• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Sigma 135-400mm vs Sigma AF 170-500mm (1 Viewer)

markyb2

Mark
I am looking to replace my Sigma 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 APO DG lens (which I have been very happy with) which I use with my Canon 350d EOS for a Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO DG lens.

I was just wondering if this is a logical step i.e. will the extra distance I will get with the new lens be noticeable enough to warrant the extra cost of a new lens?

The purpose of this upgrade is to get more distance on nature (especially birding) shots.

Any thoughts would be most welcome - thanks
 
Sigma have a new 150-500 with IS due out in the next few months so it could pay to hold off for a while.
 
I've run the 170-500 lens for about 6 months now. It's a competent lens but will never wow you like the more expensive optics will. It gives a dull viewfinder image, forces you to stop down to about f8 or f11 and is noisy and dim-witted when focusing. However, it costs less than £400 if you import one from Japan and it does go to 500mm. Bottom line, if you can't justify silly money on something like the 500mm f4 and just want a competent lens that will bring your subjects closer to you, it's a good little buy. It certainly makes a good buy - if nothing else to practice longer lens shots, and I've shot wild birds of prey with my old 20D and the 170-500 lens attached, printed them at A3+ size and sold them and been very happy with the prints. It's not a bad little lens.

Edit - If you want some jpegs to show you image quality, I'd be more than happy to send you some. Email me via my website (www.keithwylie.co.uk)
 
Last edited:
I have the 170-500 and agree with Keith re. its performance. It is not a bad lens but needs good light conditions/tripod to be used sucessfully. I am now looking at the 150-500mm because it has image stabilisation.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top