View Poll Results: Which of the lens do you think is better for macro and long distance photography?

**Jianwee** · 24-08-2012, 05:40 AM

Hi all,

I want to gather some opinions on which lens among the three you all think is a better lens to have for macro and long distance photography (i.e. shooting animals and birds).

1) Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di
2) Tamron SP70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD
3) Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro

Similar Threads:

**Marksman** · 24-08-2012, 06:54 PM

depends how much light you have to work with and how much you want to spend. Personally, i would just get a Tamron 18-270mm.

Because for macro, you will be using very small aperture and usually with flash. For birds, never know when they land right in front of you and your 70mm is too long.

Landed very near me and i knew change lens might spook them so heng i was using a all in one lens.

**Jianwee** · 24-08-2012, 07:50 PM

Hi Marksman,

How much did you pay for your lens?

**Marksman** · 25-08-2012, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Jianwee

Hi Marksman,

How much did you pay for your lens?

Not mine...borrowed it from a buddy who was doing ICT.

**Jianwee** · 25-08-2012, 11:52 AM

You are right in saying that if and when the opportunity comes, the wide angle comes in handy. but among the three choices in the poll, which one would you vote for?

**Puan Ziyang Christopher** · 26-08-2012, 10:51 PM

The Sigma was my 1st lens, I've since moved on to the Nikon 70-300VR and then the Sigma 120-400mm HSM OS. Still, i do miss the close up capability of the 70-300 macro. Never tried the tamron, but i have heard that it is pretty sharp for a 3rd party lens

**Marksman** · 28-08-2012, 10:46 AM

All the options are okay as long expectations are realistic.

Tamron gives 3 year warranty but service center is deep in Changi. Sigma is more accessible but 2 years warranty.

**wilswong** · 04-09-2012, 12:52 PM

I have the sigma 70-300mm APO MACRO.

They are ok if you just want the reach but due to their small apertures at the tele end, your ISO would need to be boosted to very high to get a good shake free image as most bird shots are underneath trees. Image quality wise they are ok for their price but will be nothing near to the F2.8 Telephoto.

If you are really into macro then the tamrom 90mm F2.8 will be useful and in my opinion a better purchase as it can be used as a portrait lens. Most would say macro must be shot with flash but some would prefer natural light so to each his own. At least F2.8 for macro will let good natural light in though the depth of field is something one should take care of.

My history of getting the 70-300mm: I got the lens thinking that Focal length reach would be important. For example....when i got my Nikon kit lens 18-70 F3.5-F4 (a superb lens so much so calling it a kit lens is doing it a disservice) I thought getting a 70-300mm would be sufficient. Soon Nikon would come out with the 18-200mm lens with the D200 so it would be a all-in-one lens but as time passed, I realised that the variable aperture is a hinderance when I make changes to my settings and I have to zoom-in or out. The VR mechanism is also something I would avoid getting as it is an extra thing to maintain and it was also spoiled for no apparent reason and that is something I find not that useful anymore when one understand the mechanics of shutter speed and subject speed unless one can live with high ISO usage. I usually would not use beyond 1250 if I can help it unless the camera is capable to control the ISO noise.

But when it comes to flexibility and reach, the F2.8 constant aperture lens would be a better purchase overall as it can induce good bokeh and yet allow a lot of light in for event photography and hence will also control the use of high ISO. So when I got my 18-50 F2.8 Macro and 70-200mm F2.8 Macro Sigmas, I got everything covered.

A fuller take on what lens to get:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/Sing...0309656581319/

Taken with the first gen Sigma 70-300mm Macro APO

**MLP** · 06-09-2012, 03:48 PM

Heres the spectrum: lMacro-----------------------------------Telephotol
Most TRUE macro lenses, none listed here, would have relatively slow auto-focusing speeds which would be an absolute pain if you are trying to shoot birds in flight or tracking fast moving objects. Contrary, telephotos would be idea for BIF and long distance shooting. That comes with a price of course, you would not be able to take macro shoots(like real macro shoots where insects will the whole frame).
Of your three lens choices, the sigma would be most ideal for your macro needs however the general consensus that I get it that Sigma lenses tend to have poor image quality but focus faster than the tamrons, in comparison.

**wilswong** · 06-09-2012, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by MLP

Heres the spectrum: lMacro-----------------------------------Telephotol
Most TRUE macro lenses, none listed here, would have relatively slow auto-focusing speeds which would be an absolute pain if you are trying to shoot birds in flight or tracking fast moving objects. Contrary, telephotos would be idea for BIF and long distance shooting. That comes with a price of course, you would not be able to take macro shoots(like real macro shoots where insects will the whole frame).
Of your three lens choices, the sigma would be most ideal for your macro needs however the general consensus that I get it that Sigma lenses tend to have poor image quality but focus faster than the tamrons, in comparison.

I think by 'general consensus' is really not accurate. I shoot with Sigmas with pictures that got awards and photos for exhibitions and calendars. That means the quality is more subjective rather than objective. If one talks about quality of the lens build then it is open to interpretation of how much build quality do one really need vis-a-vis price/value perception.

In the end we all have to question this. If there are people, not just professionals, that can shoot well with 3rd party lens with good accurate colours and that are sharp, then is the quality demanded by 1st party lens really necessary? As there are 1st party lens that are not performing as well as 3rd party lens (the debate on Canon UWA lens versus Tokina UWA are still raging), then there is a possibility that one can save good money for a lens that performs as well if not better at a cheaper price.

As for the Sigma APO 70-300mm, it is the same class as in build quality of the kit lens. IQ wise it can be good if one knows its weaknesses (for me I use manual focus on this lens).

I suggest everyone to go google images from other people using the same lens and get a good general opinion of how it looks to you as the future user. General Consensus, as in group think, can be wrong like what a lot of people think about Fujifilm X100 when it first came out.

So my point is: see with your own eyes, test with your own hands and conclude with your own mind.