Opinions on Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3?

Hi!

Just thinking about adding a telephoto zoom to my arsenal. Just stumbled
over the Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO Aspherical (around 500$) which sounds
like a nice deal. Does anyone have some experience with this lens? Pros and
cons welcome. Using the Sigma EX 17-35/2.8-4.0 already and I'm quite ok with
it (a bit soft for my taste, well anyway).

I'll use it with my Canon 10D and 33 (Elan 7).

Any advice it very much appreciated... Thanks for your help

Bernd

Hi Bernd,

I use extensively the Sigma 50-500/4-6.3 lens. Bang for buck I'm pretty
happy with it. Here's some examples of what she'll do:

http://www.surfworx.com.au/AFLweb/index.htm

Night images were taken with an 80-200/2.8 and the wide angle images were'nt
taken by the Sigma.

Derrick

"Bernd" wrote in message
...
Hi!

Just thinking about adding a telephoto zoom to my arsenal. Just stumbled
over the Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO Aspherical (around 500$) which sounds
like a nice deal. Does anyone have some experience with this lens? Pros
and
cons welcome. Using the Sigma EX 17-35/2.8-4.0 already and I'm quite ok
with
it (a bit soft for my taste, well anyway).

I'll use it with my Canon 10D and 33 (Elan 7).

Any advice it very much appreciated... Thanks for your help

Bernd

"Bernd" wrote in
:

Hi!

Just thinking about adding a telephoto zoom to my arsenal. Just
stumbled over the Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO Aspherical (around 500$)
which sounds like a nice deal. Does anyone have some experience with
this lens? Pros and cons welcome. Using the Sigma EX 17-35/2.8-4.0
already and I'm quite ok with it (a bit soft for my taste, well
anyway).

I'll use it with my Canon 10D and 33 (Elan 7).

It's a pretty good value for the money, but it isn't going to compare
with the much higher priced and faster 500s. From everything I've heard,
the 50-500 outperforms it slightly, but haven't yet tried one out for
myself.

For what I do, I swear by zooms, since they allow precise framing
control when tromping back and forth isn't an option. Depends on your
usage.

Autofocus is surprisingly fast, since it has a very short focus
travel. Zoom ring is heavily damped, a bit tight, but the ring is large and
allows a good grip. The placement of the focus ring is awkward, but this is
only noticeable when doing manual focus.

Slightly soft at 500, greatly improved when used at f11 or f16, which
pretty much necessitates a tripod, but that's highly recommended anyway.
You can also back off to 450mm and improve the performance. Tripod mount is
included and exceptionally handy - so is the hood and case.

I had serious issues with mine and a UV filter, and now no longer use
filters with it, much crisper. The hood is better protection anyway. I've
used mine with extension tubes for long range closeup work, and with a
Kenko/Tokina MC-7 2x teleconverter, performs much better than expected in
either case.

See http://wading-in.net/Reptiles/Gatorpair.html, http://wading-
in.net/Birds/Greenheron.html, and http://wading-in.net/Equipment.html at
the bottom of that page.

Also, http://wading-in.net/STS-112.html to check out pushing it to
its limits. Note the distances involved.

Drop me a line directly if you have further questions or want
examples.


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Al and Derrick!

Thanks for your advice. Now I'm a bit confused as RitzCamera shows it as an
EX lens - something the Sigma website doesn't. Usually EX lenses are pretty
much ok, so that would be an additional plus. The 50-500 definitely is an EX
(which can be seen on the price tag and it has the HSM motor... difficult
decision.

Also a bit sceptic about the practical use of a 500 without some kind of an
"Image Stabilizer" (esp. with the dreaded 1.6 factor of my 10D)... So much
to think about - maybe hold my breath for some months and go for the Canon
100-400!

Thanks again
Bernd



"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
. 1...
"Bernd" wrote in
:

Hi!

Just thinking about adding a telephoto zoom to my arsenal. Just
stumbled over the Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO Aspherical (around 500$)
which sounds like a nice deal. Does anyone have some experience with
this lens? Pros and cons welcome. Using the Sigma EX 17-35/2.8-4.0
already and I'm quite ok with it (a bit soft for my taste, well
anyway).

I'll use it with my Canon 10D and 33 (Elan 7).

It's a pretty good value for the money, but it isn't going to compare
with the much higher priced and faster 500s. From everything I've heard,
the 50-500 outperforms it slightly, but haven't yet tried one out for
myself.

