Sigma 70 - 300mm f/4 - 5.6 DG Lense

[imrsalas]

Does anyone have any comments on the Sigma 70 - 300mm f/4 - 5.6 DG lense for

a D60 and the quality of the pictures. I am looking at this lense to complement the

18 - 50mm & 50 - 200mm lenses that I currently have. I take a lot of pictures of the

kids playing sports and the current max zoom of 200mm sometimes leaves the

action a little to small. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[Peter_in_PA]

If action isn't the ONLY thing you photograph, I'd get the Nikon 70-300 VR for the VR

feature. More money, but that VR at long lengths, I can't live without it. It won't help for

sports, but for other photography

 

I assume you mean outdoor action photography in good light, as indoor photography

with that lens will be tough. Others will tell you, btw, that the difference between 200

and 300 is pretty slight, too.

[jay_poel]

You might be better off with the Sigma APO 70-200 f/2.8 and cropping. At least you could keep your shutter speeds way up and ISO lower to capture motion and help with camera shake. My business partner has this lens and I am impressed with it. I'm saving up for the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR - but it's a lot of money.

 

The f/5.6 aperture at 300mm is pretty limiting - I have the Nikon 70-300mm VR - great but only in good lighting.

[peter_nelson1]

f/5.6 is a little slow, expecially because most consumer zooms need to be stopped down one of two stops to get really sharp results. That will prevent you from using a fast shutter speed, which could be problem for kids and sports.

[mauricio_orozco]

I do agree with Peter. Get the 70-300 VR and you will be very happy. I have one on my D300 and it is a superb lens. I bet, you will not go back to any other.

[eric_arnold]

sorry Ignacio, if its not a HSM-enabled model, it wont AF on the D60. and though sigma makes a couple of inexpensive 70-300s, the better of the two being the APO version, i dont believe either of them has HSM.

 

so you're sort of in a pickle here. with your current body, if you want more range than 200mm, it's gonna cost considerably more than $139 (B&H). another thing too is that bargain bin sigmas tend to be very cheaply made. some of them actually have decent optics--their 55-200 isn't bad, actually for a lightweight tele for hiking or walking--but the build quality increases exponentially in their EX line. same thing with nikon; the 70-300 VR has a better build than their $140 70-300 G, which wont AF on your camera either. basically, this means you're looking at $450+ for the 70-300 VR if you want that extra 100mm.

 

this is the downside of the d60 and similar cameras. they're designed for entry-level users, but once you start looking beyond kit glass, you run into lens compatibility problems, often resulting in a significant outlay of cash.

 

the d60+18-55 and 55-200 lenses is a good deal at $750 IF you never upgrade or add lenses. the d80 is almost as much for body only, but can actually save you money in the long run, since you can use almost all nikkors and almost all 3rd party glass. one example is low-light use. for $115, you can get a 50/1.8, which will AF with a d70/80/50/200/300, etc.. but with a d60/40/40x, the only ultrafast (sub-f/2.8) prime that will AF is the sigma 30/1.4, which costs almost 4x as much. so in the long run, you're not really saving money by getting a cheaper body.

[imrsalas]

How about teleconverters? Can anyone recommend using one or not to multiply my focal length?

[Peter_in_PA]

Do NOT use a teleconverter on a lens that slow. You're better off cropping.