sigma 170-500 lens
- Thread starter KRO
- Start date
jnO
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 603
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No experience but read alot about them when I was looking to get 500mm length.
Overall opinion seemed to say that focussing is slow and it needs to be stopped down quite heavily f/10-11 at 500mm to get anything remotely sharp.
However it's a damned cheap way to get 500mm.
Overall opinion seemed to say that focussing is slow and it needs to be stopped down quite heavily f/10-11 at 500mm to get anything remotely sharp.
However it's a damned cheap way to get 500mm.
- Messages
- 49,339
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
With f/6.3 at the long end, it's not ideal for sports where you may want faster shutter speeds. Focussing isn't the fastest but it can keep up reasonably well once it's locked on. Sharpness isn't fantastic wide open (then again, it never is) but gets a lot better at smaller (f/11 or smaller) apertures, restricting shutter speeds even more. TBH, the price is its biggest asset. The more modern design 150-500 OS version is a bit faster to lock on focus (but still not that quick) and is a lot easier to shoot with handheld (due to the OS) as well as being sharper wide open. The f/6.3 still restricts the shutter speed though unless your body can give great high ISO performance.
For some wildlife shots though, it can turn in some great pictures. Not so good for action shots, as above but for relatively static animals (birds on water or feeders etc) it's hard to beat, especially at the price. Don't forget the tripod though - it's not a light beasty.
For some wildlife shots though, it can turn in some great pictures. Not so good for action shots, as above but for relatively static animals (birds on water or feeders etc) it's hard to beat, especially at the price. Don't forget the tripod though - it's not a light beasty.
i have this lens, i bought it thinking it was a cheap way of getting 500mm, it wasn't, i was so dischuffed with it i put in a draw and have never touched it since. it's slow, and should be measured by how soft the images are not how sharp. in the end i had a rumage around in my pockets and bought a nikon 400 2.8 and 1.4 convertor
pete.rush
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
hi,
does anyone use or have any experience of this lens, how would you rate it for sports etc.....
What sport? Bikes, Cars, Rally, Track? assumptions made by avitar. The major problem is budget. These budget zooms tick quite a few people boxes because your getting a 500mm lens for less than a grand and like the canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 it also gives you a versatile zoom range. Major problems are in the fact that its a slow lens, f6.3 also slow autofocusing, and to get the best from it, you need to stop down, which becomes a problems if light conditions aren't the best, then you would have to juggle shutter, ISO and Aperature settings.
Personally, the sigma 100-300mm f4 is by far the better lens, 120-300mm f2.8 is a good motorsports lens, or you go down the prime route and get a 300mm f4 with a 1.4x TC. It also depends on what access you have to the action, you could get away with a 70-200mm f2.8 if you can get close to the action like with rally's or if you behind the fences at Donnington/Silverstone then 400mm, if not longer is a must.