For what I do, I swear by zooms, since they allow precise framing
control when tromping back and forth isn't an option. Depends on your
usage.

Autofocus is surprisingly fast, since it has a very short focus
travel. Zoom ring is heavily damped, a bit tight, but the ring is large
and
allows a good grip. The placement of the focus ring is awkward, but this
is
only noticeable when doing manual focus.

Slightly soft at 500, greatly improved when used at f11 or f16, which
pretty much necessitates a tripod, but that's highly recommended anyway.
You can also back off to 450mm and improve the performance. Tripod mount
is
included and exceptionally handy - so is the hood and case.

I had serious issues with mine and a UV filter, and now no longer use
filters with it, much crisper. The hood is better protection anyway. I've
used mine with extension tubes for long range closeup work, and with a
Kenko/Tokina MC-7 2x teleconverter, performs much better than expected in
either case.

See http://wading-in.net/Reptiles/Gatorpair.html, http://wading-
in.net/Birds/Greenheron.html, and http://wading-in.net/Equipment.html at
the bottom of that page.

Also, http://wading-in.net/STS-112.html to check out pushing it to
its limits. Note the distances involved.

Drop me a line directly if you have further questions or want
examples.


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Hi Bernd,

If your budget allows for a Canon 100-400 IS, then it really is no contest!

However, on a limited budget, the 50-500 lens will do you proud. With the
Canon DSLR you'll have a 80-800mm lens at F4-6.3
I started DSLR photography a couple years ago, because all the sports
photogs were lugging around 600/4 lenses with employer supported or
mortgaged houses funds. I thought, well I can get 750mm on my DSL at f6.3,
can carry the lens anywhere, and change ISO at the flick of a switch.

The Sigma is not a high quality lens - however having said that, bang for
buck she'll do you proud.

Here's some possibly relevant examples, I'm not sure what it is you'll be
shooting, but the following pics should give you some idea of what the
50-500 can do:

At F4 you can still have nice DOF and blurred backgrounds:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6149.htm

It will nail relatively sharp images of high speed sports at 100 yards:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6065.htm

Without changing lenses, and using your CCD as a dust magnet, you can pull
back for wider angle shots within seconds:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6024.htm

Using available light only, you can zoom in and out at the wider angles, and
still get images relatively sharp:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6344.htm

THE FINAL WORD.......

The pros of the lens are huge range, yet not a particularly heavy lens.
Image quality on a DSLR is really quite good, I have no problems printing at
100x100cm's - but I'm not a pro. The price is alot less than Nikon or Canon
zooms - quality is inferior to the major brands.

The cons are that it is a third party lens, and won't be the Canon or Nikon
you dream of. Filters are horribly expensive. Quite sharp, but 70% of the
time I would'nt say tack sharp. When you first get the lens, the zoom ring
is stiff - it quickly improves.

I had a similar decision to yours 2 years ago, thought about the other Sigma
170-500zoom, the 50-500 and the Nikon 80-400VR lens. I got the 50-500 and
have'nt looked back. Pro shooters look at the lens and giggle a bit, but the
range allows variety of angle, and at full zoom I'm nailing some good
action. I can wear the giggles as I can carry the lens anywhere without
trouble, and I've compared my images to the pros. If I paid 20 grand for a
600/4, I would'nt giggle.........

If you can, hire the lenses before you buy. You'll work it out!

Derrick


"Bernd" wrote in message
...
Al and Derrick!

Thanks for your advice. Now I'm a bit confused as RitzCamera shows it as
an
EX lens - something the Sigma website doesn't. Usually EX lenses are
pretty
much ok, so that would be an additional plus. The 50-500 definitely is an
EX
(which can be seen on the price tag and it has the HSM motor...
difficult
decision.

Also a bit sceptic about the practical use of a 500 without some kind of
an
"Image Stabilizer" (esp. with the dreaded 1.6 factor of my 10D)... So much
to think about - maybe hold my breath for some months and go for the Canon
100-400!

Thanks again
Bernd



"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
. 1...
"Bernd" wrote in
:

Hi!

Just thinking about adding a telephoto zoom to my arsenal. Just
stumbled over the Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO Aspherical (around 500$)
which sounds like a nice deal. Does anyone have some experience with
this lens? Pros and cons welcome. Using the Sigma EX 17-35/2.8-4.0
already and I'm quite ok with it (a bit soft for my taste, well
anyway).

I'll use it with my Canon 10D and 33 (Elan 7).

