about | support
home
 

Search Used

Sigma 28-300 f3.5-6.3 Macro

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
20 147388 Dec 17, 2011
Recommended By Average Price
45% of reviewers $245.83
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
6.23
7.38
5.6
28_300_macro

Specifications:
Sigma Corporation is pleased to announce the availability of the new 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 MACRO lens.Ultra compact dimensions, length: 3.3", diameter: 2.9", Filter Size: 62mm and a 10.7:1 zoom ratio make this lens the ultimate traveling companion. This versatile, all-purpose zoom can capture a wide ranging series of subjects using its wide angle, ultra-telephoto and close-up capabilities. It incorporates 2pcs Special Low Dispersion SLD glass elements and 4pcs Aspherical Lenses, to produce a high level of optical performance. Aspherical lenses provide excellent correction for all types of aberration while making a very compact construction possible. This lens has a minimum focusing distance of 50cm at all focal lengths. Equipped with a macro mechanism for close-up photography at 300mm telephoto, with a reproduction ratio of 1:3. It is equipped with a "zoom lock" to prevent the zoom setting from being changed inadvertently. It incorporates an internal focusing system, which eliminates front lens rotation, allowing the use of polarizing filters and Petal type hoods. The lens materials used in this new lens are lead and arsenic free ecological glass.


 


Page:  1 · 2  next
          
jefflee
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 791
Review Date: Dec 17, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $144.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Small size, range of focal lengths, sharpness
Cons:
Build quality. Feels very plastic and the zoom & focus are very rough.

I have a bag full of Nikkors with most north of $1K, so yes I know good glass. I wanted to see what the newer cameras and photoshop could do with such a lens.

Even wide open I've found the sigma very good to excellent in sharpness. Stop down a stop and its really very good. Using a Auto ISO and using shutter speed results in very sharp images under a varitety of lighting, of couse it likes bright light. However if you have a camera that works well @ ISO 1600 or above the lens works well in a lot of different lightening levels.

While I thought I'd have to use a tripod, a monopod at lower ISO's or just using 3200/6400 on my D7000 gets me to usable shutter speeds at the 200/300 setting. My D200 @ 1200/1600 also extends the usability of the longer ranges.

I wanted to see what a person could do if they only had $500 to buy a complete kit. So I said my camera choice would be a D200 with say 40 or 50K clicks for I've seen for $350, leaving $150 for the lens. I found this lens for $144 and shipping due to an error on UPS was free. $6 under my absolute limit.

I was prepaired to have wasted my test money, but after about a 100 images at varies focal lengths, I'm pretty impressed. Goods macro, works well with the D200's built in flash. On the heavy D200 body I don't even feel the lens and the camera and the small lens fit in the smallest LowPRo Holster.

If you know the lens limitations and don't shoot jpg, and know how to work with even a limited photo editor, this is actually a pretty good lens. The manual focus and zoom ring are very tight, but I don't think this copy was even broken it, I would expect it to loosen up after a couple of thousand images.

Because all of my bodies are DX (1.5) crop bodies I am not using the full coverage and as such don't see fall off or vignetting on my images at any focal length.

If you want to play with one of these lens (be careful lots of different models of this lens) on a crop body, I'd recommen it. If you do have limited funds and want a lens to introduce you to photography, I think this lens and D200 would be a great setup.


Dec 17, 2011
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add jefflee to your Buddy List  
IslayDesign
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 19, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jun 19, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Portable, compact, good range and excellent macro.
Cons:
abit slow focusing on AF

I bought this primarily as a macro lens as similar prime macro lenses are way out of my price bracket.
The quality on macro shooting is excellent, the right amount of light balance and coluor capture with a nice soft focus for good effects.

As for problems with WB and ISO, when using consumer lens like this you should be doing this manually anyway and not letting your camera attempt it, as for use on sports pics manual focusing has always been quicker and easier for me.

Overall its a good allrounder for the price and as a carry one do all lens its way better than others

Sample images

http://www.flickr.com/photos/islaydesign/4696516001/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/islaydesign/4693723881/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/islaydesign/4630092538


Jun 19, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add IslayDesign to your Buddy List  
jz77
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 3, 2009
Location: Poland
Posts: 0
Review Date: May 3, 2009 Recommend? no | Price paid: $350.00 | Rating: 4 

 
Pros: wide focal range, and that's it
Cons:
poor focusing in shadow, 28mm is too narrow for an all-purpose on 1.6x

First I thought it's casually good - it focused well in good light (never had focus problems with any of my sigmas on my 400d though), has a wide range of focal. The problems start in shadow. Even in not-so-low light it tends to miss focus, to be precise, it's not missing because it's not even focusing - it just goes around the range, plus the awful sound, it makes the lens really lame.

