Sigma 175-500mm VS 50-500mm

[Lenton]

Hi guys,

I am in two minds about these lenses. I have read a whole lot of good things about the 50-500mm and not alot on the 170-500mm. I took the 170-500mm for a test drive on my Canon 350D and I am not that impressed. However I was shooting from the hip this monring but the images do seem soft even with a bean bag.

I am looking to buy a long lens that will produce fine images like the ones on this site. I have read all about the 50-500 VS 100-400L and basically just want some pro advise on the 170-500mm.

Thanks

[Hedrus]

Hi Lenton

Let me put it to you this way.
Everybody starts off with one and eventually some "outgrow" the lens.
It is a fine startup lens but if you want to start off with something better and the financials is in order, I would say go for one of the other two.

Keep in mind that all long lenses must be used with good camera support.All 3 lenses you mentioned above are F5.6 (OK 6.3 for Sigma) It is not too fast but keeping in mind that you would sometime want to get faster shutter speeds you would have to jack up your ISO.
The focussing speed on the other hand is also important. The 170-500 is much slower than the other 2.

[Lenton]

Hi Hedrus, thanks for the feedback. I did find that the AF on the 170-500 was slow. Even with the support I used the images at the 500mm range felt soft. I reckon I will save and hold out for the Canon L glass. I'd rather do it right first time round. Thanks again.

[BigAl]

Here are some samples from someone who uses a Sigma 170-500
http://dehmphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/286014
I found most of his images a bit on the soft side. If you look at my pictures taken with the Bigma they are a lot sharper:
http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/gallery/556774/4
(the pics after the Barthroated Apalises were all taken with the Bigma)

[markthomas]

There is one lens that I never see mentioned on this site, which in my opinion is a winner. The Ef 400 5.6L. It's relatively cheap R12000.00) very sharp and pretty light. It gives better image quality than the 100-400L, only thing is it's a prime. More people should be considering this lens.

[j-ms]

I have a Canon 400 f/5.6 and I love it. It focuses so fast it's scary, even on my 300D. Contrast is great. It's light enough to handhold in the right conditions (I find that I am steadier with it than my 75-300 because the 75-300 seems to too light). The slow maximum aperture is not a great problem with a digital camera (ISO 200 at 5.6 == ISO 50 at 2.8 and the noise at ISO 200 is virtually unnoticeable). Apparantly (I have'nt tried it) it still gets AF and produces good images with a Kenko Pro 1.4 TC or the Canon TCs with the pins taped over.

[Willem Semmelink]

I also own the 170-500 and I am almost never satisfied with it's images - soft, and it focuses very slow. Mine's zoom control is very stiff, so that I usually have to use force to get it fully to 500mm.

My opinion is that if you can afford anything better, then don't even consider this lens.

[Geurt]

There is one lens that I never see mentioned on this site, which in my opinion is a winner. The Ef 400 5.6L. It's relatively cheap R12000.00) very sharp and pretty light. It gives better image quality than the 100-400L, only thing is it's a prime. More people should be considering this lens.

I can but just support this lens. I have it and am absolutely satisfied with it. Best bang for your bucks.
Geurt

[Lenton]

Ok so basically what I can surmise is that the 170-500 is NOT the way to.

So that leaves me with either the prime 400, the Bigma, or the 100-400mm.

I am somewhat worried about the prime though cause its not zoom. I enjoy the freedom of zoom and knowing that with one lens in the situations I mostly get in I should be able to cope. The weight I have read on the Bigma is sometimes problem and not good for shooting from the hip. Then I cant think that the 100-400 would be that much lighter either..

Think I will pop by Hedrus to at least meet some of the Members and get some expert advise. I see he is pretty good with that sort of thing . That way I can have a look at the prime to see if its too much for my current needs. And test drive the weights on the others.

Thanks for all the feedback it helps alot.

[PFG]

hi there

I bought a 100-400 a month ago and all that I can say for me it is the best lens after comparing it.

With the IS my photo just immediately are better but the only advice that I can give is test all before buying I see I as the camera one can replace but a good lens is for ever. ENJOY

[DartX]

If your finances doesn't allow spending R10000+ on a lens, I wouldn't go for the 170-500 ... I would rather go for the 135-400. The 100mm extra isn't that much extra reach + you gain a F-stop to F5.6. I've compared the two (friend has 170-500) and the 135-400 is IMO conciderably faster to focus (probably because it has more light to work with), the zoom is not quite so stiff and the image quality is very good for a R5000 (cheaper if you go second hand or shop around) lens. There are some photo's in my gallery taken with the 135-400.

[Geurt]

... I would rather go for the 135-400. The 100mm extra isn't that much extra reach.....

At about 64%, it is a difference!
Geurt

[DartX]

At about 64%, it is a difference!
Geurt

Not sure I understand 64%? A 400mm would have about twice the magnification that a 200mm would have, so a 500mm would have about 25% more magnification than a 400mm? Having used both the 170-500 and 135-400, yes the 500 has slightly more reach, but is not apparent unless you are comparing them directly, but the F6.3 on the 500mm definitely is very noticable (focus hunting in low light). Again, much depends on what exactly you want from a lens.