Sigma 50-500 vs. 170-500 - looking for opinions!

[merlyn9]

:D
After reading all your 50-500 posts during Xmas break (and salivating!)
I had to drive back out to Sacramento from Chicago... thinking!
Then it happened! at 80+ MPH through the morning Wyoming wonders, I thought I spotted something too big to be a hawk out of the corner of my eye
Breaking quietly (Easy to do at 8am out there... I backed up to the post,

There to my disbelief was this wonderful looking bald eagle...
Quickly I grabed my 10d which already had my 28-300 on it!
before he took off I snapped a few... freehanded! (damn)

to make a long story short... despite the <200foot distance, he was further away in the viewfinder than I really would have liked. :(

So, off to see some guys in Calf. at a local great camera store I'm getting to trust alot! I actually held & had put on my 10d the 50-500... (They are all out of oxen!) But, he also suggested & more highly the 170-500...
although he only had it in the n**** mount (damn, almost said the N word!) He did put it an one of 'those' camera's for me to see....

My imediate observations:

--the 50-500 is more estetically pleasing to look at (I really like the newer finish, I know - nothing to buy a lenses over!)

--the 170-500 is lighter, and has a smaller lens mount bracket

--no noticable lens slip (when angled up) on 170-500 vs slipage with the 50-500

-- cost is near $200 different (I'm poor, have 2 teenager & a wife who won't devorse me over camera gear... but won't give me my $$$ for it either!)

While I could NOT take images with the 170-500, I did fire off a few test shots with the 50-500 in my camera... I liked what I saw in the LCD (not uploaded yet) They will have the other in a few weeks & he told me to come buy & try that on my camera...

So here is my question : What has been your experiences with the 170-500? and which would you recommend?

thanks;

---michael

[CyberDyneSystems]

I looked at both closely,. and I bought the 50-500mm

The 50-500 is a newer design,. It is one of Sigma's EX series which is part of Sigma's attempt to re-invent themselves with higher quality lenses.

The 50-500mm has an HSM focus motor which is MUCH faster at AF than the Sigma's standard foucs motor and it is more accurate (less hunting) too.

For the HSM motor alone I would pay the extra $$$

My test shots showed the 170-500mm had more CA problems and was just not as sharp and detailed as the 50-500mm I ended up buying. (but there are good and bad copies of both lenses so it could just be how the luck went)

Like you I read a lot on the net before buying,. and I found dozens of positve reviews of the 50-500mm and very few of the 170-500mm.

Lastly,. although the range from 50-170 was hardly ever used,.. and it is probably the worst and heaviest 50mm lens on the planet! :) You can not argue with the flexibility it offers!

[timmyquest]

The more i look into it the 50-500mm just seems right to me....

[Giant]

I am going to buy the 170-500 simply because its cheap. I have a very small budget and when I take some shots, I will post them up here. I get it in about one week or so. :)

[Roy NN7DX]

Had a 50-500EX but I changed to a 100-400L/IS for the image stability feature... Just looking over my 50-500 shots from last year and they are great... It's a mighty impressive lens...
The real question of quality... Would I buy another one? Yes! There was one listed earlier in the FM B and S Forum for $700... It was actually hard to keep from buying it...

[Giant]

When I have some money again I will get a better lens, but for now the 170-500 will have to do.

[OviV]

I have a 170-500. It is slow and heavy (not as heavy as 50-500 but heavy). It is not bad at all if you do the things that you should be doing anyways; use a tripod and get good shutter speeds. Here is a shot that was taken handheld using my car for support:

http://www.shareapicture.com/vsalbum/getpic.aspx?fld=/OviV/Photography/Nature/Birds&pic=_MG_6100.jpg&OV=0

[Giant]

Wow nice shot!!

[Rob Beltman]

First of all; any which one you choose, you'll make the right choice! There is no wrong choice here...one will leave you with a heavier wallet, the other with a heavier camera bag!

I tested both. The 50-500 went with me on a trip to Cuba. Heavy thing to be carrying around when the sun is high in the sky and temperatures average 32 degrees celsius. I did however get good shots with fast autofocus (though noisy) and good depth of field, mostly using the available trees and rocks as my main support.

Now as soon as I came back I shot both Masters of Formula 3 at Zandvoort and the Formula 1 Grand Prix of Belgium with the 170-500. Being a bit lighter, it enabled me to carry my tripod and still not add weight to the total package. It's autofocus is not HSM, but it gave me no trouble photographing the Formula 3 at 220 km/h or Formula 1 at some 300 km/h. Since I'm on holiday now, I don't have the pics, but I'll upload some as soon as I can. Only feature I missed is the range lock that the 50-500 has, that also makes sure it doesn't slide out when pointed downward.

My argument is; the 170-500 is nothing to be ashamed of if the budget is a problem. You will see comparable performance in terms of image quality in 95 percent of the shots you'll take. If the remaining 5 percent is worth the bucks; go for it! You won't be disappointed!

[timmyquest]

This is an old thread

[Rob Beltman]

I don't understand the value of your remark about this thread being old.

Is that a serious problem? I mean...quite some people seem to hesitate between these lenses and the thread has obviously been brought back to life...

If it's a forum administration problem; It seems better to keep postings grouped than opening a new topic about the same thing, right? Or am I missing something here?

[merrrrjig]

what does &amp mean? Its realy confusing me, And what other lenses do you have?

[timmyquest]

I don't understand the value of your remark about this thread being old.

Is that a serious problem? I mean...quite some people seem to hesitate between these lenses and the thread has obviously been brought back to life...

If it's a forum administration problem; It seems better to keep postings grouped than opening a new topic about the same thing, right? Or am I missing something here?


:confused: A little touchy today are we?

It was just an observation :lol:

[Jon]

what does &amp mean? Its realy confusing me, And what other lenses do you have? The thread was posted on the old board; &amp; would be an ampersand (&); &lt; would be the "less than" symbol (<).