Your photo sharing community!

Share On

Not much of a forums poster, so I hope this is in an appropriate section.

I recently purchased a Sigma APO 170-500mm F5-6.3 DG and after the first weekend of shooting was somewhat disappointed with the results. Granted neither the conditions (overcast day [and I understand lighting is a significant limitation of this lens]) nor the number of variables (new camera [D80 instead of my D70s], heavier lens then I am used to working with) were really in favour of producing a large number of keepers, even so I expected, some but required severe editing to even come close.

I had good results on my last safari (usually excellent lighting compared to a Canadian winter like this weekend) with an older Zoom-Nikkor 70-300 F/4-5.6 G (recently upgraded to a AF-S WR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G IF-ED)and was looking for something to reach out a little further this time around. I settled on the Sigma APO 170-500mm F5-6.3 DG both for versatility as well as distance and price. I am now wondering if it would be worth it to pay the extra and upgrade to the Sigma APO 50-500mm F4-6.3 EX DG HSM. Also, I thought we used to have to ability to search for photos by certain lenses, or does that only work for the same limited list of lenses available for selection when posting a picture? If not for third party lenses, anyone who has used and posted images from either lens (preferably someone who has posted images using both lenses), I would certainly appreciate if you could post here or send me a link to your images.

Any advice, comments or warnings regarding either of the two Sigma lenses is certainly appreciated. Or if someone has another suggestion of a comparably versatile and priced lens (again preferably with accompanying images to support their comments) I would be interested to hear about that as well.

Thank you in advance,
Ed

Email: edghoti@hotmail.com

why were you disappointed with the 170-500?
It's (especially for the price) a very nice lens, and superior to the 70-300G you had before in every regard.

What I did notice on mine is that you cannot use the hood when shooting at less than f/8 or you get visible light falloff at the edges of the image.

I have used the 50-500 a few times, and it is a nice lens.
Optically and mechanically superior to the 170-500, but IMO not enough to warrant the investment if you already have that one.
Were I to replace it for some reason (say mechanical failure) the 50-500 would be on my shortlist of lenses to get.
It is smaller (which is handy when transporting) but heavier (which is not so handy when I'm already regularly lugging around 10-15 kilos in gear).

I've lots of shots done with the 170-500 (several thousand over the last 5 years) and I'm quite happy with it.

A few samples:

http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1183479
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1165325
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1095884

Why was I disappointed with the lens? I found it to be extremely soft in my first real test shoot. But to be fair, I can�t blame it all (if any of it) on the lens and think it was a combination of issues; beyond the poor lighting on an overcast day, I was using a new camera, this new lens and had no previous experience with either let alone together.

With my D70s, I had great shots pretty much straight out of the box even with my old 35mm lenses and I guess I was somewhat expecting the same in this case. But I realise that the ease straight out of the box with the D70s was probably an anomaly and both the new camera and lens will take some getting used to before I am comfortable and can really be expecting optimal results. Hopefully I can work out all the kinks before the next safari.

But as you said, the 50-500 seems to be the better lens in every regard except weight and since I have not yet exceeded the 30 days since my purchase, I have the option of brining back the 170-500 and paying the difference to upgrade to the 50-500. And that is the direction I was leaning, was just looking for a little push from some users who had shoot with either if not both lenses.

Thanks again for your comment and input,
All the best,
Ed

I've not been dissapointed with my 50-500. Not so good in low light, but great for the extra reach. Builds the arm muscles, too. :-)

J

I suspect that the softness you see is mainly due to lack of longlens technique, certainly at longer focal lengths.
A 500mm is far more sensitive to even the slightest vibration than is even a 300, and with the larger size and weight compared to the 70-300 it's harder to keep still.
DOF is also more shallow, so accurate focussing is essential.
Given the weather conditions you had, it's quite likely your shutter times were too long for you to get good results without a tripod and your aperture too wide (the lens is somewhat soft when opened up wider than about f/8).

There's no reason optically why it should be softer than your old 70-300 so it has to be your way of using it.

The 50-500 will give you pretty much the same frustration initially until you get to know it well.

I resorted to doing some mild weightlifting to build up strength in my arms, helps keeping 3+ kilos of camera and lens steady while having a 10+ kilo bag of gear on my back.

Andre D.	Bob R.	Marana P.	Jan S.	Bea F.	Wolf Z.	Maria H.	Gregory M.

	Sign Up Now! \| Log In \| Help
	Your photo sharing community!