1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

sigma 170-500

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by clintham, 12 Mar 2010.

  1. clintham


    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?
  2. D.P.


    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 31,535

    Avoid like the -plague is the only thing I've heard about that lens.

    Hvae a look at a 70-300 IS
  3. asim18


    Joined: 5 Dec 2006

    Posts: 15,410

  4. FreeStream


    Joined: 10 Apr 2004

    Posts: 13,376

    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...
  5. neverender

    Wise Guy

    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.