Sigma 170-500mm or 150-500mm

crazywolf · #1 (**permalink**) 25-04-2010, 10:16 PM

Hi, first timer on the forums. i'm sure this is old ground but i'm trying to sort out buying a lens for my 400d. ideally i'd like to by the bigma but they seem rarer than dragons teeth and get pretty expensive on well known auction sites! the 150-500 and 170-500 are more within my budget, second hand of course (around the £400 mark, would go to £600 for bigma), and i was wondering if they are worth it or if i should just grit my teeth and really save for the bigma, though i am meant to be going to Skye, weather gods permitting, in early june and i'd ideally have a decent ranged lens by then. any advice would be hugely appreciated. also tempted to get a TC, i know i'd lose autofocus but does the extra range compensate.

many thanks

Sam

big bill · #2 (**permalink**) 26-04-2010, 08:30 AM

Hello Sam I have the same camera set up as you and use the Sigma 170-500mm lens and have had no problems with it here are some images taken with it

I always shoot in Raw and convert afterwards and use AF and a setting of f8 set on normally iso 100 depending on light levels and keep just short of the 500mm zoom .
I also got my lens from the auction site on the net and have been using it now for about 2 years with no problems ,best of luck.

Also welcome to the Wab site nice to have you on board enjoy

crazywolf · #3 (**permalink**) 26-04-2010, 09:03 AM

I've been looking on the WAb site for a while being a bit of a closet wildlife spotter, cant tell my mates at my RL team they'd just laugh, its a great site. thanks for the feedback Bill. if i get any good snaps on Skye, Uist and Rum i'll post them on here. the photos youve posted are great really sharp. Fingers crossed.....

Sam

crazywolf · #4 (**permalink**) 26-04-2010, 09:36 AM

PS anybody tried to use the 170-500 with a teleconverter? would love to see some pics if you have.

Cheers

Sam

glsammy · #5 (**permalink**) 26-04-2010, 12:17 PM

The biggest advantage the Bigma has over the 170-500 is the USM.It focuses much faster and quieter.
The 150-500 being more up to date, also with image stabilisation is a good alternative.
They now do a Bigma with image stabilisation but I've read one review which didn't rate it very highly, he only rated it as about 1 stop advantage, well below what Sigma says it should do.
As for using a TC with a 170-500, I doubt you'd be happy with the results. Even on a Bigma it's not very successful.

Gaza · #6 (**permalink**) 26-04-2010, 07:10 PM

Hi Crazywolf

I have not used the 170 - 500. But I do use the 150 - 500mm OS
I have read numerous threads on the good and more often, the bad points about this lens.
I can only say from my own findings, that it is never going to compete with a big prime lens, but value for money. It's a great lens.

Re using it with a teleconverter.
It depends on the quality of photo you want. With a teleconverter, the image quality does drop. But with practice, you can get some reasonable photo's

The auto focus will not function, but the optical stabiliser will.

Below are some examples, using the 150 - 500 OS + 1.4 teleconverter.
Not the best of quality, but good enough for a recording of a sighting

These were all hand held.

Geoff F · #7 (**permalink**) 26-04-2010, 08:08 PM

The 150-500 is a relatively new lens and there were some production quality problems with a few of the first batches produced.

So if you are buying secondhand; be careful.

Quality has improved on the later lenses and it can produce good results, subject to the limitations already mentioned.

glsammy · #8 (**permalink**) 26-04-2010, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaza

Re using it with a teleconverter.
It depends on the quality of photo you want. With a teleconverter, the image quality does drop. But with practice, you can get some reasonable photo's

The auto focus will not function, but the optical stabiliser will.

Below are some examples, using the 150 - 500 OS + 1.4 teleconverter.
Not the best of quality, but good enough for a recording of a sighting

These were all hand held.

I think your being a bit too modest, I'd be pleased with these whatever lens I'd used.

crazywolf · #9 (**permalink**) 27-04-2010, 08:47 AM

Thanks everyone for your feedback and photos. it would seem that if i'm going second hand the 170-500 is the safer option, is that correct? More than likely going to be buying second hand due to be being skint!

Thanks again.

ps the shots using the teleconverter look pretty good to my untrained eye.

Sam

big bill · #10 (**permalink**) 27-04-2010, 11:43 AM

Hello Sam,I have had no problems with my 170-500mm lens as long as your careful and happy you should have no problems.
I always use mine on a tripod or monopod as after a while it does become heavy and using one or the other ensures shake free shots ,best of luck with your purchase,I paid about £ 300.00 2years ago for mine so you should be quite lucky now that there are newer model;s out