Sigma 170-500 v50-500

[Dangermouse]

I have heard the 170-500 is much sharper than the 50-500 due to it only going down to 170mm as opposed to 50mm.
Is this true.
At Waddington the 170 was a bit restrictive so changing lenses meant losing shots so the 50-500 does seem more appealing even though its not as sharp.
So any opinions are welcome but if you have had both lenses that would be better

 

[Chaz Photos]

I thought it was 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM not 170mm or is this new /old one?

 

[Just Dave]

I thought it was 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM not 170mm or is this new /old one?

sigma do both

150-500mm and 170-500mm

 

[paul_g]

I have heard the 170-500 is much sharper than the 50-500 due to it only going down to 170mm as opposed to 50mm.
Is this true.
At Waddington the 170 was a bit restrictive so changing lenses meant losing shots so the 50-500 does seem more appealing even though its not as sharp.
So any opinions are welcome but if you have had both lenses that would be better

Well thats the first time i've heard that and I know plenty of people who've had/used both lenses. I had the 50-500 a few years ago and found it to be a good, sharp lens with the advantage of much faster focussing than the 170-500 (proven by myself and a friend with the 170-500 in side by side tests). the downside is its much heavier and really needs supporting to get the best out of it. The weight was eventually the reason I sold mine.

 

[Slapo]

Try this:
http://pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=255
There's plenty of motion blur in most photos on that site, but you might get lucky

 

[Claymore]

I have heard the 170-500 is much sharper than the 50-500 due to it only going down to 170mm as opposed to 50mm.
Is this true.
At Waddington the 170 was a bit restrictive so changing lenses meant losing shots so the 50-500 does seem more appealing even though its not as sharp.
So any opinions are welcome but if you have had both lenses that would be better

Had both and the 50-500mm was the better, having said that I have seen great shots taken with both. The 50-500mm worked best at around f8 450mm also it felt better? hard to explain but neither are flimsy but the Bigma felt better built and also held its value better when i sold it!
No doubt someone with say the opposite on here but that's just my view LoL
Cheers
Brian

 

[Chaz Photos]

Was with the Sigma guy on Monday he did not have one and looking on here http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/index.htm can't see one.
it would not seam right is there is a 150 - 500 to have one so close

 

[mrgubby]

The 170-500 is an old non-OS lens, it has been replaced by the 150-500 which has OS

 

[Just Dave]

I got a sigma 150-500mm APO DG OS and love it

believe they did a 150-500mm non OS could be wrong though

 

[Mike.P]

Have tried all 3 and bought just one (50-500mm)

The 50-500mm is the sharpest (EX glass) followed by the 170-500mm and then the 150-500mm. That was my findings, others may of course differ.

 

[pete.rush]

Our of the bunch of long zoom's sigma makes, the 50-500mm is probably their best (although personally the 100-300mm f4 or 120-300mm f2.8 will run rings around those lenses, but then again they're the next step up in $$$).

As mentioned, the 50-500mm is heavy, probably limited time for handheld and need to be stepped down to get decent results, the problems I see with all these budget long zooms are, if you haven't got perfect conditions, you lose the light, then you'll struggle with action photography to get a decent return rate.

Accepted, budget is a driving force, but personally, there are other affordable options out there that won't break the bank, ok, you might have to compromise and get 400m or 300mm, but I think there are better options.

Peter