The only Canon 500mm offering is about $10 per mm. Anyone using the sigma 170-500 as a poor-man's 500mm? If yes, how is the quality and useability? It is a bit less expensive and a pound lighter than the bigma 50-500.
Hi Wing.
I have the Bigma, 50-500, and the Canon 500 F 4.5. I would not under-estimate the Bigma. I have never owned the Sigma 170-500, but havent ever seen or heard too many , mentioned. I used to go to the local zoo often, with a friend, who had the 170-500 Sigma. He never seemed to happy with it. I rather vote for the extra 120 MM, even though its really not to sharp, at 50MM. I can tell you my Bigma , used properly, is tough to beat. Just my opinion, from my experience.
Good Luck
Harry
thanks. I'm not too concern about anything below 300m as I would likely use my canon 70-300IS for its relative sharpness and its much lighter weight. But for those very specific situations when I am at 500mm all day is when I would use this poor-man's 500. And on these situations, I am usually shooting wildlife and possibly birds in flight, so the 170-500 may focus too slow for these situations while the bigma may give me too much workout. At a $1,000 price point, the Canon 400 f5.6 with extenders is not out of the question either.
The Bigma was my first long lens 5 years ago. I have researched and played with both the 170-500 and the Bigma before I made my decision to go for the Bigma. My decision was based on mainly the build qulaity (Ex), AF speed (HSM), and balance of the lens. My suggestion for you is to ignore the price difference (relative insignificant) of the 170-500 & the Bigma, and make a decision after you have done more research and have had a chance to shoot with the lenses a bit in the store if possible.
I have been using mostly my 500f4IS for a few years now. As mentioned, I am still amazed about some of the images from the Bigma and I would like to think that I could probably do a bit better today as a photographer with the same lens. If you do everything right, the 'cheapie' 500mm Bigma can still deliver some very nice images. Btw, I still have my Bigma .
I use the Canon 400mm f/5.6L with a black Kenko 1.4x converter - with the black converter you still have AF because it doesn't report full info to the camera. If it is the far end of the Bigma you are wanting, this might be a good option. The 400/5.6 alone is very sharp, and w/ the 1.4x it is still pretty sharp with good light, though I have noticed the keeper rate goes down a little (and I can handhold at 400/5.6 but after putting on the converter -> 560mm f/8 I almost always use a tripod). This is with a 30D (1.6x crop)
Look at either the Sigma 50-500, Tamron 200-500, or as breenj said, the Canon 400 with a 1.4x. I really love my Canon glass so I would look at the 400 route myself but I did own the Tamron for a short time and it was ok in good lighting.
Sigma 170-500 is in the same league as my former 135-400=not very good at longer focal lenghts. Bigma (50-500) is vastly superior according to some tests I've seen.
I've tried quite a few approaches to "get to 500," including TCs, primes, and zooms. After a couple of years of experimenting, I got a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 and haven't looked back. It'll be my long lens until I can afford the Canon 600mm one day.
The Sigma 500mm f/4.5 is not cheap--it goes for about $2400 used--but it's less than half the price of the Canon and it performs wonderfully. If I had to choose a cheaper solution, it would be the Bigma, which is good, but the image quality is not in the same league and the Bigma is slow at f/6.3. f/4.5 at 500mm is no slouch.
Even though a digital image consists of pixels and it would seem that magnifying such an image is not worthwhile, things are not that straightforward. With good algorithms, like those in Photoshop and other image processing programs, the results are quite good. But only if the original image is sharp.
Hence, a sharp 400mm lens can produce better detail than a soft 500mm lens. By scaling the 400mm image to 125% will produce an image with an equal scale - but with a wider field of view. If the 400mm lens produces 25% sharper images than the 500mm lens, the resulting image is also sharper! And such a difference is not at all uncommon between a prime and a zoom.
Hence, if you are looking for maximum reach at a budget, don't overlook 400mm solutions. Two that come to my mind are the Canon 400f5.6L and 300f4L IS + 1.4x TC. Surprisingly enough, Photozone tests say that the 300+1.4 is sharper at the center than the 400. There could be some sample variation, but in any case, all 500mm zooms end up at the same area, in terms of detail.
Photozone tests show the sharpness in terms of line widths per picture height. If you take into account the focal length, you can calculate "line width per target detail". That makes it possible to compare lenses in terms of actual detail that they resolve, when the camera stays at the same location. This is a typical use case for a long telephoto - for one reason or another, you just are not able to get any closer.
Hence, 300f4L IS + 1.4x resolves like a 382mm prime (at f5.6 which is its best aperture!) while the Tamron 200-500f5-6.3 resolves like a 395mm prime (at f6.3) and 416mm at f11 (the best aperture). The Sigma 50-500f4-6.3 resolves like a 379mm prime at f6.3 and 384mm prime at f8 (the best aperture). Suprisingly enough, the 400f5.6L only resolves like a 335mm prime at f5.6 and 358mm at f11. The scale is based on the 200f2.8L, which is used as a reference. The range f5.6 to f8, where it maxes out, is defined to be the reach of a 200mm prime.
Also, use a 1.6x crop camera, with the 400D/XTi being the best in terms of detail - but then you need a sharp prime to start with. However, if the speed and accuracy of autofocus is important to you, then pick a 30D. It has a slight advantage in low light, according to my experiences.
Hence, if absolute reach is important for you, pick a 400/420mm prime solution. If you need a zoom, the Tamron 200-500 seems to be the sharpest available choice.
.
by a minute...)