50-500mm V 170-500mm

bradnailer

SIGMA 50-500 mm f/4-6.3 EX APO DG Lens or a Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG
There's a €200 e-bay difference the 50-500 being the more expensive what do you guys "N" gals think

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?navigator=3

http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3276&navigator=3

Calina

Disclaimer: I'm biased.

the 50-500mm is an excellent lens for the money. The HSM is very quiet and very fast. I use mine frequently - say about 80% of the photographs I take are with the 50-500mm.

Mostly I use the range between 50 and 450 - it is not razor sharp at the top end.

The key differences between the two lenses - from what I can see - are the loss of the 50-170 range, no HSM and if I read the lens specs correctly, not suitable for a teleconverter. I never use a teleconverter on my lens anyway, so maybe that makes no difference to you.

bradnailer

Thanks for the reply, still in two minds I have a 70-300 that covers the lower end, I guess it's down to changing a lens on the go, Quality wise do you think they're the same ?

Fajitas!

Having used both, would say the 50-500 is miles better.

AnCatDubh

having used neither i would still say the 50-500 is miles better ! ;o)

My thinking is simply for the convenience/practicality of the range that you'll get out of it. You are quite correct - a lens change to get to the lower mm focal length may mean missing a shot, but then again it does depend on what you are going to be doing with it. How close/far/type of subject, etc..., I have a 70-300 sigma which i love to use but it's a damn nuisance if you want to move from shooting something at distance to a quick portrait type of shot of an individual or group.

good luck with whatever you choose. use the force luke - use the force!!!!

SOL

But you will have to lug about an extra half kilo, have you tried either of the lens? I cant say from first had experience, but I would say if I were trying to use a lens likethat at 50mm it would be somewhat arkward, if not for shake due to the absurd size then just cause if there was anybodyin the photo they'd get freaked by you pointing it at them...


Just my 2c

Fajitas!

I'd much rather the build quality of the 50-500. It's worth the extra half kilo.

The 170-500 feels like it'd snap at 500.

bradnailer

Thanks, might try them out at a camera store, see how they feel.

"Excuse me can I feel your lens":D

Calina

You will need a monopod either which way.

AnCatDubh

I came across this and they are discussing the same topic (imagine that!);

http://www.flickr.com/groups/photowalkthrough/discuss/72157602042500993/

Anyhow just thought it would be useful for people.

JMcL

AnCatDubh wrote:

having used neither i would still say the 50-500 is miles better ! ;o)

Well, generally speaking, the optical compromises necessary to make a 10x superzoom will be greater than those to make more modest (about 3x in the other case) zooms. The 50-500 does seem to be an exception though (I don't have, but would really like one!)

bradnailer

Just bought a 50-500, thanks for the help:D

Fajitas!

Well wear

georgey

The bigma is a great lens, you cant even compare contrast colour and sharpness with a Canon 70-300 IS the sigma wins hands down, for the money it is fantastic and with most of the up to date Canon cams raising ISO to achieve a high SS is no prob and does'nt cause too much noise
Philip (I had both and dumped the 70-300 sooooooo quick when I saw the bigma results)

bradnailer

@ georgey, high SS ?

georgey

Shutter speed=SS (typo fixed in last post should have read "does'nt cause too much noise")

Borderfox

Loved the 50-500, I got some great shots from it. Enjoy your new heavyweight toy.

bradnailer

Tension mounts, Arrived at DHL facility in East Midlands - UK
It's almost here:D

Borderfox

Just to let you know the zoom is so stiff when you get it first, it loosens out though the more you use it.

bradnailer

We missed the delivery today by about ten min's, It's coming again tomorrow.
Thanks for the tip on the zoom