Mia777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2002, 1165 posts, RR: 6 Posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2999 times:
I was advised by my step-father that this lens got great reviews. I was planning on buying the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L but the Sigma offers greater range and a cheaper price. Anyways, can anyone give me a quick review of this lens? I read a few and they basically said that for the price, it is great. How slow is it? Heavy? Do I need a tripod? How are the pictures in lower-light (e.g. a cloudy day)? Thanks...
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2957 times:
I've considered the 50-500 early this year and decided on the 170-500 because of the weight of the 50-500.
Were I to choose again I'd probably choose the 50-500 instead.
The 170-500 is good, very good. The 50-500 is better optically and has faster AF (the 170-500 isn't bad either).
For the price they can't be beat, they're a good deal better than any Nikkor or Canon you can get for the same money. Yes, the best Canon and Nikkor lenses are better but you're paying 2-3 times as much if not more so that's to be expected.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2925 times:
I've never been happy about the logic of these super-zooms. Convenient, perhaps, but at what price? Quality aside, the size and weight are a huge penalty. Sure, 500 is a nice length, but a decent 300 prime with a good convertor will give you 600mm for less size and weight and probably better quality. As you go down the scale, the lens makes even less sense. At 50mm you can buy a prime very cheaply that will fit in your pocket.
Zooms certainly have their place, but all zooms make some compromises in quality and all carry a size/weight penalty. IMHO with anything beyond a 3x zoom the penalties outweigh (quite literally!) the benefits.
However, a single all purpose lens does seen to suit some people better - just make sure you consider all factors, including ergonomics, before you buy.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2894 times:
Do remember that even slow autofocus is faster then most people can focus manually. That is a big, heavy lens. While I doubt I would use it much on the 50mm end, the 500mm side would be handy. I would scrap it for a 80-400 or 100-400 or something similar.
Unless you are a bird watcher, I heard that it is popular with those guys.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2878 times:
even slow autofocus is faster then most people can focus manually
While most bench tests will confirm this statement, I find that in real situations this is not always the case (and I'm using, for the most part Canon L USM).
Consider - aircraft sitting on the tarmac - pick camera up, point at it, and yes, the AF will probably lock more quickly than you can manually focus. But then think about tracking an approaching aircraft - once the general focus is established, the differences required are very minor as the aircraft gets nearer, requiring only small adjustents. I find the AF can sometimes result in losing focus completely for a brief period (perhaps as result of the key contrats area moving off the sensor) and taking another moment to re-aquire. Yes its pretty fast, but I find tracking using manual focus is more likely to result in the subject staying in focus all of the time = less missed shots.
Mdundon From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 41 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2847 times:
I used this lens with a Nikon D100/F5 combo and didn't like it at all. It is notoriously slow on the D100 and I found the vignetting at 500mm to be far too noticeable for my tastes. The size of it was also an issue as it is very hard to wield without a tripod/monopod.
In the end, I sold it and purchased the 70-200VR which I will augment with a converter. After comparing shots made of same daily traffic to ORD over my house, the Nikon glass is superior for my uses. Yes, the Nikon was vastly more expensive, but I am vastly happier with the results. I advertised the Sigma and it was purchased very quickly by a bird/wildlife photographer. I didn't lose any money on it, so you could buy it used for $500 or so and resell it if it's not to your liking.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52 Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2781 times:
Colin, I was making a generalization. I have had the exact opposite experience on approaching a/c or moving targets. The Nikon, or should I just say the Nikons I have used, focus just fine when tracking moving targets coming straight at you, and moving passed you while panning as well. I usually always select the focus zone, and focus mode as well, and do not rely on the camera to choose the focus area as I have heard many Canon users do. That could just be preference on my part.
As to the merits of the 50-500 Sigma, it is an EX rated lens, and from what I have seen it should work fine in normal daylight. Expect less then optimum results in lower light levels. As expected.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2770 times:
Jeff - I'm not really in disagreement, just pointing out that AF is not always the best way to go, or perhaps put another way, people shouldn't be afraid of switching to MF in some situations. But certainly I would not rate the D60 or even the 10D's AF very highly - not a patch on say the EOS 3, Iv or 1D.