However, the real reason I sold it, was that I wasn't really using it. 28mm on 1.6x is too long for an all-purpose, and the 200-300 range was rarely used. 18-50 covers my usual focal needs, and as a tele, for this quality of image it was more comfortable to have the 70-300 Sigma. Comparing pics in the same conditions with the 18-50, I felt that 28-300 gets color more washed out and too yellowish, but didn't bother to do a real comparison test.

Don't think it's a good idea to have this kind of lens whatsoever, if you want all-purpose for your first lens, get something in the 18-xx + a cheap tele, or the 18-xxx range. Finally sold it after using only a few times and carrying it around. Buying it was a mistake.


May 3, 2009
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jz77 to your Buddy List  
JHV_Digital
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 13, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 21, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $210.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Inexpensive and fairly well made. Colors are accurate (at least in the copy that I own) and lens is sharp end to end if you shoot at F/8. To give a negative because it's not an "L" lens is the height of snobbery. It's a well made lens that will deliver quite good results if used by someone who knows how. Nice all around lens.
Cons:
There aren't any negatives that you can seriously consider when discussing a lens that you can buy for $200.00 or less. It's the old story, "You KNEW I was a Snake when you took me in"

I found a nice clean copy of this on Ebay and ponied up the $200 and a little. I was very please when it arrived as it was clean and obviously well cared for. I checked out hte AF and it was spot on. Colors were vibrant and it was sharp when stopped down to F/8 nearly from end to end. At 300mm, it really needs to be on a tripod with a remote release to get the sharpness that it can deliver. Handheld at that range is a coin toss. If you have excellent skills in handholding long lenses, then you can get acceptable results. On a 50D the results can easily make very nice 8x10. Bashing this lens because it's not an "L" is just silly. It is a very nicely made quite affordable general purpose lens that can deliver surprising results.

Nov 21, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add JHV_Digital to your Buddy List  
MTBtrials
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 4, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1372
Review Date: Apr 14, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $249.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: A lot of Zoom for the price, Zoom Lock, Macro Feature, Compact, Lightweight, Great softness for portraits
Cons:
Slow focus on my 300D, noticably better on a 400D... Shallow focus field, with lots of hunting. (this is a Macro Lens, so is that really a con?), the 3.5 seems okay, but on the zoom end, the F6.3 eats up a lot of light.

I have had this lens for 4 months now, and I would purchase it again in the same situation, or any other situation.

Yes, the 28mm is a bit too long as a short lens, and on the long end the F6.3 makes the lens a light hog, in the bright sun, it's a great lens, and you cans stop it down and get some great shots.

The one thing that I feel that most reviewers miss about this phenominal lens is that it is a MACRO LENS. So, I would imagine that the focus would be a bit soft, and shallow, but I have taken some great portraits with this lens, and I regularly use it to take some pretty nice wildlife shots.

I am by no means a Professional photographer.... I think that I understand Bokeh, and how stopping down a lens will lend it's self to clearer shots with a greater DOF, and this lens certainlly does what is asked of it: Focusing on an object UP CLOSE will allow the lens to focus on it just like a Macro Lens and blur out the background (hence the softness complaints?)

Having seen/heard all of the complaints about the lens being a light hog, I will agree, and suggest that one take the money saved on the other lens you would have purchased (28-70 and 70-300mm?) and spend it on a decent tripod, and a really nice Flash Setup complete with wireless slaves to combat the lack of light and make you lens a bit faster. (someone told me that a flash will be more bang for the buck than faster glass, and I think that they were right)

I hope that this sounded like the positive review it was meant to be, I really like this lens, I do wish that I went to 18mm, and went down to 2.8 for the whole range of the zoom, but didn't pay for that, so I'll get a nice 17-35mm f2.8 with the money I saved to round out my glass package.
-Mark


Apr 14, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add MTBtrials to your Buddy List  
MichaelBarkley
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 17, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 351
Review Date: Aug 17, 2007 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 3 

 
Pros: long-ish reach light macro (1:3)
Cons:
zoom creep loud focus focus hunting only 1:3 macro soft lacking in contrast

This lens is capable of fine images.

If you only want 1 lens to carry and don't want to spend a tonne, this probably ain't it, for 1 its not very wide, but at a push it would do.

It is very soft I find. The slow f numbers aint too cool, esp if you plan on hand holding, which I did.

The worst thing is the total lack of contrast! The 70-300APO lens os 100x better!!! It also features 1:2 macro.

Give this on a miss. I am selling mine.

Mike

PS Here is an image I took with it - proving it can do okay.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v506/realmofspeed/DSC_2282copy.jpg


Aug 17, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add MichaelBarkley to your Buddy List  
retrofocus
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3546
Review Date: Apr 23, 2007 Recommend? no | Price paid: $330.00 | Rating: 5 

 
Pros: Pretty light and well built lens. Nice macro function up to 1:3.
Cons:
Gets very soft at the long focal length. Not useable under low light conditions. Unreliable AF.