It's a pretty good value for the money, but it isn't going to
compare
with the much higher priced and faster 500s. From everything I've heard,
the 50-500 outperforms it slightly, but haven't yet tried one out for
myself.

For what I do, I swear by zooms, since they allow precise framing
control when tromping back and forth isn't an option. Depends on your
usage.

Autofocus is surprisingly fast, since it has a very short focus
travel. Zoom ring is heavily damped, a bit tight, but the ring is large
and
allows a good grip. The placement of the focus ring is awkward, but this
is
only noticeable when doing manual focus.

Slightly soft at 500, greatly improved when used at f11 or f16,
which
pretty much necessitates a tripod, but that's highly recommended anyway.
You can also back off to 450mm and improve the performance. Tripod mount
is
included and exceptionally handy - so is the hood and case.

I had serious issues with mine and a UV filter, and now no longer
use
filters with it, much crisper. The hood is better protection anyway.
I've
used mine with extension tubes for long range closeup work, and with a
Kenko/Tokina MC-7 2x teleconverter, performs much better than expected
in
either case.

See http://wading-in.net/Reptiles/Gatorpair.html, http://wading-
in.net/Birds/Greenheron.html, and http://wading-in.net/Equipment.html at
the bottom of that page.

Also, http://wading-in.net/STS-112.html to check out pushing it to
its limits. Note the distances involved.

Drop me a line directly if you have further questions or want
examples.


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Hey, Derrick!

Just looked around a bit, comparing prices for the Sigma and the Canon. The
Sigma 50-500 sells for $749 at A&M and the Canon 100-400 for $1179. That's
not a world apart, IMO. Count $330 for higher quality and $100 for looking
like a pro :-)

Admitted your example photos are impressive - both the lens and the
photography work, but (as I said) I might wait for some weeks, eat less and
save up for the Canon.

Best wishes
Bernd


"Surfworx Photography" wrote in message
...
Hi Bernd,

If your budget allows for a Canon 100-400 IS, then it really is no
contest!

However, on a limited budget, the 50-500 lens will do you proud. With the
Canon DSLR you'll have a 80-800mm lens at F4-6.3
I started DSLR photography a couple years ago, because all the sports
photogs were lugging around 600/4 lenses with employer supported or
mortgaged houses funds. I thought, well I can get 750mm on my DSL at f6.3,
can carry the lens anywhere, and change ISO at the flick of a switch.

The Sigma is not a high quality lens - however having said that, bang for
buck she'll do you proud.

Here's some possibly relevant examples, I'm not sure what it is you'll be
shooting, but the following pics should give you some idea of what the
50-500 can do:

At F4 you can still have nice DOF and blurred backgrounds:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6149.htm

It will nail relatively sharp images of high speed sports at 100 yards:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6065.htm

Without changing lenses, and using your CCD as a dust magnet, you can pull
back for wider angle shots within seconds:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6024.htm

Using available light only, you can zoom in and out at the wider angles,
and
still get images relatively sharp:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6344.htm

THE FINAL WORD.......

The pros of the lens are huge range, yet not a particularly heavy lens.
Image quality on a DSLR is really quite good, I have no problems printing
at
100x100cm's - but I'm not a pro. The price is alot less than Nikon or
Canon
zooms - quality is inferior to the major brands.

The cons are that it is a third party lens, and won't be the Canon or
Nikon
you dream of. Filters are horribly expensive. Quite sharp, but 70% of the
time I would'nt say tack sharp. When you first get the lens, the zoom ring
is stiff - it quickly improves.

I had a similar decision to yours 2 years ago, thought about the other
Sigma
170-500zoom, the 50-500 and the Nikon 80-400VR lens. I got the 50-500 and
have'nt looked back. Pro shooters look at the lens and giggle a bit, but
the
range allows variety of angle, and at full zoom I'm nailing some good
action. I can wear the giggles as I can carry the lens anywhere without
trouble, and I've compared my images to the pros. If I paid 20 grand for a
600/4, I would'nt giggle.........

If you can, hire the lenses before you buy. You'll work it out!

Derrick


"Bernd" wrote in message
...
Al and Derrick!

Thanks for your advice. Now I'm a bit confused as RitzCamera shows it as
an
EX lens - something the Sigma website doesn't. Usually EX lenses are
pretty
much ok, so that would be an additional plus. The 50-500 definitely is
an
EX
(which can be seen on the price tag and it has the HSM motor...
difficult
decision.

