sigma 170-500mm or 150-500mm?

NJP87 · #1 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 02:06 PM

Hi all.

I need a longer lens and can't make my mind up which one to get.

The choices are the sigma 50-500mm, 150-500mm or the 170-500mm.

I can pick up the 170 for around £250 so i big saving on the others, does anyone use this lens? Also has anyone compared it to any of the others?

Nick

Fourwings · #2 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 05:00 PM

In my opinion forget the 170 - 500, its focusing is slow and very noisey, plus the quality of the glass is not as good as the EX range lenses.

I own the 50 - 500 (Bigma) and would happily recommend it to anyone, it consistantly produces quality images, is well built, very fast focussing & quiet and handles very well.

However, a friend of mine has just invested in the 150 -500, this has the added advantage of Sigma's Optical stabilisation system (OS), it has the same focussing system as the Bigma so it is reasonably quiet although you can hear the stabiliser start up. The biggest single advantage to this lens is that you can get good results handheld, whereas the Bigma requires a tripod or monopod for about 90% of the time.

JB9302 · #3 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 06:38 PM

I was considering this lens and after a lot of research on net and forums steered away for reasons Fourwings states above .
The Sigma 100-300f4 gets good reviews , think you need to pay a bit more for good quality glass on longer focal lengths .
I had a Sigma 135-400mm but was unhappy with the pq at 400 , eventually saved a bought a s/h Sigma 300f2.8 + TC.

Geoff F · #4 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 08:51 PM

I have just purchased the 150-500 (see my post, a couple below this one). Since delivery it has rained almost every day, but at least we don't get snow here. Anyway, for the little that I have done with the lens so far in poor light:

OS is very good, even handheld with 1/125 at 500mm. Some reports mentioned poor focus when using AI Servo but I think it is about average. Possibly some, non wildlife users, don't realise that focusing with AI Servo on a fast moving target can take a second or two. Auto focus is perhaps a bit slow in poor light but probably not any worse than any other 'budget' larger lens. Manual focus is easy. Minimum aperture of 6.3 at 500mm is perhaps a bit on the high side for low light but I usually like to work with F8 or above so it doesn't worry me too much.

My few first attempts at flying birds look encouraging to me.

Tests on a non moving house about a mile away suggested that it is slightly sharper on a tripod at lower speeds but very little difference at 1/250 or above. Also, at similar focus lengths, it appears slightly sharper than my Canon 70-300.

Whatever you decide do look around for best prices, there are massive variations on all lenses at the moment. I paid £640 inc. delivery.

Not sure if I have any other unedited images left but if so I will post some.

These were taken with the 150-500 but have had a slight tweak of editing.

camo · #5 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 09:15 PM

Hi Nick

I have and use a 170-500 almost exclusively and have been pleased with my results. On the positive side it is extremly good value, very light for such a zoom and I can hand hold it down to very slow times (I posted on this site a hand held Siberian Chiff Chaff at 1/20). On the negative side the lens creeps when held down wards and I accept it is not the quietest. I suspect most owners have bought the 170 because of its price. The 50-500 whilst I haven't tried it I have held and it is far too heavy to use over a whole day, I also think it is unreasonable to expect so much range without a trade off (clearly the weight). The 150-500 is a recent introduction and is the natural successor to the 170 and from reviews Ihave read would have no hesitation in pointing you towards the 150.

Roy

Geoff F · #6 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 09:33 PM

OK Nick, I have managed to salvage a couple of unedited shots from the recycle box. They have been cropped and resized for internet use which will make them a little bit soft, otherwise they are straight from the camera using 'faithful' picture style (no enhancements)

Both are at handheld at 500mm and ISO 800. The flying Herring Gull was 1/1250 at F14 and the Black-backed Gull was 1/1600 at F10. But remember, these are first experiments before I really get to know the lens. The minimum focus distance is around 7 ft which makes it useful for that butterfly which lands just in front of you.

Also consider what Roy said about the weight. The 150-500 looks a sturdy bit of kit but I wouldn't want to run several miles across rough ground with it and my Canon 40D hanging around my neck!

NJP87 · #7 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 12:14 AM

Thanks for all the reply's, and thanks Geoff for the pics.

I'm going to go to jessops when i get a chance and have a play with the bigma and 150 and decide from there.

Nick

Tobermorey · #8 (**permalink**) 10-02-2009, 06:42 PM

I'm no expert by any means, but I'm very happy with my 50-500. I find it is possible to get acceptable shots handheld, even at 500. For an example here is a waxwing I saw recently.

Chukie · #9 (**permalink**) 16-02-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJP87

Hi all.

I need a longer lens and can't make my mind up which one to get.

The choices are the sigma 50-500mm, 150-500mm or the 170-500mm.

I can pick up the 170 for around £250 so i big saving on the others, does anyone use this lens? Also has anyone compared it to any of the others?

Nick

I am looking at the same lenes myself it's a toss up between the 150-500 or the Bigma there only seems to be about a £100 pounds difference between the two has anyone tried both lenes as it would be interesting for the results with the same member using both as then it's more of a fair review went out last week with a mate who lent me his canon 300 f2.8+2x tc so a bit spoiled but there is no way I can afford these

eeyore · #10 (**permalink**) 16-02-2009, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourwings

In my opinion forget the 170 - 500, its focusing is slow and very noisey, plus the quality of the glass is not as good as the EX range lenses.

I own the 50 - 500 (Bigma) and would happily recommend it to anyone, it consistantly produces quality images, is well built, very fast focussing & quiet and handles very well.

However, a friend of mine has just invested in the 150 -500, this has the added advantage of Sigma's Optical stabilisation system (OS), it has the same focussing system as the Bigma so it is reasonably quiet although you can hear the stabiliser start up. The biggest single advantage to this lens is that you can get good results handheld, whereas the Bigma requires a tripod or monopod for about 90% of the time.

i would agree that the 150 and bigma are better than the 170 - but i wouldnt forget the 170 if money is tight. i have used one for three years and find it pretty good - the focus is noisy definitely (which is why its AKA the coffee grinder) but it isnt particularly slow except in very low light. and the glass is a bit of a red herring, unless you are planning to useit on a full frame sensor, as the majority of the chromatic aberation occurs at the edge which a cropped sensor can't see anyway.