This is a review for the newer DG lens model:

One of my first digital SLR lenses. I was formerly attracted by the covered zoom range. I still consider it a quite ok walkaround-lens, but it does no longer fit to my demands.

I like the macro function in combination with the zoom. Mounted with the camera on a tripod, this lens can in fact do some nice and pretty sharp close-up pictures from objects difficult to get closer if the focal length of the lens is not extended to its very end. At 300mm, the lens gets very soft with low contrast. That's just the limitation of this lens.

The AF worked not very reliable together with my Rebel XT. I was much better off using manual focus, also at shorter focal lengths.

My advice: If you want to buy a zoom lens, don't go for any of the super-zooms. Be more selective in the zoom range, this will give you a much better quality of the lens. If you are interested in a macro lens, go for a prime lens. Sigma has very good ones to offer for the price of this one.


Apr 23, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add retrofocus to your Buddy List  
briggleman
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 23, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 23, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $279.00 | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: Just a note to everyone reading the reviews I see hear so far.... As far as I can tell, none of the reviews are about the above lens, they are about the older 28-300 sigma without Macro.
Cons:
Just that its not a pro lens.

I own this older 28-300 Sigma, purchased about 2 years ago and like the others have said... its great for point and shoot. I too, have noticed its resolution leaves a little to be desired, however it is better than Tamron offerings. It is great for its intended purpose of just a decent all around lens to get the shot you may have otherwise missed if trying to change lenses.

Aug 23, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add briggleman to your Buddy List  
eyebelieve
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 20, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 9
Review Date: Apr 26, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: $220.00 | Rating: 3 

 
Pros: Long Range for its price, "all-in-one" lens
Cons:
SOFT, tries to do too much for it's low budget nature, lens extends when being carried around, heavy, autofocus hunting

Well, I unfortunately opted to get this lens a while back instead of a stock lens with 350d. This probably was a mistake, but I wasn't expecting much from my first lens anyways. Nevertheless, I wasn't ever surprised with this lens, and always seemed under ever single good shooting condition possible to come up with soft pics. Even when jacking up the ISO, speeding up the shutter and keeping the zoom on the 35-50mm range this lens still produced soft images. To all new camera users who are looking for a better lens to upgrade your stock lens from, THIS IS NOT IT.

For a better alternative to your stock lens, get the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM. I sold the Sigma and bought this lens, and needless to say it is a huge improvement. It doesn't have the range that the 28-300 does, but the improved sharpness and quality is well worth it. If you do need the range, and want a high quality picture, Canon also make an L-series 70-200mm which I have used and highly recommend.

I can't say I have used the Sigma 28-300 on another camera of any sort, which it very well may perform better on.


Apr 26, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add eyebelieve to your Buddy List  
hewcanon
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 26, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 3, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 5 

 
Pros: Zoom range and price
Cons:
evrything else

Wanted one lens with a good zoom range and for a good price to use on a Canon Rebel 300D. It produced some very average shots, and surprizingly I had to white-balance almost all the RAW images, pictures are always on the yellow tinted.

After upgrading to a 10D I moved to Canon lenses, and compared to the above average Canon lenses, like 28-105 F3.5 USM II which sells for about the same price, it becomes apparent how bad this lens really is.

Would not recommend it even for the cheap price ..


Mar 3, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add hewcanon to your Buddy List  
aVOLanche
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 159
Review Date: Nov 10, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: $220.00 | Rating: 1 

 
Pros: Huge range and decent build...low price
Cons:
terrible optical quality poor focusing

I'd only recommend this lens to a user who could afford nothing better,and "must" carry only one lens.It's the worst slr lens I have ever owned.

Nov 10, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add aVOLanche to your Buddy List  
Bluesbdancing
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 5, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 142
Review Date: Sep 11, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 2 

 
Pros: Wide zoom range one-size-fits-all type of lens Good walkabout size
Cons:
Soft images Slow focus/reaction to camera Zoom ring tough to use

I bought this lens a few years ago to go with my EOS 30 to replace my kit lenses. I though this would make a nice allround lens and it was not too expensive either.

I have hardly used it. Its reaction speed to my camera is extremely slow and focusing is tiresome. The zoom ring is very heavy going indeed, making it useless for fast moving objects coming towards you or away from you.

I have replaced it with two separate lenses now and it lives in its box in the cupboard. It will probably be up at Ebay at some point.



