DSLRUsers.com

At the risk of being very provocative, I am going to ask a question on a Nikon forum about a Sigma Lens for a Canon camera.

I am looking at the 170-500 and the 50-500, wondering which is the better option. Anyone willing to offer advice? I have searched the forums, with minimal results in regard to the 170-500, but a few with the 50-500.

I currrently own a Sigma 55-200, and was thinking about the 170-500 to complement it. Is this a good idea, or would I be better selling the 55-200 to cover the cost difference to the 50-500?

Thanks
Tristan

What subjects are you going to be trying to shoot? (especially in the 200 - 500 range)

bouyant_clown wrote:What subjects are you going to be trying to shoot? (especially in the 200 - 500 range)

Hopefully into the bird area. (The ones with feathers . . . .)

Tristan

Tristan, I don't know about the 170-500, but I don't think I've liked a single pic out of the Bigma (50-500). At 500 mm it's extremely soft wide open and stays soft even stopped down. Couple that with the slow max aperture and lack of IS/VR/OS, and it gets the thumbs down from me! A couple of people on this board had it, got rid of it, and got the 80-400 VR instead. Not sure what Canon has on that side of things, but Sigma also does an 80-400 OS that might be worth looking into? We have a couple of bird gurus here, I think they use mainly the 300 f/4 and 70-200 VR + 1.7X TC.

Thanks MCWB,
Given that the 170-500 retails for less then the 50-500, it is not sounding good for it.

I have just been looking at the Canon lenses now, and without going into the L series professional ones, they make a 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM Lens.

Sigma also seem to have a 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6. Anyone with experience with it?

When looking at any glass past the 200mm mark it is best to consider Nikon, even if it has to be S/H

ozonejunkie wrote:At the risk of being very provocative, I am going to ask a question on a Nikon forum about a Sigma Lens for a Canon camera.

It would only be an issue if we had no tolerance for Canon's.

Fortunately, we appreciate all fellowships of the image, which is why I've moved you to the shire of the Canon Corral.

Nnnnsic wrote:Fortunately, we appreciate all fellowships of the image, which is why I've moved you to the shire of the Canon Corral.

OK - I did think about posting it here, but I thought that it was general enough to be posted in general. my Sony. Thanks for moving it.

sirhc55 wrote:When looking at any glass past the 200mm mark it is best to consider Nikon, even if it has to be S/H Wink

I would agree, except they don't mount very well on Canon camera's. Sure, a hacksaw helps, but even I would have issues cutting any form of lense. Nikon or not!

Whoops - did not realise it was a Canon - must get my eyes tested again

sirhc55 wrote:Whoops - did not realise it was a Canon - must get my eyes tested again

No, you're right, Nikkor lens can be used on Canon bodies with adapter or adaptal

ozonejunkie wrote:

sirhc55 wrote:When looking at any glass past the 200mm mark it is best to consider Nikon, even if it has to be S/H Wink

I would agree, except they don't mount very well on Canon camera's. Sure, a hacksaw helps, but even I would have issues cutting any form of lense. Nikon or not!

Actually, Nikon glass does fit onto Canon bodies, albeit with an adaptor.

That said, I too would be strongly recommending that you look on the Canon side of the lens fence. As Trent has said, a few of the Nikon people have bought, and then onsold, the 50-500, mostly then going for the 80-400VR. (I went straight to that lens, did not pass Go, didn't collect $200 along the way, but didn't have what I considered to be a substandard lens either.)

My impressions of the Bigma's qualities are similar to Trent's - optical performance is soft, plus, I'm told, it's big and heavy.

Build quality is another issue with Sigma glass, and that's one aspect that I've yet to see addressed in any of their lenses that I've played with; they're way inferior to Nikkor glass, and given that Conon is in the same class as Nikkor, I expect that similar issues would ensue.

I'll be honest and say that I've never actually handled the 50-500, and I'll be even more honest and declare that I'm not in any great hurry to rectify that situation.

50 - 500 is a very good lens (many use it for birds photography). However, it is very heavy and need to be tripod mounted to get tact sharp images. Forget the 150 - 500.

On the Canon's side, you should consider 100 - 400 f4 - 5.6 L IS. This lens is sharper and has Image Stablizer. Only thing I don't fancy is the push pull design. The closing fousing distance is 1.5m which is better than Nikon 80 - 400VR. Plus it's got USM II - fast focusing. Weight wise is about the same as Nikon 80 - 400VR. Like Nikon, this lens is pricey.

Yes, you can use Nikon lens on Canon body. There is a EOS adapter for it. But you would lose AF and have to use stop down metering.

regards,

Arthur

yeocsa wrote:50 - 500 is a very good lens (many use it for birds photography).

After few times of use of the Bigma, they ditched it and fell into Nikkor arm I have few proofs and can prove.

Birddog114 wrote:

yeocsa wrote:50 - 500 is a very good lens (many use it for birds photography).

After few times of use of the Bigma, they ditched it and fell into Nikkor arm I have few proofs and can prove.

Yes, I agree. I would do the same. Most would not have the patience to develop their long lens technique and go for VR or IS. However, one should still consider this lens as it is excellent lens and for skill development. But bear in mind that VR or IS is no substitute for long lens technique.

regards,

Arthur

yeocsa wrote:50 - 500 is a very good lens (many use it for birds photography). However, it is very heavy and need to be tripod mounted to get tact sharp images. Forget the 150 - 500.

Thanks Arthur, So the lens is sorta OK in the budget end of the scale if used with a tripod? I have seen the 100-400, and would love one, but the price tag is a little bit nasty at this stage. I have seen a few "Bigma's" crop up on ebay, and was thinking they looked like a good buy.

In regard to the Nikon on Canon thing: I have just bitten my tongue, and eaten my hat. Looks like I might be able to buy lenses through Birddog then. MF is a slight problem though.

ozonejunkie wrote:

yeocsa wrote:50 - 500 is a very good lens (many use it for birds photography). However, it is very heavy and need to be tripod mounted to get tact sharp images. Forget the 150 - 500.

Thanks Arthur, So the lens is sorta OK in the budget end of the scale if used with a tripod? I have seen the 100-400, and would love one, but the price tag is a little bit nasty at this stage. I have seen a few "Bigma's" crop up on ebay, and was thinking they looked like a good buy.

In regard to the Nikon on Canon thing: I have just bitten my tongue, and eaten my hat. Looks like I might be able to buy lenses through Birddog then. MF is a slight problem though.

Hi

Use Canon lens as you are using Canon body. Don't waste your hard earn money. Why buy Nikon lens and you are not able to take advantage of what you pay for on the lens and camera body and the rest of your gears?

Don't forget the photographer is the key deciding factor in the quality of the pictures. As you upgrade or buy equipment, don't forget to invest and upgrade your skills as you go along. You can have the best equipment and still produce so-so pictures if you don't have the skill neccessary to handle the equipment correctly.

I remember buying Sigma 70 - 200 f2.8 on Canon 10D and ended selling it shortly as my pictures were not as sharp as the guy next door. I sold the Sigma lens to buy Canon 70 - 400 F4L. Yes, I get sharper pictures cos the lens is much smaller and lighter. But I don't get speed and shallow depth of field of f2.8. So it was the lens not able to perform but me, the photographer, has yet to understand and acquire the proper lens handling technique or the willingness to use tripod.

Use what you have. Say your 55 - 200. Take ducks or silver gulls with it. When you can get excellent pictures with it - handheld and with tripod, then it may be time for you to upgrade as your skills would be able to handle a more expensive, heavier and demanding piece of equipment.

regards,

Arthur

yeocsa wrote:Hi

Use Canon lens as you are using Canon body. Don't waste your hard earn money. Why buy Nikon lens and you are not able to take advantage of what you pay for on the lens and camera body and the rest of your gears?

