Sigma APO 170-500mm F5-6.3 DG ---- Yay or Nay?

[superwaxer]

Hey guys,

Im looking at bying me a new Sigma APO 170-500mm F5-6.3 DG for about $300 (NZD) cheaper than retail price. I always wanted a 500mm lens but now that I've finally found one Im getting cold feet.

You can have a look at the lens here.

I found that when shooting birds etc. at 300mm its very hard to keep still. Does this mean that when I buy the 500mm I definitely need a monopod? And is it really worth paying that money for an extra 200mm focal length?

Any advice will be appreciated.

[NSXType-R]

Well have you read reviews about the lens first? Is it amazing?

[superwaxer]

Well have you read reviews about the lens first? Is it amazing?

Ive read a few but they dont tell me what I really wanna know. I dont know whether its worth laying down the extra buck for another 200mm focal length. I have very little experience with 500mm lenses so im unsure whether its worth it or not.

Thanks

[zeppelin]

If you plan on doing a lot of distance photography, it'll be worth spending the money on the extra 200mm. First try to think how often you shoot at your current maximum, and how often you find yourself needing/wanting more. If it's often, it'll be worth it the investment.

As for a monopod/tripod, I personally have trouble keeping the shots still with my 300mm, so it's likely you'll need something to stabilize the shots if it's already difficult at 300mm for you.

[superwaxer]

If you plan on doing a lot of distance photography, it'll be worth spending the money on the extra 200mm. First try to think how often you shoot at your current maximum, and how often you find yourself needing/wanting more. If it's often, it'll be worth it the investment.

As for a monopod/tripod, I personally have trouble keeping the shots still with my 300mm, so it's likely you'll need something to stabilize the shots if it's already difficult at 300mm for you.

Great advice. Thanks

[coolieman1220]

have fun lighting up, pretty low aperture but thats expected with such a lens. i had trouble being steady at 300mm. VR makes a huge difference at 500 you'll def need something more especially if your using low shutter speeds.

[superwaxer]

have fun lighting up, pretty low aperture but thats expected with such a lens. i had trouble being steady at 300mm. VR makes a huge difference at 500 you'll def need something more especially if your using low shutter speeds.

So would you rather suggest I save up for something better?

[John Thawley]

You'll definitely want to be up on a mono pod.

To your original question... 500mm is a huge difference. More than the reach, it's the compression. Once you get used to it and understand it's not just for filling up the frame, it will become the most creative piece in your arsenal. I carry three bodies typically mounted with a 500mm, a 70-200mm and either a 16-35 or 24-105. If I only take two bodies, it's the 500mm and one of the others. The 500mm in motorsports basically becomes your "normal" lens. It just changes the look of things.

[henk4]

I have done some shooting with the fixed Sigma 500, and I think it works very well. You do need a monopod though, but I am sure seasoned pros will tell you that after a while your capabilities have developed to such an extent that you can safely try doing some shooting without it, and not having to delete 99% of the shots
For the record, I have compromised on a 28-300, but I also carry a 17-40 around when going to the track and the pitlane.

[ScionDriver]

If you're shooting amateur stuff and you're not a "pro" then I would say that this lens should be plenty for a beginner. If there is something out there that is maybe $100 more and has a built in Image Stabilizer than I'd pop for that, then you don't need the monopod as the lens adjusts (usually) to some unsteadiness. 5-6.3 again should be good for most things but if you shoot a lot of sports and/or fast moving birds, then you might consider something with a slightly faster aperture, say a 2.8, but the price on those goes up about 5 times this for something that fast.

[superwaxer]

If you're shooting amateur stuff and you're not a "pro" then I would say that this lens should be plenty for a beginner. If there is something out there that is maybe $100 more and has a built in Image Stabilizer than I'd pop for that, then you don't need the monopod as the lens adjusts (usually) to some unsteadiness. 5-6.3 again should be good for most things but if you shoot a lot of sports and/or fast moving birds, then you might consider something with a slightly faster aperture, say a 2.8, but the price on those goes up about 5 times this for something that fast.

The closest thing I could find with an IS is $1000 more expensive, and with that money I can buy me 7 monopods if I need to! I do have a tripod but apparently its easier to use monopods as they are more compact and so on. Im really a general photographer and I dont really specialise in something so i cant for sure say what Im gonna take pictures of. Thanks!

[paul]

Like you say your shooting birds etc.. and generally they are very far away and small , so i would say stick with the 500 idea , some sigma glass is ok some is great but all depends on your buget... this seems good enough to me , what else did you have in mind

get a comparison going with 3 lens's in the same price range and focal length.. this way you will be sure you have chosen the right one for your type of photography..

there is enough stuff on the net about photography to be able to make a desision , but trying one out in a shop always helps..

[superwaxer]

Like you say your shooting birds etc.. and generally they are very far away and small , so i would say stick with the 500 idea , some sigma glass is ok some is great but all depends on your buget... this seems good enough to me , what else did you have in mind

get a comparison going with 3 lens's in the same price range and focal length.. this way you will be sure you have chosen the right one for your type of photography..

there is enough stuff on the net about photography to be able to make a desision , but trying one out in a shop always helps..

The closest thing I could find to this was a Canon 70-200mm f4. It was $200 more expensive and I already have a 300mm so I see no real reason (apart from the lens being a L-series lens) why this will be of any benefit for me. Thanks for the advice.

[pixalated]

I recon BUY IT! you'll love it.

[superwaxer]

I recon BUY IT! you'll love it.

Great advice pixalated. I will send you my bank account details and you can transfer me the money