Sigma 170-500mm

[vince-p]

<p>I have found much commentary and extensive reviews on the Sigma 50-500mm and the two version of the 150-500mm but regarding the earlier 170-500mm there is scant information. Because it is the only lens in this class that, at current used prices, I can afford, I'm very interested to know how good/bad people think it is. I'd really appreciate any informed opinions of this lens. I guess the next closest lens in used prices that I could go for would be the Nikon 80-400mm so that would be the most viable comparison lens.</p>

[todd_angood]

<p>Hi Vince, I purchased the Sigma 170-500 new a few years back and I'm very happy with it. Photography is purely a hobby for me and as such, I don't have the crucial eye for weaknesses in photos that others on this forum have. for my needs, I use it for photographing wildlife and birds in my back yard, I suits my needs just fine. By the way, I use it on a D300.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>What body will you be using the lens on? What size prints will you be making?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I know nothing about this particular lens, but do own the 150-500 OS. I'm one of those not happy with the long end performance, which effectively means this lens is a 150-400 for me. (Well, actually I shoot at 500mm and complain about it, but...) Unless the 170-500 is unexpectedly better at the long end, perhaps the compromise is the 120-400 Sigma? It's cheaper than its big brother. The 80-400 is possibly better, but slow to focus and priced like a Nikkor...<br />

<br />

Just a thought. Good luck.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>Yes, I meant to inquire also about the 120-400 Sigma. So I'll look into that.</p>

<p>Elliot, I'm using the D700. Plus film: AF body is the F100. One day I will upgrade to the 36mp-you-know-what, and certain lenses will show their weaknesses, presumably, but come that day I WILL BE RICH and so won't care a whit. I rarely print, when I do, at home, I can only go to 8 x 10. Some day I'd like to take an exceptional image and go and have a nice print made of it. I'm looking for an autofocus lens to take birds with. (I also have an old D70 I could use for the birds; I know that many bird shooters prefer the 1.5 crop). I have a manual focus 180/2.8 ED that is beautiful and a 300/4.5 Ed that is very good but no AF.... </p>

<p>The only Sigma I've owned is the 14mm f/2.8 which I did not like. The images lacked a certain pop or brilliance. Could have been the used model I was using, you never know. </p>

<p>Actually what I want is the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II and the AF-S 300mm f/4 and the 500mm f/4. Only like ten grand worth of glass. </p>

<p>But I have heard/read very good things about the 50-500 Sigma in particular, and general positive reviews of the 150-500 recent edition as well. </p>

 

[elliot1]

<p>I owned the 50-500mm briefly and found its image quality unacceptable on the long end. I was not happy with the color, contrast or sharpness. IQ from my 70-300mm VR at 300mm and then cropped and upsized to 500mm equivalent was better than that from the Sigma at 500mm You may have seen this lens referred to as 'Bigma'. It is a large, heavy lens. And it did not have VR. It definitely has earned and deserves that title! I have no experience with the 150-500mm and really know nothing about it. But, you may find it OK since you are not making prints.</p>

<p>In any case, Nikon's 80-400mm will pair up very well with your D700 (I use mine on a D3). It will focus reasonably fast, very accurately and gives very good IQ even at 400mm. And it will not have any compatibility issues (my Bigma worked fine as did 2 other Sigma lenses I owned but there are sometimes reports of issues with some Sigma lenses).</p>

<p>Should you buy the Sigma, make sure you get is from a store that accepts returns just in case. FWIW, there is very, very little difference in FOV between 400mm and 500mm so you won' loose much if you choose to go with a 400mm lens.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Elliot - you say the 80-400 "will focus reasonably fast"; I've never used one, but I've often heard it said that the focus speed is a weakness of this lens. How fast do you find it? I'm sure the 70-200 is faster, and my 200 f/2 is certainly lightning quick; my original one-ring 80-200 f/2.8 and 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 are <i>not</i> fast. I'm never sure what the expectations are of those reviewing these lenses might be. It depends what you're shooting, though - relatively static wildlife is not the same as formula 1...</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Andrew, most of the people that complain about slow AF are not using it on a pro body. On D3/D700 bodies (I have the D3), it focuses reasonably fast. As fast as an AF-S lens? No, of course not. But fast enough for sports (I have shot surfing, football and indoor hockey with it, as well as wildlife). If you need 400mm at a reasonable price, this option gives the most IQ for the least cost.</p>

<p>Try before you buy or purchase from a seller that accepts returns (no matter what you decide on) to be sure. </p>

[warren_wilson]

<p>Well, as to the 80-400, it DOES use the older technology of the spinning screwdriver. Mind you, it is a fine compromise for weight and has fine IQ on my D300. But even with a "pro" body I don't see how the focus speed can compare with, say, the 70-200, which really snaps into focus.</p>

<p>I tend to agree with Elliot -- though I cam currently experimenting with the TC 20E III coupled to my 70-200 as a replacement for my 80-400. What I've found interesting so far is that the snappy focus seems undiminished by the TC.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Elliot - thank you, consider me educated. I possibly should have bought one in place of my 150-500! 20:20 hindsight...</p>

[edwardchen]

<p>Typical lens like this range and similar price tag: expect poor performance at the widest end and the longest end. Need to stop down a bit to improve performance. But then it becomes slow.<br>

<br />I had old sigma 50-500 non OS. I found it poor performance at widest and longest end. <br>

<br />I don't know about sigma 170-500, but it would not surprise me if it has the same typical characteristic with the one I once had.</p>

[john_strong2]

<p>I owned the Sigma 170-500 for a year or so. On my Nikon D80 it was marginally acceptable, but on my D7000 on a shoot where I took 300 or so shots, none of them were even close to being something I'd keep. I think I'd pass...</p>