Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 17, 2007, 2:01 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

I know there are one or two BIGMA owners here, but has anyone used or seen the SIGMA 170-500mm

Other than the obious zoom range difference, what else?

I really don't have the need to go down to 50mm especially considering the $400+ price difference and a good pound in weight.

Speed is the same, both are APO, etc. So anyone have any oppionos or seen reviews on the 170-500mm ?
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 18, 2007, 3:04 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Not even the BIGMA folks have no opinion??? You never considered this?
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2007, 7:37 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
bluwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 592
Default

Hi Hayward,

The only person I know that had one was one the other board that you and I used to go to. And that was Tik. He has not been on that board or posted in almost a year.

He used it on a Nikon D70. He got very good results with his. How it would work with the K10D and SR I think that it would be good.

Most people that have reveiwed it did not like it because it was too long or too heavy, or it wasn't TACK SHARP. But I never lesten to what Piexl Peepers or mesurebators say about lenses or cameras.

If you can try one berfore you buy it that would be the best thing.

Sorry I could not have been more help.

Rudy
bluwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2007, 12:57 PM   #4
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

try to find some unedited testsamples. What you want to look at in that range isn't sharpness (can be corrected in PS) but CA levels and contrast. if results are similar to the ones roger has been posting with his bigma, then I'd go for it...
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2007, 6:17 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 21
Default

I've had the 170-500mm for a couple of years now, not the DG version.
It's worked well with Digi and film. I haven't had any problems with CA/PF.
It's a bit soft at the 500mm length, nothing that can't be cured with sharpening.
The older the lens gets the more creep I have in the zoom, I work around this
by keeping it level when carried. There's a reveiw out there somewhere that compares it to other lens, C.n.n I think. It holds it's own. If I wear this one out
I'll probably buy another.
thazooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2007, 10:40 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

bluwing wrote:
Quote:
Most people that have reveiwed it did not like it because it was too long or too heavy, or it wasn't TACK SHARP. But I never lesten to what Piexl Peepers or mesurebators say about lenses or cameras.
So you don't recall anything bad at least... then again not sure I have ever heard the 50-500mm called tack sharp either.... not that I haven't seen noteworthy results from them... especially on the 10D.

As to long and heavy.... shorter than the BIGMA and a good pound lighter.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2007, 12:15 PM   #7
Member
 
macshak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 91
Default

I recently purchased the 170-500. I've only had it a few weeks now, but so far I love it. Only wish I had SR. I am using it on my DS.
macshak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2007, 10:15 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Thanks for the actual vs hypothetical experience reference.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2007, 5:26 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
wadue's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 914
Default

Just wanted to throw in my 2cents. I have had my 170-500 for about a year now & you can throw me into the "not tack sharp" pool. Granted, I have gotten some good shots with it at the zoo & such where I was happy that I had the extra length but I was really hoping for more. I'm no professional by ANY stretch but I do believe that the quality of a lense is in its glass. The 170-500 had 13 elements in 11 groups while Bigma has 20 elements in 16 groups. I realize that you are also talking about an extra 17.5 ounces (47.4 vs. 64.9) but after seeing some of the posts using Bigma (namely Roger's Camera Hunts) I wish I would have saved a while longer & gotten the 55-500. There have been some used going on Ebay for the $800-1000US range recently while the 170-500 have been going for $500-700. IMHO, Bigma is the way to go if you can swing it.

Good Luck!

Ron
wadue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2007, 12:59 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Yeah think I have decided not really worth it, as my Sigma 70-300mm with a Tam 1.4x on it is effectively ~150-630mm and does pretty darn well. for very low cost.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:53 AM.