Which lens 400mm or 500mm please help?

[Karlos78]

Hi I'm thinking about investing in a new telephoto lens either a sigma 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO or the Sigma 170-500mm F5.6-6.3 DG APO. Apart from the difference in price there is also a difference in the maximum aperture at the top end. Could anyone offer any advice based on your experience of using lenses like these, whether or not it is better to opt for less focal length but a higher aperture or visa versa? My main interests are more recently birds and sport photography (notable surfing where dawn and dusk often produce the best photos). Any comments and advice would be grateful

[life through a lens]

Have you checked out the Photography forums ?? Think there have been a few threads on there of late regarding zoom and fast lenses.

If not I'm sure someone will have an opinion

Olly

[glsammy]

You know doubt know what I'd recommend, neither of those! The Bigma 50-500mm is generally regarded as better than the 170-500mm, no doubt others will disagree with this! It's F4-F6.3. I find it a good general purpose lens, the size and weight some moan about, but it doesn't bother me and I've got a weak back. The 170-500mm lacks the high speed auto focus motor, which would be essential for moving targets. I've no idea what the 135-400mm is like, but the extra 100mm on the 50-500mm is certainly worthwhile.

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by glsammy

You know doubt know what I'd recommend, neither of those! The Bigma 50-500mm is generally regarded as better than the 170-500mm, no doubt others will disagree with this! It's F4-F6.3. I find it a good general purpose lens, the size and weight some moan about, but it doesn't bother me and I've got a weak back. The 170-500mm lacks the high speed auto focus motor, which would be essential for moving targets. I've no idea what the 135-400mm is like, but the extra 100mm on the 50-500mm is certainly worthwhile.

Got to agree with Graham on the Bigma, especially for bird photography. Iv'e been using one a few months now and find it a very versatile lens.
Roger

[eeyore]

I'd go for a bigma (thats the 50-500) if you have the cash - but the little bigma (170-500) isnt bad at nearly half the price . the only real benefit of the bigma over its little bruv is the hsm focusing.

I dont rate the 135-400, the price differential is so small you might as well go for a 500.

Tamron have a 200-500 which might be worth a look also

[Bushcraft]

Originally Posted by Karlos78

Hi I'm thinking about investing in a new telephoto lens either a sigma 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO or the Sigma 170-500mm F5.6-6.3 DG APO. Apart from the difference in price there is also a difference in the maximum aperture at the top end. Could anyone offer any advice based on your experience of using lenses like these, whether or not it is better to opt for less focal length but a higher aperture or visa versa? My main interests are more recently birds and sport photography (notable surfing where dawn and dusk often produce the best photos). Any comments and advice would be grateful

If you are defiantly going to go for a Sigma and a want a lens of between 400 and 500mm then I too would go for the Sigma 50-500mm (bigma). I know people who get some great shots with this lens, many of them use this forum. Remember too that this will be more powerful than this on a DSLR (Plus 1.5x) I believe. I don't have the bigma but I do have the Sigmonster (300-800mm) and I have been happy so far. Depending on your equipment though, if using Nikon I would go for the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 with a 1.7 converter. This is not quite as powerful as the Bigma but it will be sharper and faster and with the 1.7 it will come to 510mm.

Best wishes
Kris

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Bushcraft

if using Nikon I would go for the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 with a 1.7 converter. This is not quite as powerful as the Bigma but it will be sharper and faster and with the 1.7 it will come to 510mm.

Best wishes
Kris

that solution will work for canon users too as they make a 70-200 f2.8 as well, (sigma do one in both fits too)

btw I make the 200 with 1.7 tc 340mm I guess you are factoring in the digi crop conversion too but dont forget that this will apply to a 500mm too making it an effective 800mm.

I have a little bigma and although the auto focus is noisy it kept up with flying kites at gigrin and puffins on skokholm at least as well as the bigma or the canon 100-400 being used by my freinds.

That said i too would recomend you go for the bigma rather than little bigma if you can afford the extra 300 notes

[Bushcraft]

Originally Posted by eeyore

btw I make the 200 with 1.7 tc 340mm I guess you are factoring in the digi crop conversion too but dont forget that this will apply to a 500mm too making it an effective 800mm.

Yes, I included the digi crop, my maths are not up to much but I think I worked it out right

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Bushcraft

Yes, I included the digi crop, my maths are not up to much but I think I worked it out right

yeah you did (nearly)- including digi crop I make your set up 544mm but like i said it doesnt come out as long as a 500m lens, with digi crop this comes out at 800mm

[Bushcraft]

Originally Posted by eeyore

yeah you did (nearly)- including digi crop I make your set up 544mm but like i said it doesnt come out as long as a 500m lens, with digi crop this comes out at 800mm

So where am I going wrong? Say the lens is 200mm. I do this. x1.5 then my converter x1.7 so......
200m x1.5 x1.7 = 510mm

Have I missed something out?

Kris