sigma 50-500 or 170-500

dbaker1221 · December 10, 2006

please feel free to chime in here. i've heard good things on the 50-500 but the 170-500 is a bit cheaper. is it as good?

GREAPER · December 10, 2006

I dont have any experience with the bigma, but I do have the 170-500. I have used it for several years, and if it is all your budget will allow, it is a workable lens, but I feel you need to have a lot of light to get good results from it.

I took these images with it...

If your budget will allow it I think in the long run you will wish for something sharper, and faster.

Tee Why · December 10, 2006

From what I've read, the 50-500 may have better optics.
If you can afford it, I'd recommend the 50-500.

dbaker1221 · December 10, 2006

thanks

BigAl · December 12, 2006

Check out the "which lens for wildlife" sticky in Dgrin's Nature forum.

lifesdisciple · December 12, 2006

I never used the 170-500 but just picked up the Bigma about 2 weeks ago. I needed more distance for wildlife but couldn't afford any of the L lenses. So I went with this one after serious review and asking a bunch of questions like yourself. If you can scrounge up the cash for it, IMO it is very much worth the money. A bit heavy but solid, very very quiet and the pictures are crisp. I am very happy with my Bigma and wouldn't trade it for the world. Okay mabye for a Canon 1ds Mark II but who is stupid enough to do that.:D In all, it was totally worth my money and I would buy it again in a heart beat.

pathfinder · December 12, 2006

Just to rattle your cage - The Tamron SP200-500 Di seems to be a workable optic in this price range also... I know that there have been complaints about CA with this lens, just not with the one I own I guess.

I shot this at f6.3 1/1000th handheld last week in Florida. Like most of these budget zoom lenses, it does better in bright light.

There are several more shots with it here - check the exif as I used several differerent lenses while in FL.

dbaker1221 · December 12, 2006

BigAl wrote:

Check out the "which lens for wildlife" sticky in Dgrin's Nature forum.

thanks ......I'll do that

dbaker1221 · December 12, 2006

lifesdisciple wrote:

I never used the 170-500 but just picked up the Bigma about 2 weeks ago. I needed more distance for wildlife but couldn't afford any of the L lenses. So I went with this one after serious review and asking a bunch of questions like yourself. If you can scrounge up the cash for it, IMO it is very much worth the money. A bit heavy but solid, very very quiet and the pictures are crisp. I am very happy with my Bigma and wouldn't trade it for the world. Okay mabye for a Canon 1ds Mark II but who is stupid enough to do that.:D In all, it was totally worth my money and I would buy it again in a heart beat.

Yeah, I knew you just got one..Thanks for the info

dbaker1221 · December 12, 2006

pathfinder wrote:

Just to rattle your cage - The Tamron SP200-500 Di seems to be a workable optic in this price range also... I know that there have been complaints about CA with this lens, just not with the one I own I guess.

I shot this at f6.3 1/1000th handheld last week in Florida. Like most of these budget zoom lenses, it does better in bright light.

There are several more shots with it here - check the exif as I used several differerent lenses while in FL.

Thanks..I do recall hearing something about that lens ,but mostly you hear about sigma..thank you for the info

sigma 50-500 or 170-500

Comments