Sigma 170-500mm for my D70

[scott_rushing]

Hey folks,

 

I've been researching lenses for awhile now, looking to upgrade my 70-300G

Nikon lens and I'm leaning towards the Sigma 170-500mm lens after looking at

some Tokina, Tamron and Sigma offerings. I can't afford a nikon of that range

yet and I while this is not the best I could buy (if money was no object) I'm

trying to balance functionality for me and cost since I can't afford to invest

$1400+ in one lens. I'm really looking for somethings <$700 with similar

range. I'm just a budding amateur so I'm trying to take steps and go from

there.

 

My question though is that at Sigma4Less.com, I've found 2 different models

listed for this lens I've found it listed as a model #734306 and a #733306.

Does anyone know the difference between these 2 lenses? Below are the caption

headings for each:

 

733306: Sigma Zoom Telephoto 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO Aspherical Autofocus Lens

for Nikon AF-D

 

734306: Sigma Zoom Telephoto 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO DG Autofocus Lens for Nikon

AF-D

 

Any ideas?

[greg s]

My guess is that the DG is the newer version, and they tweaked the glass coating a bit for quality. But I doubt there is that much difference between the two. The 170-500mm was my first long lens and I liked it. Stayed with it til I bought a Nikon tele prime. I've always considered the 170-500 to be one of the best choices for a budget telephoto. Chers, -Greg-

[mark_chappell]

Greg's results show that he knows what he's talking about. You might also consider the

Sigma

50-500, which has a quite good reputation. It's a bit more expensive but much more solidly

built -- at least that's my impression -- and has an HSM focus system that is much quicker

and quieter than that of the 170-500.

 

In either case you'll need a solid tripod and good technique to get the most out of a 500 mm

lens.

[hayward]

Through a quirk of fate, I have both the 170-500mm and the 50-500mm from Sigma. The 50-500mm has the better build, better optics, and faster focus. The 170-500mm has the lower price. Both are good for what they are: (relatively) budget ways to reach 500mm. I haven't compared the two directly, but offhand, I'd say the optics on the 170-500mm are probably a bit better than the 70-300mm G (I've owned that, too.) As stated earlier, you'll want to use a monopod or tripod to get good results. I fought that for about a year and can tell you that it is true.

 

Click on my name to view my portfolio for some examples with the Sigma 50-500mm.

[vincenzo_maielli]

Hi, dear friend. The second it's better for digital photography (DG series are a better and improved MC system). The Sigma 170-500 became a powerful 225-750 on Nikon D70.

Ciao

 

Vincenzo Maielli Italy

[scott_rushing]

Thanks for all the insight. Yeah, I'm going to get a monopond. I have a tripod already but its a bit bulkier and heavier than I want to walk around with. I like the weight of the 70-300G but I know that the 17-500 (and even the Tokina 80-400 or the Tamron 200-400) are all much heavier than the 70-300G. So that will be something to get used too.

[ShunCheung]

Scott, a good tripod is pretty much required for a 500mm lens, especially a slow one at f6.3 max. Unless you have very low quality requirements for your images, you will not get away with using a monopod at 500mm; I learned that the hard way.

 

Again, see this related thread from a month ago:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Gdym

[scott_rushing]

Shun,

thanks for that note. Well, shoot...so one of the things I want the lens for is moon shots, which I'd do on the tripod. But I also like to use a long zoom on vacation when we're boating along to coast or tkaing tours, etc. like last month, we did the safari tours at Animal Kingdom and it was nice to have the 70-300G but I noticed many of my shots were not as sharp as I'd hoped they'd be but I was hand holding. While I wouldn't expect to handhold the Sigma, I was hoping I might get away with a small monopod in those situations. Hmmm...maybe I should reconsider a lighter not quite as long zoom like the Tokina. Or just keep my 70-300G for now...

[ShunCheung]

With the risk of offending some people, I would say the only type of photographers who shoots super-teles on monopods are the sports photographers on the sidelines. In such cases tripods are not even allowed because of space and safely issues (e.g. American football players crashing onto reports/photographers on the sidelines). They tend to use 400mm/f2.8 type big lenses and frequently need a fast shutter speed to freeze action, anyway.

 

When you start from 500mm/f6.3, you give away 2 to 3 stops to begin with. And if you can only use 1/500 sec or faster to prevent any camera shake, you can work out the kind of ISO and sunlight that are required. It might work in full sunlight. You'll find it restrictive in an overcast day or you have to go to ISO 800 or 1600. Or you'll simply have to accept a lot of slightly unsharp images.

[mark_chappell]

<I> like last month, we did the safari tours at Animal Kingdom and it was nice to have the

70-300G but I noticed many of my shots were not as sharp as I'd hoped they'd be but I

was hand holding. While I wouldn't expect to handhold the Sigma, I was hoping I might get

away with a small monopod in those situations.</i><P>

 

In some of these situations (shooting from inside a vehicle or the like), a beanbag will do

an excellent job of support -- better than a tripod in a very confined space. But with a

non-VR 500 mm lens, a monopod isn't going to be sufficient unless (a) you are a

superman in terms of steadyness or (b) you can always shoot at 1/1000 or faster. You

won't be able to get all that the lens can provide unless it has solid support -- and that

usually means a <B>good</b> tripod.

[mark_chappell]

Scott: another very tangible advantage of a tripod is that after walking around with a heavy

lens for a while, the tripod lets you put it down safely while you rest. Clearly, that's not an

option with a monopod.