Lens for nature

Hi i would like to hear if some one have enny experince with the 170-500 sigma lens for nature photography... Hows the quality, and the fasness of the fokus.....

Also I would like to know if it is "stoopid" to buy the 170 500 lens when i have the canon 100-400 L or it would be better to buy a 500mm lens in stead of a zoom

Meint

I replied to your query and seem to have lost it in cyberspace, so here goes again. Basically if you have the 100-400 Canon lens, you won't get that much more from the Sigma 170-500 (therefore not worth the cost). I also have the Canon 500 lens and I rarely use it because of its weight. If you are interested in buying used, I have both the Sigma and Canon up for sale. I use the Canon 100-400 IS and the 28-135 IS lenses and they cover just about anything I want to take.

I have the canon 100-400L lens as well. It works very well with the 1.4x teleconverter. This should give you the extra length you are looking for, not even considering the crop factor. Also, I don't know whether the Sigma lens has image stabilazation.
Gene
Andover, NJ

Since you don't mention your type of nature photography, it is difficult to generalize. If it is birding and small animals, I would recommend a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4 and a 1.4X TC. What you already have should be fine for large animals.

The 100-400 is better than the 170-500 in every respect. If you want more focal lenght (and you cant get a 5 or 6 IS), I'd suggest to get the excellent 400 f5.6 - it is very sharp even with TCs.

If you already have the 100-400 I think the compromises inhernt in zooms will not buy you anything with another zoom. I strongly suggest the Canon 500 f 4 IS. It is one of the sharpest lenses made. Yes it is heave. However I hand hold it a lot with good success due to the IS. The focal lenghts between 400 and 500 will not be missed. If you add the 1.4 TC you will get 700 and the 2 TC will give you 1000. The 1.4 produces virtually no loss of quality and the 2 X so little you will have to look hard to notice. So, over your photographic life the 500 is the better choice IMHO.

I had the Nikon mount version of the Sigma 170-500 and replaced it nearly three years ago with the 80-400 VR. The Sigma lens has a tad bit more reach, but no image stabilization capability, relatively poor image quality (IMO) is pretty slow (variable aperture--6.3 at the long end, I believe). If you want to use manual focus (I frequently do) it has a tiny and very cheap focus ring which is difficult to find when you have the lens racked out. The lens also has a tendency to "flop" if you point it down. It is relatively inexpensive, but...well, I've listed the reasons why that should be the case. From what I know of the Canon 100-400L (none of it based on experience) I don't see any reason why you'd want the Sigma lens.

The 170-500mm was replaced by the Sigma 50-500mm. It's a better lens, but there's no way I'd buy it if I already had the 100-400mm IS. You aren't gaining anything for the money. Think of it this way. To make your subject appear twice as large in the viewfinder, you would need an 800mm lens. You would better spend your money on a GOOD tripod and a GOOD head. By taking as sharp a photo as possible from a tripod, you can probably get away with cropping the photo down by half or more and get what you want.


Kent in SD

Thank's for all the answers. I guess i forgot to say that i was mostly for birding, but after reading all the topics, i'll stay with the 100-400 L and muby later buy a 500 or 600.so right know i'll get better with the 1.4 tc and see if i can increes my skills

thanks for a realy good site and all the helpfull and nice people in heare

Meint Sijp