I am looking at buying a Sigma 170-500 5.6 APO lens. I am working with a limited budget and have a Canon 350D, Can anyone advise on the results they have had with this lens, I have been using a canon 100-300 ultrasonic which has been very disappointing. I recently read a review of the canon lens in one of the photo mags which slated the canon lens. Thanks
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Sigma 170 500 5.6 3 apo lens Any advice please (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter MGMAD
- Start date
tjsimonsen
Well-known member
Telecorder
Telecorder
:t:
Or consider a slower AF screw drive Tamron 200-500 or perhaps the newer Sigma 150-500 OS...
I'd stay away from the 170-500...
:news: -->
http://www.dslrgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2726#post2726
greypoint
Well-known member
If considering a sigma 170-500mm definitely try before you buy - it's a horribly unweildy long beast and very slow to focus. I had one for about 3 days before returning it and going back to the 135-400 I then had. I had the use of a Tamron 200-500 for a few days and handling wise it's a completely different story - rather nice and light for what it is.
bluedubius
Rick
I've been using the Sigma 170-500 for a couple of years. I've had mixed results, some of which may be my own fault. If budget is a major consideration (as it was for me at the time), then this lens performs fairly well within limitations. I've also used the Sigma 50-500 and the Sigma 150-500 OS and can't really see any difference in terms of the sharpness of the images produced. The autofocus on the 170-500 is horrible in anything but good lighting and still pretty slow even under the best of conditions with my ole D2H. Still, it's half the price of the Tamron 200-500 or the either of the Sigmas, so I guess it just boils down to what you can afford to invest. Always get the maximum quality lens you can afford, as it's usually a long-term investment. I'm attaching a photo of a Carolina Wren I shot a few days ago with the 170-500 and a Fuji S2 Pro at a distance of around 20 feet. Also here is a link to a small gallery of images I've taken with this lens :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ricksphotos0501/sets/72157612205478310/
Hope this gives you some additional information.
Rick
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ricksphotos0501/sets/72157612205478310/
Hope this gives you some additional information.
Rick
Attachments
rockwright
Well-known member
sigma vs canon 400mm f5.6
I have had the 170-500 for several years. After reading about how much better canon primes are I got the canon 400mm f5.6 lens so I have some grounds for comparison. First, the canon is very sharp, has very fast autofocus, and gives good contrast. The downside is it's 400 mm, and with an extender with pins taped the autofocus slows to the speed of the sigma and the images are acceptable but not discernably sharper than the sigma at 500 mm. Used without an extender it's easier to use than the sigma - you don't need as good technique. However, I usually shoot with the sigma. A year ago I printed off 8 by 10 inch prints of birds taken with both lenses for a friend who was thinking of getting a longer lens. I wrote the exif data on the back of the photos, and I was surprised to find you had to look at the exif data in most cases to determine the lens used. At 400 mm, the sigma is very sharp, and maybe I got lucky but my lens takes good shots at 500 mm as well. It DOES have limitations and I had a learning curve discovering this. I took alot of soft shots before I figured things out.
1) It is slow. You need good light for decent pictures.
2) I have to use a tripod to get sharp shots, with good long lens technique and attention to shutter speed. I burst the shots - the second or third shot in a burst is usually sharper as there's less camera shake.
3) At 500 mm it is a bit sharper stopped down to f8. Again requires good light.
4) It focuses too slowly for most flight shots, though I've been lucky on occasion. It is definitely best for "bird on a branch" shots.
5) For some reason, shots taken at infinity focus are somwhat soft. If I can get within about 20 feet of the subject the shots are sharper. Don't know why.
The upside: It is much less expensive than a prime (purchasing a good tripod does wonders for pictures), and it does have longer reach than a 400mm. We'd all like a 500 mm prime but few of us can justify sinking 5 to 7 grand on one. You can zoom out with this lens if you are too close to the subject.
Spend some time looking at the gallery. There are lots of shot with this lens Recall there is a variation in the operators. Hope this helps anyone reading this.
I have had the 170-500 for several years. After reading about how much better canon primes are I got the canon 400mm f5.6 lens so I have some grounds for comparison. First, the canon is very sharp, has very fast autofocus, and gives good contrast. The downside is it's 400 mm, and with an extender with pins taped the autofocus slows to the speed of the sigma and the images are acceptable but not discernably sharper than the sigma at 500 mm. Used without an extender it's easier to use than the sigma - you don't need as good technique. However, I usually shoot with the sigma. A year ago I printed off 8 by 10 inch prints of birds taken with both lenses for a friend who was thinking of getting a longer lens. I wrote the exif data on the back of the photos, and I was surprised to find you had to look at the exif data in most cases to determine the lens used. At 400 mm, the sigma is very sharp, and maybe I got lucky but my lens takes good shots at 500 mm as well. It DOES have limitations and I had a learning curve discovering this. I took alot of soft shots before I figured things out.
1) It is slow. You need good light for decent pictures.
2) I have to use a tripod to get sharp shots, with good long lens technique and attention to shutter speed. I burst the shots - the second or third shot in a burst is usually sharper as there's less camera shake.
3) At 500 mm it is a bit sharper stopped down to f8. Again requires good light.
4) It focuses too slowly for most flight shots, though I've been lucky on occasion. It is definitely best for "bird on a branch" shots.
5) For some reason, shots taken at infinity focus are somwhat soft. If I can get within about 20 feet of the subject the shots are sharper. Don't know why.
The upside: It is much less expensive than a prime (purchasing a good tripod does wonders for pictures), and it does have longer reach than a 400mm. We'd all like a 500 mm prime but few of us can justify sinking 5 to 7 grand on one. You can zoom out with this lens if you are too close to the subject.
Spend some time looking at the gallery. There are lots of shot with this lens Recall there is a variation in the operators. Hope this helps anyone reading this.
mike from ebbw
Well-known member
If you are going for one of the `Bigmas`then either the 150-500 OS for handholding as the shots above show but for out and out image quality go for the EX 50-500mm as I just have.It was a toss up between the 170-500 but I managed to get a very good price on a used 50-500 and love it.
Took this the other day in very poor light and iso 400.
Took this the other day in very poor light and iso 400.
Attachments
mike from ebbw
Well-known member
Only just realised that this thread is six months old!
Ricardo Leite
Member
Dear MGMAD,
I had the sigma 170-500mm APO working on my canon 40D. Unfortunately i coundn't stopping down the aperture. I've taken more than 1.000 birds shots only in wide open, that was supposed to be on 6.3 aperture, but my camera used to show 5.6. I've heard about it could be caused by some kind of lack of good communication between both camera and lens. Maybe i could've gotten this solved by changing the lens's control aperture chip.
As i live in Brazil, send the lens to repairing or update wouldn't be a choice. So then i sold the lens.
This was my big mistake!
My old shots, gotting by this lens are certantly my favorites. Even owning the canon 100-400 by now, a recomend you this old sigma.
Hope this can help you to decide.
Sorry for my english.
I had the sigma 170-500mm APO working on my canon 40D. Unfortunately i coundn't stopping down the aperture. I've taken more than 1.000 birds shots only in wide open, that was supposed to be on 6.3 aperture, but my camera used to show 5.6. I've heard about it could be caused by some kind of lack of good communication between both camera and lens. Maybe i could've gotten this solved by changing the lens's control aperture chip.
As i live in Brazil, send the lens to repairing or update wouldn't be a choice. So then i sold the lens.
This was my big mistake!
My old shots, gotting by this lens are certantly my favorites. Even owning the canon 100-400 by now, a recomend you this old sigma.
Hope this can help you to decide.
Sorry for my english.
Last edited:
