Im trying to decide whether to buy a Nikon 70-300mm Lens or a Sigma 70-300mm MACRO lens. ANY HELP??

Question

they are both around the same price, i heard nikon is better but the sigma one has Macro is that a big deal? I'm new at photography so can anyone tell me the difference and which lens to go with? I would really appreciate it!

Answer 1

I would go with the Nikkor lens. They are much better than Sigma. The macro feature allows you to focus very close on small objects. It is not a true macro though. If macro is what you want get the Nikon macro lens.

Answer 2

The "Macro" designation means that the lens has the abilitiy focus abnormally close as compared to other lenses in its focal range. This in turn implies that it can take pictures of smaller objects than the other lenses in its focal range. The term "Macro" in zooming lenses is completely subjective based upon the manufacturer, however, and is often confused with a dedicated macro lens. Regardless, if you want to take pictures of small things (like a bug) occasionally, and you don't want to buy a dedicated macro right now, then the "Macro" designation would be a plus.

If I could make a recommendation, perhaps you should consider a Nikon 55-200mm VR? Typically, the results from a 70-300mm lens, regardless of the manufacturer, will be acceptable to mediocre in the 70-200 range and poor to extremely poor in the 200-300 range. This is simply just too extreme of a zoom range for these lenses, and instead of covering a small range well, manufacturers have chosen to cover a large range poorly. Most photographers find that they rarely, if ever, need the 200-300mm zoom range unless their passion is wildlife or sports photography. If they're really into these particular types of photography, they'll virtually always buy a higher-quality, faster lens. Other types of photography will generally allow you to move closer to get your shot (zooming with your feet). Thus, I see the 200-300mm zoom range on most "Consumer" grade* lenses to be quite useless. The Nikon 55-200mm VR is a brilliant little lens, and its Vibration Reduction (VR) technology can be very helpful when handholding the longer focal lengths (and it's similarly priced). If you had to choose for a 70-300, I'd go with a Nikon in this situation.

One final word of advice, Nikon and Canon are not always better than third party manufacturers such as Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina. Sigma's EX prime lenses, for example, really can hold their own against the similar offerings from Nikon and Canon, and usually for half the price. As an example, I prefer the color of the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro over the Canon 180mm f/3.5L Macro, hands down, while the other optical qualities are virtually identical. The fisheye lenses from Sigma tend to surpass the Canon competition in their price range as well, though I've no significant experience with Nikon fisheyes. Likewise, from my experience, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 really stands up to Canon's 17-55mm f/2.8 IS in terms of optical quality, but it does lack any kind of image stabilization.

Answer 3

Sigma does not make a terribly bad lens ( but it does not make a really good or great lens)  so if money is the greatest determining factor then yes look at them. The editor of photonet said this "The really cheap Sigma lenses aren't very good optically and may have rather flimsy mechanical construction."

But, Sigma lenses are not as well made as Nikkor. You will find that for the extra money, with Nikkor,  you get better optic which will give you sharper pictures particularly at maximum zoom ( this lens is consitently rated as being soft over 200 unless you stop it way down) , the operation of moving parts of the camera will be smoother, the autofocus will aquire and focus faster and move more smoothly, the lens will be assured to function with your camera. The Nikkor lens will probably autofcus better in low light than the Sigma ( I have seen several reviewers comment on this for the 70-300)

Right now the only third party lenses I have are Tokina  

Answer 4

I don't have any experience with these lenses, but I wanted to post one comment about the build quality. Nikon has a very well deserved reputation for building to the highest build quality. But my friend just sent his 18-200mm VR lense back to Nikon for the 4th time within the first year. I hope this is just an isolated case, and is not reflective of recent lens quality. It surprises me that Nikon has not stepped up and just replaced the lens given the history.

So at this point, I am a bit skeptical about just assuming that Nikon lenses are still built better than the likes of Sigma or Tamron.