Also a bit sceptic about the practical use of a 500 without some kind of
an
"Image Stabilizer" (esp. with the dreaded 1.6 factor of my 10D)... So
much
to think about - maybe hold my breath for some months and go for the
Canon
100-400!

Thanks again
Bernd



"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
. 1...
"Bernd" wrote in
:

Hi!

Just thinking about adding a telephoto zoom to my arsenal. Just
stumbled over the Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO Aspherical (around
500$)
which sounds like a nice deal. Does anyone have some experience with
this lens? Pros and cons welcome. Using the Sigma EX 17-35/2.8-4.0
already and I'm quite ok with it (a bit soft for my taste, well
anyway).

I'll use it with my Canon 10D and 33 (Elan 7).

It's a pretty good value for the money, but it isn't going to
compare
with the much higher priced and faster 500s. From everything I've
heard,
the 50-500 outperforms it slightly, but haven't yet tried one out for
myself.

For what I do, I swear by zooms, since they allow precise framing
control when tromping back and forth isn't an option. Depends on your
usage.

Autofocus is surprisingly fast, since it has a very short focus
travel. Zoom ring is heavily damped, a bit tight, but the ring is
large
and
allows a good grip. The placement of the focus ring is awkward, but
this
is
only noticeable when doing manual focus.

Slightly soft at 500, greatly improved when used at f11 or f16,
which
pretty much necessitates a tripod, but that's highly recommended
anyway.
You can also back off to 450mm and improve the performance. Tripod
mount
is
included and exceptionally handy - so is the hood and case.

I had serious issues with mine and a UV filter, and now no longer
use
filters with it, much crisper. The hood is better protection anyway.
I've
used mine with extension tubes for long range closeup work, and with a
Kenko/Tokina MC-7 2x teleconverter, performs much better than expected
in
either case.

See http://wading-in.net/Reptiles/Gatorpair.html, http://wading-
in.net/Birds/Greenheron.html, and http://wading-in.net/Equipment.html
at
the bottom of that page.

Also, http://wading-in.net/STS-112.html to check out pushing it to
its limits. Note the distances involved.

Drop me a line directly if you have further questions or want
examples.


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

IN case you are interested...
I have a Sigma 120~300 f2.8 lens I use often.
I recently bought a 2x magnifier for it which gives me virtually 1200 mm
reach at f4.5.
Canon 10D. there is nowhere in the world you can get that much reach with
that much quality at so small a price.


"Surfworx Photography" wrote in message
...
Hi Bernd,

If your budget allows for a Canon 100-400 IS, then it really is no
contest!

However, on a limited budget, the 50-500 lens will do you proud. With the
Canon DSLR you'll have a 80-800mm lens at F4-6.3
I started DSLR photography a couple years ago, because all the sports
photogs were lugging around 600/4 lenses with employer supported or
mortgaged houses funds. I thought, well I can get 750mm on my DSL at f6.3,
can carry the lens anywhere, and change ISO at the flick of a switch.

The Sigma is not a high quality lens - however having said that, bang for
buck she'll do you proud.

Here's some possibly relevant examples, I'm not sure what it is you'll be
shooting, but the following pics should give you some idea of what the
50-500 can do:

At F4 you can still have nice DOF and blurred backgrounds:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6149.htm

It will nail relatively sharp images of high speed sports at 100 yards:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6065.htm

Without changing lenses, and using your CCD as a dust magnet, you can pull
back for wider angle shots within seconds:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6024.htm

Using available light only, you can zoom in and out at the wider angles,
and
still get images relatively sharp:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6344.htm

THE FINAL WORD.......

The pros of the lens are huge range, yet not a particularly heavy lens.
Image quality on a DSLR is really quite good, I have no problems printing
at
100x100cm's - but I'm not a pro. The price is alot less than Nikon or
Canon
zooms - quality is inferior to the major brands.

The cons are that it is a third party lens, and won't be the Canon or
Nikon
you dream of. Filters are horribly expensive. Quite sharp, but 70% of the
time I would'nt say tack sharp. When you first get the lens, the zoom ring
is stiff - it quickly improves.

I had a similar decision to yours 2 years ago, thought about the other
Sigma
170-500zoom, the 50-500 and the Nikon 80-400VR lens. I got the 50-500 and
have'nt looked back. Pro shooters look at the lens and giggle a bit, but
the
range allows variety of angle, and at full zoom I'm nailing some good
action. I can wear the giggles as I can carry the lens anywhere without
trouble, and I've compared my images to the pros. If I paid 20 grand for a
600/4, I would'nt giggle.........

