9 out of 10 points and recommendedSharp, very low CANone
I replaced my very inexpensive Nikon 70-300G lens with this Sigma after hearing some good things. Physically, it's about the same, and has the unfortunate characteristic of extending way out at longer zoon ranges.reviewed December 14th, 2006 (purchased for $209)
The only problem with that is, honestly, it looks silly.
But performance wise, it is sharper than the Nikon G and ED versions of the same range, and in between the two in terms of cost. The CA performance beats the G version, and is as good as the ED version at a lower price.
What really amazes me is the sharpness, especially at the lower zoom range. Note: I'm not saying that the longest range is bad, because it's not. I'm just saying the shorter range is amazing.
The only thing I would like to see is a little bit closer focusing.
9 out of 10 points and recommendedSharp, solid, tripod-mountGetting long for hand-holding
If you're looking for Macro abilities, this is an awesome lens. This is my first prime lens in this range, but I mostly purchased it for its macro abilities.reviewed December 14th, 2006 (purchased for $600)
I had some debate between the 100mm and the 150. The extra 50mm allows you to stand back a bit further from your subject, good for bugs that scare easily. But, at the same time it makes camera shake even more apparent when hand-holding. But with calm composure and a little practice, hand-holding it will produce excellent images.
Focus can be a little slow, and may hunt now and then, but it isn't horrible.
CA is barely noticable in my opinion, and usually not worth fixing in post-processing.