Nikon D70 + Sigma 170-500

[CANONROB]

Hi
I am just about to take the plunge and get a Nikon D70, I called in Jesops today and the nice guy behind the counter recomended the Sig. 170-500 lens to me for birding.
I will be getting the Nikon D70 with the 18-70 lens from W. Express as they are doing quite a good deal, and Jessops have offerd me the sigma for £338.
What I would like to know is, is the Sigma a good lens, or should I be looking for a dif. lens, as I would hate to find that the pics are not up to scatch.
I have been useing a Nikon 5700 with a 1.5 Tele. and the results have been quite good, but its time now for the 5700 to be replaced with an SLR Digital.
Any advice would be great, on the camera, and also on the lens, ( Large Ones )
If any one has any Pics. taken with the Sigma 170-500 lens I would love to see the results.

Rob

[Neil]

Rob,
I'm using the Sigma with my D100. I bought it to give me a little more length than my Nikon 300mm f4 ED which is about 8 years old not and on it's last legs. I mainly use it for flight shots, chasing fast feeding birds through the canopy and larger birds eg egrets and ducks. I was a little disappointed in the lens as it's APO glass is not as high a quality as Nikon's ED glass and I find the quality against the light suffers as a result. Also, due to it's longer length it probably should be used on a tripod for best results. It's strength is in the 15-30ft distance in reseasonable to good light at around the 400mm of the zoom. The focussing speed is about the same as the Nikon 300mm which is not fast enough for many flight shots.
Given my time again (and a little more money) I would get the new Nikon 300mm f4 AF-S as it is much faster in focussing (the 80-400 VR would also be a better choice although a little slower in the AF department ).
Some of my recent photos of swamphens/ducks and flight shots have been taken with this lens.
I would also look at the new Nikon/Canon 8megapixels as I find that carrying a tripod/scope/CP4500 and the D100/Sigma and a pair of bins all day gets a bit much.
good luck,Neil

[RichUK]

Well I already gave my opinion via e-mail. I don't generally use AF so that isn't a problem. If money matters then you can't beat the Sigma lens. I have some Nikon lenses which are very nice but they are costly in comparison.

Take a look at my gallery or janine13's gallery..we both have pics taken using the D70 and a Sigma zoom.

Rich.

[CANONROB]

Rob,
I'm using the Sigma with my D100. I bought it to give me a little more length than my Nikon 300mm f4 ED which is about 8 years old not and on it's last legs. I mainly use it for flight shots, chasing fast feeding birds through the canopy and larger birds eg egrets and ducks. I was a little disappointed in the lens as it's APO glass is not as high a quality as Nikon's ED glass and I find the quality against the light suffers as a result. Also, due to it's longer length it probably should be used on a tripod for best results. It's strength is in the 15-30ft distance in reseasonable to good light at around the 400mm of the zoom. The focussing speed is about the same as the Nikon 300mm which is not fast enough for many flight shots.
Given my time again (and a little more money) I would get the new Nikon 300mm f4 AF-S as it is much faster in focussing (the 80-400 VR would also be a better choice although a little slower in the AF department ).
Some of my recent photos of swamphens/ducks and flight shots have been taken with this lens.
I would also look at the new Nikon/Canon 8megapixels as I find that carrying a tripod/scope/CP4500 and the D100/Sigma and a pair of bins all day gets a bit much.
good luck,Neil

Thank you for the inf. I have had a look at your Gallery and I must say that your pictures are fantastic, It must be that the light where you live is better than here !! the Sigma 170-500 does seem quite good in your hands, but your Nikon lens pics. look just that little better to me, it must be you get what you pay for.
Once again Thanks Rob

[RichUK]

Rob,

Just so you don't have to navigate back to the Warbler pic - yes it was taken with the 170-500mm.

Rich.

[CANONROB]

Thanks Rich
Did you see my last email
Rob

[RichUK]

Thanks Rich
Did you see my last email
Rob

Yep - and no problem ;)

Rich.

[joee1949]

Hi
I am just about to take the plunge and get a Nikon D70, I called in Jesops today and the nice guy behind the counter recomended the Sig. 170-500 lens to me for birding.
I will be getting the Nikon D70 with the 18-70 lens from W. Express as they are doing quite a good deal, and Jessops have offerd me the sigma for £338.
What I would like to know is, is the Sigma a good lens, or should I be looking for a dif. lens, as I would hate to find that the pics are not up to scatch.
I have been useing a Nikon 5700 with a 1.5 Tele. and the results have been quite good, but its time now for the 5700 to be replaced with an SLR Digital.
Any advice would be great, on the camera, and also on the lens, ( Large Ones )
If any one has any Pics. taken with the Sigma 170-500 lens I would love to see the results.

