# Sigma DL Zoom 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 Macro Lens



## Adamneedsadvice (May 26, 2011)

Let me start off by saying, I am completely new to photography.

I picked up a Sigma DL Zoom 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 Macro Lens for next to nothing recently

It says macro, but is this a true macro lens?

How does it compare to the 100mm 2.8 canon macro lens (was going to pick one up tommorow...)

Is it better than the canon ef 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens that came with my kit?

Is it even worth keeping?

It seems to me that it does not actually focus on things very close up, only from a distance, but then why macro?  (mind you, I'm completely new to photography, havent taken a very long look at this lens since I got it, so I might just be not using it right...


----------



## chaosrealm93 (May 26, 2011)

the 100mm 2.8 is definitely better for macro work, as it is a dedicated macro lens, probably offering 1:1 magnification, where as the superzoom might offer closer focusing distances at best (compared to other 75-300s). personally, i would not keep the 75-300, next to useless to me. i find the 18-105mm range quite useful. 

oh yea, forgot to mention the 105mm 2.8 has that wonderful 2.8 aperture.


----------



## dxqcanada (May 26, 2011)

No not a true macro.
The macro label was stuck on many lenses to say that they can focus close to magnify small objects ... but not as close as a true macro lens.
It probably has a 1:4 ratio ... a true macro will do 1:1.

That Sigma lens is not bad but not good.
Any real macro lens will kill it in image quality ... and the Canon EF is probably better also.
I had this lens ... my Sony equivalent was better IQ, so I sold it.


----------

