Thoughts on Sigma 170-500mm 170-500 f/5-6.3 DG APO

themask70 · 4 Sep 2006 at 20:38

Hi all, well, i would just like to know everyone's thoughts on this lens. This might be my next buy, after some saving, and am curious about it. Thanks in advance, David

Joe T · 4 Sep 2006 at 20:39

Most people seem to buy the 50-500 as an alternative. Dont really know why. In theory the 170-500 should be optically superior as it has less zoom range, but I dont know if that holds tru for this lens.

Sorry I cant be more help.

themask70 · 4 Sep 2006 at 21:23

I like the look of the 170-500mm as it has a cheaper price tag

steveo · 4 Sep 2006 at 21:50

i have also been looking at this lense and also the tamron version which is slightly more but still less than the bigma still not sure and i have been looking at reviews for weeks lol

THE BEAST · 5 Sep 2006 at 09:06

sigma 170-500

Hi, my experience with this lens was not good i bought this lens a while ago & was not very happy with the quality of the pictures they seemed a bit soft to me so i sold it & bought a canon 100-400 L IS instead what a differance it is superb. i know it was a lot more money but i could not see the point of keeping a lens i was not happy with. Try one out if you can before parting with the greenstamps see if your happy with the pics.

Willie

King_Boru · 5 Sep 2006 at 19:22

Handheld shooting at 500mm without any optical stabilization is very difficult. I would suggest stepping down to 300mm which includes VR (Nikons Vibration Reduction) /IS (Canons Image Stabalized) /OS (Sigmas Optical Stabalizer). You will regret it otherwise.

King.

DRZ · 6 Sep 2006 at 00:20

King_Boru said:
Handheld shooting at 500mm without any optical stabilization is very difficult. I would suggest stepping down to 300mm which includes VR (Nikons Vibration Reduction) /IS (Canons Image Stabalized) /OS (Sigmas Optical Stabalizer). You will regret it otherwise.

King.

That is simply not true I am afraid. I am away at the moment else I would have some links to show you, but hand-holding at 700mm is entirely possible with good, sharp results (500mm prime + 1.4x TC).

Good handholding technique is of course required but thats entirely down to the user and nothing to do with the lens.

Some very, very sharp shots indeed have come from Bigma users everywhere both with and without tripods, always at the longest end. Sigma quality control issues aside, its a fantastic lens for what it is. I am not too sure about the 170-500mm but the 50-500mm will always be a consideration when I am looking at long zooms. The 100-400L is a fantastic piece of glass but in the right hand, the results arent that different between it and the Bigma aside from the IS when you are REALLY pushing, but in any case I am talking optically and if anything, IS reduces lens performance (more glass in the signal path).

If you are considering a lens that is THAT long, you must have some pretty specific applications in mind for a number of reasons: Its big, its heavy, its hard to use, its impractically long for most things, its minimum focussing distance is MASSIVE etc.

If this is the case, start considering prime glass!

The 300mm F/4 IS can be used with a 1.4c TC to give a superb, image stablised 420mm F/5.6 lens (still retaining autofocus with a slight speed penalty, although still faster than a 100-400L) and a very versatile 300mm F/4 with blazing AF speed. The working distance for this lens is a mere 1.2m making it useful in a LOT more situations than the Bigma.

Alternatively there is the 400mm F/5.6 but this is starting to get pretty specific - faster than the 300mm + TC solution in terms of AF speed but a whole lot less versatile.

Both options (without TC) clock in at around the same price as the "proper" Bigma and are seriously worth consideration. Later this month the 300mm F/4 IS will join my kit