sigma 170-500

Associate
Joined
30 Jan 2010
Posts
263
is it really that bad? i have read very mixed reviews online. some say it is very soft at 500mm and that AF is slow and loud. but i see a few pics people have taken and they look nice, i would be happy to have taken them.

i would describe myself as an amatuer photographer looking for a decent entry into wildlife photography. i have had limited success with my canon 55-250is - some nice pics but just cant sneak close enough most of the time!

im on a budget (got a mortgage and a son who's nearly one) so the 50-500 or 150-500 probably isnt going to happen, nevermind a canon 100-400L!
i have seen the 170-500's go on the bay for between £200 and £300 which is about all i can stretch to right now.

does anyone have a 170-500? should i forget about it and save longer? surely it will suffice for an amateur like me?
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Apr 2004
Posts
13,489
A lens of that kind of range is always going to be a compromise unless its ££££, which it isn't...

Get something like a 100-400, 70-300, 70-200...
 
Associate
Joined
2 Jan 2004
Posts
1,866
Location
Exeter, Devon
Sigma 120-400 OS is also worth considering. Around £600 new, but they're very easy to find secondhand (people upgrading to a 100-400L I assume) for close to the £400 mark, which if you can stretch to it is a lot of lens for the money.
 
Back
Top Bottom