Sigma 170-500 ???

I am thinking about getting the Sigma 170-500 for birds (big back yard) and
nature photos. Not thinking about going pro or paying pro money (kid on the
way soon). Does anyone have experience with this lens or comparable products
within the $400-600 range?


--
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the
intended recipient, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please delete all copies of the message and the attachment(s), if
any.

Morris wrote:
I am thinking about getting the Sigma 170-500 for birds (big back yard) and
nature photos. Not thinking about going pro or paying pro money (kid on the
way soon). Does anyone have experience with this lens or comparable products
within the $400-600 range?

I have one. At 3 weeks it quit AF, so it took a trip to the Sigma repair shop.
Then at 10 months, it quit AF again, so it took another trip. Other than that,
it is fine. Just make sure that you purchase it with the optional lens trailer,
because it is a pig to haul around. Good for shooting hawks and bobcats.

---Bob Gross---

On 5/1/04 7:07 pm, "Morris Coleman" wrote:

I am thinking about getting the Sigma 170-500 for birds (big back yard) and
nature photos.

I have been looking into cheap long tele lenses, and this one seems to have
better reviews than the older 500mm f7.2/f8 primes from Sigma and other
manufacturers. This page shows it's resolution is good at 300mm:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/lenstest1.html

But the best recommendation I can give of this lens is that two images from
the 2003 BBC Wildlife photographer of the year winners were taken with this
lens.

I have never even handled the lens myself.

Ben

I have the Sigma 50-500 and am very happy with it, but know a few people who
have the 170-500. They are happy with their lenses for the most part. If
you don't mind spending the extra money, go for the 50-500. I feel the
optics are a little better and the HSM motor with full time manual focus
override in Canon and Nikon mounts is great.

Remember, this is a 500 mm lens. It is heavy, but not for a 500 mm
non-mirror type lens.

Scott Elliot
http://www3.telus.net/selliot/

"Angry Angel" wrote in message
...
On 5/1/04 7:07 pm, "Morris Coleman" wrote:

I am thinking about getting the Sigma 170-500 for birds (big back yard)
and
nature photos.

I have been looking into cheap long tele lenses, and this one seems to
have
better reviews than the older 500mm f7.2/f8 primes from Sigma and other
manufacturers. This page shows it's resolution is good at 300mm:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/lenstest1.html

But the best recommendation I can give of this lens is that two images
from
the 2003 BBC Wildlife photographer of the year winners were taken with
this
lens.

I have never even handled the lens myself.

Ben

I am thinking about getting the Sigma 170-500 for birds (big back yard) and
nature photos.


I've had the lens for a couple years now, love it!
I do a lot of shooting at zoos in my travels so it's been in the suitcase
between shirts and so on on a lot of flights with no problems. When zoomed
out it is very long and tippy, make sure you have a solid tripod and some
support for the end of the lens would be nice. It really doesn't take much
vibration to blur the shot. Auto focus works very well but often I use
manual because most of the time I'm shooting through mesh and the auto focus
can get confused. One down side is it extends out by itself if walking with
the lens facing down. I've used it on a Nikon F100, N80 and now a D100 and
it works fine with all. You can see a few recent shots here.

http://www.imagesbyglb.com/nu_lpz-12-28.html

These were all taken with the D100 between 400 and 800 iso. The Cougar and
Tiger were totally in the shade and all the cats were shot through various
fencing mesh (I hate that stuff!!) ;-)
Hard to tell the sharpness from those but it is sharp. I don't think you'll
be disappointed.

Good Luck

GLB

Hi Morris,

A few years ago I was in the same position as you and ordered a Sigma
170-500 mm zoom. When it arrived, I thought it was a piece of junk (for
example when pointing the lens down it would extend to its full length,
neither the focus nor the zoom was smooth, I never felt I was looking
through a clean lens, and last but not least it was gray market)! I wasn't
happy about paying the restocking fee, but was thankful to be able to return
it.

After considerable thought, and for three times the cost I purchased a
Nikkor 80-400 VR zoom which is my favorite lens. IMHO you pretty much get
what you pay for, and there are few if any bargains. What I did learn is
that I'm willing to pay the cost of "feeling, operating and touching" at a
real camera store. Good luck,

Bob

I have this lens and it works well. It is a little on the slow side so
you have to use higher speed film but other than that it works great.
If you visit my web site, the majority of my shots of the Alaskan Brown
Bear were taken with this lense.

Morris Coleman wrote:
I am thinking about getting the Sigma 170-500 for birds (big back yard) and
nature photos. Not thinking about going pro or paying pro money (kid on the
way soon). Does anyone have experience with this lens or comparable products
within the $400-600 range?




--
Diane

Wildlife Photos and Travelogues
http://dcrimages.com/travel

Wildlife Posters, Calendars, T-Shirts, Etc.
http://cafepress.com/dcrimages

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
For thou art crunchy and good with ketchup.