Rob

I have to agree with Neil, I also had the 170-500mm and was not happy at 500mm, very soft. I sold it and bought the 135-400mm from Sigma which I found a lot better. Go to my gallery and have a look at the photos.

Now I have also sold the 135-400mm and bought a Canon 100-400mm L IS lens which should do a lot better, haven't tried it out yet.

But watch my gallery, I'll put a few shots in soon enough.

Joe

[joee1949]

Thank you for the inf. I have had a look at your Gallery and I must say that your pictures are fantastic, It must be that the light where you live is better than here !! the Sigma 170-500 does seem quite good in your hands, but your Nikon lens pics. look just that little better to me, it must be you get what you pay for.
Once again Thanks Rob

If you want to compare Sigma to Nikon it's like Mini Cooper to BMW, no match!

Not in price and not in quality, imho.

[Jerry Kent]

If you want to compare Sigma to Nikon it's like Mini Cooper to BMW, no match!

Not in price and not in quality, imho.

Mini Cooper vs BMW - hmm while the original BMC Mini Coopers were winning rallys in the early 1960s, BMW were making bubble cars!

Things have changed!

Wouldn't argue with the main sentiment though - this is a wildlife photography rather than petrol head forum!

Cheers

Jerry

[Keith Reeder]

I see it's your first post, Jerry - so a warm welcome to Birdforum.

I think I'd argue with the suggestion that Nikkor lenses are inherently better than Sigma.

Some Nikkor lenses are relatively mediocre lumps, whereas some of the Sigma line up is truly superb - I think you have to compare like with like (or as near as you can get to that).

The staggering price of some Nikkor lenses has to be factored in too!

;)

I'm in no doubt that my Sigma 80-400mm OS is a match for (and in some significant respects an improvement on) the 80-400mm VR equivalent from Nikon - any problems with the pictures I've taken with it so far are "pilot error", for sure..!

Image quality from the Sigma 100-300mm F4 is so close to the Nikkor 300mm AF-S F4 prime as to be irrelevant in real terms - certainly the photographer would make a bigger difference than the lenses would - and although the Nikkor prime is fantastic value for money, the Sigma is cheaper and more versatile.

Sigma's 120-300mm F2.8 zoom is just one of the best lenses out there, full stop.

Of course, especially at the long end, Nikkor's AF-S stuff is awesome (though Sigma "out-reach" Nikon these days, with Nikon "only" going to 600mm) - and maybe it is worth the remortgage it'd take to acquire it - but in any quantifiable sense, I don't believe there's any downside for the vast majority of us in using good Sigma lenses.

Certainly I don't believe the minute resolution differences which might exist (and I'm not convinced!) would even be picked up by the sensor in a D70: yes, the long AF-S lenses are f2.8, but that's a different argument.

[Tyler Vargo]

If you want to compare Sigma to Nikon it's like Mini Cooper to BMW, no match!

Not in price and not in quality, imho.LOL! You do know that Mini Coopers are made by BMW don't you?

And that's besides the point, as far as quality goes it's a total toss up in between Nikon and Sigma most of the time, sometimes Sigma kicks Nikon's pants off.

Take the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super II vs a Nikkor 70-300 ED for example, I heavily researched and tested both lenses before choosing, the Nikon totally dissapointed me. It was slower (AF), poorer quality and much more expensive than the Sigma!

Also, Sigma offers some incredible lenses that Nikon could never hope to match for a reasonable price, like the famous 'Bigma' (50-500mm). I'll bet that if Nikon were to make a 50-500mm it would probably cost upwards of 2K (speculation of course, but an educated guess at that). And what about that 'Sigmonster', the 300-800, how much do you reckon Nikon would charge for one of those? I'd hazard a guess of about 10-12k.

Though it's nice to have name brand gear, I'm decidedly a pro-Sigma man as far as lenses go, I say; If Sigma makes an equivalent, it's probably a better deal.

(remember, I'm a low budger birder, I'm all about getting the most bang for your buck!)

[Keith Reeder]

What Tyler said..!

;)