Sep 11, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Bluesbdancing to your Buddy List  
iriches
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 29, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2
Review Date: Mar 1, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 3 

 
Pros: Wide zoom range, cheap, useful for those one-lens-must-fit-every-situation days.
Cons:
Distortion (at both ends), poor resolution at long end. Seemed nowhere near 300mm (change from 200mm to 300mm setting was negligible). My copy broke.

Ok it was very cheap, and I got some passable photos with it. Stopped down it was reasonably sharp, but wide open it was horrible. And the opportunities to use a 300mm f/6.3 lens handheld without it being wide open are very limited! Of course, I could have used a tripod, but that seemed to negate the whole ease-of-use ethos of this lens.

Focusing was often slow and ponderous, especially at the longer end of the zoom range.

Worst of all, my copy broke after 15 months (out of warranty). Sigma wanted more than it was worth to fix it.

I didn't bother.


Mar 1, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add iriches to your Buddy List  
tcchou71
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 29, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1
Review Date: Jan 8, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $249.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Pretty sharp up to 200mm. Clearly softer at 300mm, but if you don't print larger than 8x10 it's quite usable with good technique/post-processing.
Cons:
Autofocus hunting.

I've used this lens alongside other Canon consumer grade and "L" lenses. Of course, the Ls put this lens to shame, as you'd expect. But against other consumer grade lenses, it holds up pretty well. As others noted, it's weakest at 200-300mm, but even there, my copy of the Sigma equals the Canon 75-300 lenses in sharpness and chromatic aberration. You do have to be careful with technique (watch the ISO and shutter speeds), and you should also make sure your copy of the lens is focusing properly. I've had to return several Sigma lenses with front or back-focusing, but eventually you get a good copy.

The Sigma is hard to beat for compactness and convenience, and even the Tamron 28-300 XR is noticeably fuzzier at 300mm. The Tamron also lacks the Sigma's metal mount, and costs more.

This lens is pretty sharp below 200mm. For serious shooting at 300mm, you should pay for something bigger and heavier. Pictures at 300mm, when examined pixel-by-pixel, will lack sharpness. You won't be able to crop and enlarge such photos, and you'll need a lot of sunlight because f6.3 is rather slow. You'll have a hard time photographing flying birds at 300mm because the autofocus won't keep up. If you do any of those things, you should get something else.

But within limitations, and with some post-processing, photos at 300mm can look quite good at sizes up to 8x10", basically equal to the Canon 75-300 consumer zoom family. In fact, I would say the Sigma is optically better, with less purple fringing around extremely bright objects. If you're at all considering the consumer-grade 75-300 zooms, I'd suggest looking at this lens also.

The bokeh at wide open apertures can be donut-shaped. I don't see this often, but it's annoying when it does appear.

Another review compared this lens to having a $400 big-zoom digicam. I have one of those digicams, and this lens is hugely better in optics, shutter lag, noise. In my hands, the comparison isn't even close.

My biggest complaint is with autofocus, which occasionally hunts even in the best of lighting conditions. A second complaint is that 28mm isn't very wide considering the DSLR crop factor. Nonetheless, within limitations, this lens is quite handy.


Jan 8, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add tcchou71 to your Buddy List  
dacop
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 589
Review Date: Nov 13, 2004 Recommend? no | Price paid: $230.00 | Rating: 2 

 
Pros: None
Cons:
Horible color and sharpness. Very dull pictures.

ok, so I gave this lens a try looking to pick up a non-Canon lens at a cheaper price with a 300mm range, plain and simple...it was a mistake. Colors and sharpness were horrible!!! The pictures just looked very dull compared to Canon glass. Tough to get a clean shot at 200 to 300mm, expect a lot of shake, you will need a tripod. But again, the final output this lens will produce is not worth the hassle in my opinion. I returned this lens the next day and will never stray from Canon glass again.

I understand the price is great for a 300mm range lens, but what good is it if the pictures look as bad as they did.

I do not recommend this lens.


Nov 13, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add dacop to your Buddy List  
MacD
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 5, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 898
Review Date: Aug 22, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $250.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Excellent all-in-one lens, for the hobbiest in point and shoot situations. Small, lightweight, and a great price. Better quality for the value, than I expected.
Cons:
Needs good light, not very good focusing in low light, hunts too much.

I use this lens when I'm in point and shoot situations, such as an amusement park, water park, or in all around vacation type atmosphere.
I've been very pleased with the overall quality, even at 300mm. This is not a sports or portrait lens, and is not designed for "pro" work. But when in good light and shooting above f/5.6 this ia a very good walk-around lens.


Aug 22, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add MacD to your Buddy List  

   



Sigma 28-300 f3.5-6.3 Macro

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
20 147388 Dec 17, 2011
Recommended By Average Price
45% of reviewers $245.83
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
6.23
7.38
5.6
28_300_macro


Page:  1 · 2  next