If you can, hire the lenses before you buy. You'll work it out!

Derrick


"Bernd" wrote in message
...
Al and Derrick!

Thanks for your advice. Now I'm a bit confused as RitzCamera shows it as
an
EX lens - something the Sigma website doesn't. Usually EX lenses are
pretty
much ok, so that would be an additional plus. The 50-500 definitely is
an
EX
(which can be seen on the price tag and it has the HSM motor...
difficult
decision.

Also a bit sceptic about the practical use of a 500 without some kind of
an
"Image Stabilizer" (esp. with the dreaded 1.6 factor of my 10D)... So
much
to think about - maybe hold my breath for some months and go for the
Canon
100-400!

Thanks again
Bernd



"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
. 1...
"Bernd" wrote in
:

Hi!

Just thinking about adding a telephoto zoom to my arsenal. Just
stumbled over the Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO Aspherical (around
500$)
which sounds like a nice deal. Does anyone have some experience with
this lens? Pros and cons welcome. Using the Sigma EX 17-35/2.8-4.0
already and I'm quite ok with it (a bit soft for my taste, well
anyway).

I'll use it with my Canon 10D and 33 (Elan 7).

It's a pretty good value for the money, but it isn't going to
compare
with the much higher priced and faster 500s. From everything I've
heard,
the 50-500 outperforms it slightly, but haven't yet tried one out for
myself.

For what I do, I swear by zooms, since they allow precise framing
control when tromping back and forth isn't an option. Depends on your
usage.

Autofocus is surprisingly fast, since it has a very short focus
travel. Zoom ring is heavily damped, a bit tight, but the ring is
large
and
allows a good grip. The placement of the focus ring is awkward, but
this
is
only noticeable when doing manual focus.

Slightly soft at 500, greatly improved when used at f11 or f16,
which
pretty much necessitates a tripod, but that's highly recommended
anyway.
You can also back off to 450mm and improve the performance. Tripod
mount
is
included and exceptionally handy - so is the hood and case.

I had serious issues with mine and a UV filter, and now no longer
use
filters with it, much crisper. The hood is better protection anyway.
I've
used mine with extension tubes for long range closeup work, and with a
Kenko/Tokina MC-7 2x teleconverter, performs much better than expected
in
either case.

See http://wading-in.net/Reptiles/Gatorpair.html, http://wading-
in.net/Birds/Greenheron.html, and http://wading-in.net/Equipment.html
at
the bottom of that page.

Also, http://wading-in.net/STS-112.html to check out pushing it to
its limits. Note the distances involved.

Drop me a line directly if you have further questions or want
examples.


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

"Call me what you like" wrote:

IN case you are interested...
I have a Sigma 120~300 f2.8 lens I use often.
I recently bought a 2x magnifier for it which gives me virtually 1200 mm
reach at f4.5.
Canon 10D. there is nowhere in the world you can get that much reach with
that much quality at so small a price.


The effective maximum focal length, allowing for the 2X converter and
a 1.5X factor for the smaller-than-35mm sensor, is 900mm.

Where do you get 1200mm from?

Oh, well...

Started out at discussing a $500 lens and now we're talking around $1900 for
a lens and mag, LOL. Never used magnifiers anyway, not sure what fits EOS
(10D/Elan) bodies with a Sigma lens. Probably Sigma, right? But anyway, 2.8
over the whole range is really nice; I admit. My trusty Tamron 28-75, 2.8 is
a nice lens for portraits on the 10D, really like those fix aperture ones...
ponder, ponder! Wondering what's going to fill the gap between 75 and
100/120 (esp. for the Elan), just have the "El Cheapo" Sigma 70-300/4,0-5,6
APO 2 right now for that range, not too happy though it took some really
nice shots on a clear day on the digital.

Be well
Bernd

"Call me what you like" wrote in message
...
IN case you are interested...
I have a Sigma 120~300 f2.8 lens I use often.
I recently bought a 2x magnifier for it which gives me virtually 1200 mm
reach at f4.5.
Canon 10D. there is nowhere in the world you can get that much reach with
that much quality at so small a price.


"Surfworx Photography" wrote in message
...
Hi Bernd,

If your budget allows for a Canon 100-400 IS, then it really is no
contest!

However, on a limited budget, the 50-500 lens will do you proud. With
the
Canon DSLR you'll have a 80-800mm lens at F4-6.3
I started DSLR photography a couple years ago, because all the sports
photogs were lugging around 600/4 lenses with employer supported or
mortgaged houses funds. I thought, well I can get 750mm on my DSL at
f6.3,
can carry the lens anywhere, and change ISO at the flick of a switch.