Ok, so I didn't use quite enough grinnie / smilie things. I was joking about that. I am a sucker for AF, would practically die without it.

In regard to the rest of your post: Thanks for the wisdom. You do raise some very valid comments there, that I do appreciate. Since last posting, I have looked at the price range of the Bigma vs. a replacement standard lense (still stuck with the standard 18-55. Yuck!) and am thinking that my hard earned cash would be better spent on an upgrade at this end. I also noticed that I can nearly buy a 28-105 USM and a 100-300 USM Canon for the price I was going to pay for the Bigma. This would allow me to upgrade all round instead of just the one end (super telephoto), that I may not always be able to use fully.

Tristan

But then again, do you think you will or will not stick with Canon in the long term.
Investment in lens of a Canon System is a "life" investment in one brand of body, same as Nikon.

Birddog114 wrote:But then again, do you think you will or will not stick with Canon in the long term.
Investment in lens of a Canon System is a "life" investment in one brand of body, same as Nikon.

I am certainly happy with Canon at the moment, and have not found any real reason to "jump ship" yet. In my opinion, there is very little between them. They both seem equally capable of producing extremely high quality photos.

What would be the big reason to go to Nikon?

Tristan

ozonejunkie wrote:

Birddog114 wrote:But then again, do you think you will or will not stick with Canon in the long term.
Investment in lens of a Canon System is a "life" investment in one brand of body, same as Nikon.

I am certainly happy with Canon at the moment, and have not found any real reason to "jump ship" yet. In my opinion, there is very little between them. They both seem equally capable of producing extremely high quality photos.

What would be the big reason to go to Nikon?

Tristan

Sorry, I'm not saying you're going to "jump ship", but I knew few people had a Canon 350D for 2 months and they switch to Nikon D70s, that's in the short term. I can't tell you why, people just like to try the new stuff, new toy, new GF, new BF, it's life, and you just can't stop them.

In the long term, if you invested lot of your hard earned cash into any system, whether it's Canon, Nikon, Milnolta etc... then you'll be hard to switch to other brand with something nicer than.

If you don't invest in lens for Canon System, perhaps a new Milnolta or Pentax in the next couple years, then you don't have to think hard what should you do.

Again, same as buying Sigma, resale value is worst than buying genuine Canon or Nikon lens.

I love the Canon, and am quite happy at the prospect of setting up with it.
(I wasn't trying to be provacative by the way, I hope it wasn't taken that way.)
On the side, with this forum changing over to DSLR users, does this mean you will be able to sell Canon lenses at awesome prices Birddog?

ozonejunkie wrote:I love the Canon, and am quite happy at the prospect of setting up with it.
(I wasn't trying to be provacative by the way, I hope it wasn't taken that way.)
On the side, with this forum changing over to DSLR users, does this mean you will be able to sell Canon lenses at awesome prices Birddog?

Yes, I can source for you Canon or Nikon or Sigma,

or Canon girl, Nikon Girl or sigma boy. Actually, I'm not selling anything, deals passed over from our trusted sources.
I have my own business and it's not in photography industry.

Birddog114 wrote:Yes, I can source for you Canon or Nikon or Sigma,

or Canon girl, Nikon Girl or sigma boy. Actually, I'm not selling anything, deals passed over from our trusted sources.
I have my own business and it's not in photography industry.

OK, thanks for the clarification. Sorry about that.

Tristan

ozonejunkie, go with the sigma 80-400 OS lens or the Canon 100-400 IS. Both of these lenses are keepers and can be used hand held....

Big V wrote:ozonejunkie, go with the sigma 80-400 OS lens or the Canon 100-400 IS. Both of these lenses are keepers and can be used hand held....

I am sure they are great. But a slight bit out of the price range . . .

The latest thing that I am thinking about is the 75-300 IS USM lens. Much closer to a student price range.

Tristan