50-500 or 170-500mm ?

What sort of aperture does the lens have? Sounds like it might be very slow to me.
 
ecniv said:
Aperture range is f5-6.3.
Click to expand...

That is a very slow lens. You would need pretty bright light to use that at reasonable speeds. You'll be forever carrying a monopod or tripod round with you. I think there is a danger you will end up frustrated with a lens like that.

I personally would go for something with a shorter zoom range but with a wider aperture.
 
I tried 50-500mm for air balloons. At 500mm the photos were OK after downsizing 1.5x and bumping up the contrast and saturation quite heavily. The quality got far worse at 200mm and unusable bellow 100mm. To be honest Canon 400mm f/5.6 or 300mm f/4 sounds like a better deal to me for the money (not that I have it, but I tried 400mm and was really impressed)
 
In this months PhotoPlus mag, they did a superzoom test and the Sigma 120-400 was voted best value on test and the 150-500 was voted best on test - pick up a copy (or have a quick read) of the mag, (y)
 
I have a 150-50mm and love it, and the 50-500 is dearer for some reason, but the 150-500m has OS optical stabilizing, dont think the 170-500mm has OS

I have some images do a search for posts started by me and look for the eagle shots, or if you want links or iimages I;ll post them here for others taken with this lens
 
I had the 170-500 and it was very sharp but the lower end 170 is a bit restricting but if this doesnt bother you its a cheaper alternative
 
The Sigma 170-500 effectionaly known as the coffee grinder because of the noise it makes when focusing as It doesn't have HSM. I've read it's capable of good shots but is slow in focusing and isn't the same quality as EX models. I considered it before buying the Sigma 50-500 but decided against it quite quickly. The newer sigma 150-500 has good reviews and has OS (stablised) and may be the pick of the bunch. The 170 is quite alot cheaper though.
 
The 170 is slower and can be noisy but the one I had was pretty quiet but there are some great copies and some not so good its luck of the draw when buying used I'm afraid

Edit.....also the 170 when held at a certain angle will extend fully, its not a fault according to Sigma UK its the weight of the front element and its a big piece of glass
 
For the money any of the Sigma lenses are they can't be criticised.
 
I have a Sigma 170-500 APO lens. It is sharp, but it needs good light. The focusing is slow and noisy, it is sometimes better to use manual focusing, if you want to shoot something thats moving it will struggle. I paid £150 for mine second hand, for that money its good value.
 
Huss1100 said:
I have a Sigma 170-500 APO lens. It is sharp, but it needs good light. The focusing is slow and noisy, it is sometimes better to use manual focusing, if you want to shoot something thats moving it will struggle. I paid £150 for mine second hand, for that money its good value.
Click to expand...

Wow that was a bargain (y)
 
I have the 170 -500 and it produces some rasonable results, in good light, but is a beast to use and I now use the canon 100 - 400 far more better quality and IS also 3 time the price.
 
I had a 170-500 for a few months and although it was capable of delivering good results, the slow AF and poor IQ wide open made getting good shots tricky. In good light with a static (or slow moving) subject I was OK anything else and it struggled. I tested a 50-500 and felt that it was better - a bit sharper wide open and AF was faster, I feel that it's worth the extra money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top