The Sigma is not a high quality lens - however having said that, bang
for
buck she'll do you proud.

Here's some possibly relevant examples, I'm not sure what it is you'll
be
shooting, but the following pics should give you some idea of what the
50-500 can do:

At F4 you can still have nice DOF and blurred backgrounds:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6149.htm

It will nail relatively sharp images of high speed sports at 100 yards:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6065.htm

Without changing lenses, and using your CCD as a dust magnet, you can
pull
back for wider angle shots within seconds:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6024.htm

Using available light only, you can zoom in and out at the wider angles,
and
still get images relatively sharp:
http://www.surfworx.com.au/Power-v-S...s/DSCF6344.htm

THE FINAL WORD.......

The pros of the lens are huge range, yet not a particularly heavy lens.
Image quality on a DSLR is really quite good, I have no problems
printing
at
100x100cm's - but I'm not a pro. The price is alot less than Nikon or
Canon
zooms - quality is inferior to the major brands.

The cons are that it is a third party lens, and won't be the Canon or
Nikon
you dream of. Filters are horribly expensive. Quite sharp, but 70% of
the
time I would'nt say tack sharp. When you first get the lens, the zoom
ring
is stiff - it quickly improves.

I had a similar decision to yours 2 years ago, thought about the other
Sigma
170-500zoom, the 50-500 and the Nikon 80-400VR lens. I got the 50-500
and
have'nt looked back. Pro shooters look at the lens and giggle a bit, but
the
range allows variety of angle, and at full zoom I'm nailing some good
action. I can wear the giggles as I can carry the lens anywhere without
trouble, and I've compared my images to the pros. If I paid 20 grand for
a
600/4, I would'nt giggle.........

If you can, hire the lenses before you buy. You'll work it out!

Derrick


"Bernd" wrote in message
...
Al and Derrick!

Thanks for your advice. Now I'm a bit confused as RitzCamera shows it
as
an
EX lens - something the Sigma website doesn't. Usually EX lenses are
pretty
much ok, so that would be an additional plus. The 50-500 definitely is
an
EX
(which can be seen on the price tag and it has the HSM motor...
difficult
decision.

Also a bit sceptic about the practical use of a 500 without some kind
of
an
"Image Stabilizer" (esp. with the dreaded 1.6 factor of my 10D)... So
much
to think about - maybe hold my breath for some months and go for the
Canon
100-400!

Thanks again
Bernd



"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
. 1...
"Bernd" wrote in
:

Hi!

Just thinking about adding a telephoto zoom to my arsenal. Just
stumbled over the Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO Aspherical (around
500$)
which sounds like a nice deal. Does anyone have some experience
with
this lens? Pros and cons welcome. Using the Sigma EX 17-35/2.8-4.0
already and I'm quite ok with it (a bit soft for my taste, well
anyway).

I'll use it with my Canon 10D and 33 (Elan 7).

It's a pretty good value for the money, but it isn't going to
compare
with the much higher priced and faster 500s. From everything I've
heard,
the 50-500 outperforms it slightly, but haven't yet tried one out
for
myself.

For what I do, I swear by zooms, since they allow precise
framing
control when tromping back and forth isn't an option. Depends on
your
usage.

Autofocus is surprisingly fast, since it has a very short focus
travel. Zoom ring is heavily damped, a bit tight, but the ring is
large
and
allows a good grip. The placement of the focus ring is awkward, but
this
is
only noticeable when doing manual focus.

Slightly soft at 500, greatly improved when used at f11 or f16,
which
pretty much necessitates a tripod, but that's highly recommended
anyway.
You can also back off to 450mm and improve the performance. Tripod
mount
is
included and exceptionally handy - so is the hood and case.

I had serious issues with mine and a UV filter, and now no
longer
use
filters with it, much crisper. The hood is better protection anyway.
I've
used mine with extension tubes for long range closeup work, and with
a
Kenko/Tokina MC-7 2x teleconverter, performs much better than
expected
in
either case.

See http://wading-in.net/Reptiles/Gatorpair.html, http://wading-
in.net/Birds/Greenheron.html, and
http://wading-in.net/Equipment.html
at
the bottom of that page.

Also, http://wading-in.net/STS-112.html to check out pushing it
to
its limits. Note the distances involved.

Drop me a line directly if you have further questions or want
examples.


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net