise... but are they any worse than a cheap nikon lens?

Thanks for the recommendations!


----------



## dsp921 (Sep 1, 2006)

maxmg said:
			
		

> Well, judging by these reviews I'd say I'd probably be better off with the G because the difference isnt that great and save more money.  http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300af.htm
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm
> 
> Or are those reviews bad?
> ...


I would take those reviews with a grain of salt.  There are better places to get lens info. Go to Bjorn Rorslett's site, he actually uses the lenses he talkes about.  Rockwell always seems to recommend the cheapest stuff over the higher priced gear, not sure why.  I've had both lenses and there is a difference.
Here's a link to Bjorn's site http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1


----------



## maxmg (Sep 1, 2006)

Thanks for the link, but it seems to me that that guy only reveiws the more expensive lenses and I cant seem to find the ones I am looking at buying being reviewed by him.

Overall what 70-300mm lense you recommend then for about 120-180(tops)?

Theres so many options out there heh.  Now I am wondering if I should just go for a 70-200mm instead?  I would kind of want that extra length of the 300mm though.


----------



## Arch (Sep 1, 2006)

The difference between the two lenses you mentioned is that the sigma has a macro function and the nikon doesn't.

This is probably why its a tad more expensive. But if i were you, i'd go for the sigma for sure..... i have it, its a good lens for the money..... and yes, go for the APO not the DG.


----------



## maxmg (Sep 1, 2006)

Archangel said:
			
		

> The difference between the two lenses you mentioned is that the sigma has a macro function and the nikon doesn't.
> 
> This is probably why its a tad more expensive. But if i were you, i'd go for the sigma for sure..... i have it, its a good lens for the money..... and yes, go for the APO not the DG.



If macro isnt really important to me, should I still go for the sigma?


----------



## Arch (Sep 1, 2006)

tough call..... I dont own the nikon 70-300 but i have shot with it.... i doubt i'd be able to tell the difference if i had two shots of the same subject, taken with each lens.

Maybe under controlled quality tests, one would come up tops...... but to the avarage person there probably isnt much difference between these lenses.

But hey.... even if your not bothered about macro.... its still useful.... if i take a stroll out doors, its good to not have too much gear.... with the sigma i can shoot an object at distance..... flip the switch, and then shoot a flower or insect..... i think thats worth the extra money..... especially if a few months down the line you fancy buying a macro.


----------



## maxmg (Sep 1, 2006)

hm, well its not real macro though, its a 1:2 ratio.  But i get what you mean.  So what your saying is I should really just go for whatever I think I'd want to be using it for, and not worry about the variable quality (both visually and their construction) in the cameras too much?  Because if thats the case I think i'd rather go for the Nikon because I've heard people are always better going for Nikon or Canon over other third party brands.  

But now I'm having a really hard time deciding heh.

Thanks for the suggestions, they kind of put it in perspective for me.


----------



## dsp921 (Sep 1, 2006)

This probably isn't an option you want to think about but...maybe you hold off a little and save another $100. It is going to be very difficult to get a lens for less than $200 that gives decent image quality in the zoom range you are after.  For $280 you can get this; http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=37004&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
It is a discountinued Nikkor that is much better than the current 70-300mm versions.  It's the 75-300.  Honestly, you will be better off waiting a little while and getting something a little better.  I've been there, trust me...


----------



## maxmg (Sep 2, 2006)

Is that one you suggested really worth spending an extra hundred dollars?  Or should I just get one of the cheaper ones I suggested to keep me with a telephoto until I can afford a more expensive one?


----------



## dsp921 (Sep 2, 2006)

maxmg said:
			
		

> Is that one you suggested really worth spending an extra hundred dollars?  Or should I just get one of the cheaper ones I suggested to keep me with a telephoto until I can afford a more expensive one?


I think it's worth the extra money. If you search around online you'll find that most people will say that the 75-300 is a better lens then the 70-300 versions currently available.  It's up to you to decide if you want to wait or not.  I've bought several lenses figuring that they would be "OK for now".  They have all been given away or are sitting on a shelf now.  I ended up spending the money on the expensive glass AND and cheaper ones instead of holding off and getting the higher priced ones only.  I guess if coming up with the extra cash is tough, get the best you can afford.  But if you can save the $100 pretty quicky I'd wait.


----------