"Jim Davis" wrote in message
. ne.jp...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:07:51 -0500, "Morris Coleman"
wrote/replied to:

I am thinking about getting the Sigma 170-500 for birds (big back yard)
and
nature photos. Not thinking about going pro or paying pro money (kid on
the
way soon). Does anyone have experience with this lens or comparable
products
within the $400-600 range?

I advise you to stay away from 3rd party lens makers. Get a good used
maker brand lens. As you can see from the other replies here, some
lenses have more than a few problems. There's no savings if it's
always breaking and when you try and sell it, it's practically
worthless.

Sigma IS a camera maker...
The 170-500 is excellent value for money. I've had one for about a year now
(was delivered feb 2003) and shot about 2500 frames with it.
It's light, bit of falloff when shot at under 200mm wide open with the hood
on (guess the hood should have been a mm or so shorter).
Zoom sometimes creeps a tiny bit, but not a lot and only when pointing
straight down (something you're not bloody likely to do when using it).

All in all I can recommend it.
I considered getting the 50-500 at the time and right now would get it if I
didn't have the 170-500 but for me it's not worth upgrading (had I had a
slower AF motor I would upgrade as the 50-500 has faster AF due to the HSM
motor).

Sigma has excellent aftersales service. Had those people with problems just
contacted Sigma or their dealer they'd most likely have gotten a replacement
lens shipped at no charge. All brands have bad items once in a while, which
is what warranty is for.
I know people who returned Nikon and Canon items for replacement, according
to your logic that would mean that Nikon and Canon are also bad overall?

I own (currently, 2 others were stolen years ago) 3 Sigma lenses and 2
Tokinas (together with some Nikkors and Minoltas). They're the best lenses I
have, never a problem with them.
In fact, I'm considering getting rid of my last Nikkor to get me another
Sigma as I hardly ever use it (would really like another Nikkor for it but
that one costs too much for me to contemplate it).

--
Jeroen Wenting
jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl

In message
"Jeroen Wenting" wrote:


Sigma has excellent aftersales service. Had those people with problems just
contacted Sigma or their dealer they'd most likely have gotten a replacement
lens shipped at no charge. All brands have bad items once in a while, which
is what warranty is for.
Most of my lenses are Sigma. I've had two problems, both replaced free under
warranty.
My lenses travel everywhere with me, and are not treated well.
Last summer, I dropped one onto a tile floor. The filter was shattered, but
the lens was undamaged. :-)
Quality seems to be fine for most purposes.
I've had photos in international salons, one is represting Scotland in some
inter-coutry comps as we write. I say this not to boast about my images, but
just to show that those who claim the lenses aren't optically good don't
always know what they're talking about.
When my images don't make the grade, I know it's *my* fault.

I know people who returned Nikon and Canon items for replacement, according
to your logic that would mean that Nikon and Canon are also bad overall?
Don't you think if you'd paid big bucks for Nikon or Canon glass, you'd hate
to admit that cheaper lenses were as good?

Indisputably, though, the Sigma lenses I have are slow: that much is
apparent in their description, so no complaints. Doubt if I'd be capable of
carrying the fast teles over distances, anyway. Certainly couldn't get them
into hand baggage for UK-starting flights.

Liz

--
Virtual Liz at http://www.v-liz.co.uk
Kenya; Tanzania; India; Seychelles; Namibia
"I speak of Africa and golden joys"

Liz wrote:

I know people who returned Nikon and Canon items for replacement, according
to your logic that would mean that Nikon and Canon are also bad overall?
Don't you think if you'd paid big bucks for Nikon or Canon glass, you'd hate
to admit that cheaper lenses were as good?

I don't think this is problem. Ok it is for smaller percentage of people
but majority never had even chance to see Canon L lenses, nor Sigma EX
serie in real life, but they are still complaining how bad Sigma lenses
are. Compatibility problem with Sigma EX line is pretty much non
existant
but people are still bithcing about it. I said pretty much, since there
still are problems sometimes with some lenses. Yeah someone's friend's
wife
had cooworkers who's brother's friend had problems. And this is suppose
to be reliable information? Fine if you want to believe it sure go buy
Canon. If you don't then consider someone elses opinion too. I was
buying some lenses myself too and for 70-200/2.8 I went with Sigma. I
had chance to test both Sigma and Canon and I couldn't see difference.
Except Canon was white. IS version of Canon is another story, but it's
another story in money too. So I went with Sigma, and I'm still happy
I did. If someone wants to pay 3 times more to get white color then
it's fine with me. And if Sigma lenses lose all re-sale value then I
would appreciate any tip where to get used Sigma 120-300/2.8 for 1/10 of
it's original price. Because sometimes it would still be nice to have
something bigger then 70-200 and smaller then 400.
But I'm not saying all Sigma lenses are great. They are not. Some
of them are crap and some of them (particulary 70-200/2.8 and
120-300/2.8) are same level as Canon L. But on other side Canon
has some crapy lenses too. So it all depends on that particular
lens someone is looking for, and for purpose he or she will be using
that lens. But doesn't this go with every single thing on this world?
After all Mercedes is crapy car to drive in middle of city too

--
Primoz