Sigma 170 - 500 f/5.6 - 6.3

I'm looking at buying this lens. I know that at f/6.3 its a "slower" lens and is more suited for daytime use. Even though it comes in a Canon EF mount I'm still not sure how well it will perform on a Canon after already seeing an EF mount Sigma 70-300 give a dreaded ERR 99 and refuse to focus on a MarkII and a 20D.

If anyone who has or has had this lens could give any thoughts or opinions I'd really appreciate it before I shell out the cash for it.

Thanks.

I could be very wrong, as I've not used it, but from recollection from earlier reports, it's no better than the Bigma (50-500), so you might as well get the extra range. I'm sure someone with hands on experience will be along shortly to correct me.

in fact is far worse. iq, slow AF, and older versions often need to be rechipped (ones in the white/gold boxes, not the black and red ones).

I've only heard bad things about this lens: soft, slow AF, slow aperture, etc. Why not go for the tamron 200-500. Its gotten great reviews and (I can't remember which mag I saw it in) there's an article with a pro who uses it for wildlife and landscapes. I looked at it and the sigma 50-500, before deciding to save up alot more pennies and get the 100-400L. Still saving

I used to have this lens, and couldnt get rid of it qquick enough !. It really isnt that good at all. Slow AF, soft and not good unless youve got a lot of light

One to avoid IMO

jbrown1 wrote in post #2100305
I used to have this lens, and couldnt get rid of it qquick enough !. It really isnt that good at all. Slow AF, soft and not good unless youve got a lot of light

One to avoid IMO

i agree i kept mine about 3 days then sent it back to the shop even stoped down its lousy.
Rob.

I have read good reviews of the Tamron 200-500mm and am looking at this lens myself as the Bigma is a little weighty to be carrying around. I have heard nothing good about the 170-500, its a budget lens.

dave 13,

What is your budget? Either the Bigma or the 100-300 f4 witha 1.4 TC might suit.

The Bigma is far more popular than the Tamron 200-500. That should tell you something.

I have this lens...and I actualy like it...the thing I dont like is the fact that you CAN NOT add a 1.4x or a 2x TC...

As far as IQ and AF speed I have nothing to compare it to. If it is indeed slower and has a lower IQ then I would ABSOLUTeLY LOVE THE 50-500 version especially if I could add a TC.

If you want I would be happy to make you a good deal on my 170-500 and then I would upgrade to a 50-500....

EOSAddict wrote in post #2100825
dave 13,

What is your budget? Either the Bigma or the 100-300 f4 witha 1.4 TC might suit.

Since I am saving and won't actually be buying one until the spring, my budget hasn't been set yet. I saw this particular lens and liked the range, did a little research on it and before I set my sights on it thought I'd ask this community their thoughts and opinions.

I don't want to go super cheap, but I don't want to spend a small fortune at this point yet either. We have a Canon 100-400L at the studio and it is one of my favorite lenses to shoot daytime sports with. I'm just not so sure I can convince to let me part with that much just yet.

Thanks for all the input.