Sigma 170-500mm lens

[Girevik]

I'm considering getting a Sigma170-500 for use with my D70 and wanted to see if anyone here has used it and what you think of it.

I would probably use it mostly for sports, usually when I'm in the stands, which leads me to a couple of questions. Is it too large to use in a crowded stadium with a mono-pod, and is it fast enough to get good pictures in a lighted stadium at a night game?

I'm planning on going to watch the Buckeys in the championship game in January, and I'm AWFULLY tempted to get the lens for the trip.

[Nikonfreak]

First thing I would do is check with the stadium where you'll be attending the game.* Many venues will not allow lenses over a certain size, both for safety reasons and for licensing agreements with their in house photographer(s) or they'll say you are not allowed in with "professional" looking cameras.

My second point would be that an f/5-6.3 lens is NOT going to be fast enough to shoot sports at a night game.* You just won't be able to get the shutter speed high enough under stadium lights IMO.* f/4 you might (big maybe) be able to get away with, but f/6.3 I don't believe will cut it as you're going to need to get the shutter speed up there even just considering the reciprocal of focal length rule.* 1/500 at full extension f/6.3 I just don't see you getting there with f/6.3 at a night game.*

Julio

www.pbase.com/loansharkx

[cyclohexane]

For a night game, even f/2.8 is only enough when the lighting's real nice and pretty. f/6.3 is definitely a no go.

Not to mention, if you're in the stands, I doubt they'll let you carry something that big in, but you never know. Some stadiums have zero restrictions, but those are few and far between.

[rootrider]

that all said too.. why aren't you looking at the 50-500? It's probably the best 500mm zoom lens for under $1k. You're still dealing with a very small aperture lens though.
Also note that the 170-500mm isn't an HSM lens.. so your D70 will have to drive that focus system rather than letting the lens do the job.

The Sigma 100-300 f/4 is a slightly better option (better image quality.. but less zoom). Honestly though, you're simply not going to get something that's 300mm or more with a wide enough aperture for you to take acceptable night action shots.

If you're only shooting in daylight with good sunlight then you'll be okay with one of those cheaper lenses. But a cloudy day at f/6.3 and 500mm isn't going to give you very nice shutter speeds.

[Nikonfreak]

Right you are Root.

When I had the Bigma (Sigma 50-500) and the D100, I used to shoot it at ISO 400 as a starting point, even on bright days.

He's also right, it's the best 500mm you can get below $1,000 USD. It's better than you'd expect, though you'll find that there's a distance factor in where it kind of loses it's ability to resolve detail and gets a little muddy depending on focal length used. You'll also probably never use the lens at 50-150mm. She's a big 'un.

Julio

www.pbase.com/loansharkx

[Girevik]

Originally Posted by rootrider

that all said too.. why aren't you looking at the 50-500? It's probably the best 500mm zoom lens for under $1k.

I looked at the 50-500, but kind of decided that I didn't need that wide range of zoom. If I'd be shooing below 170, I'd probably be using one of my other lenses anyway, so for the extra $350 I figured it wasn't necessary.

I already have a lens that zooms to 210 and one to 300 (I've use the 210 to take pictures at night baseball games with good success) - I've always wanted one that would REALLY get me in there tight.

[badpickev]

the difference in lens quality between the 170-500 and the 50-500 is noticeable. you also will be surprised at what you can shoot with a 50mm f4 lens.

here are some ball game shots.

28-75 f2.8

http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,12061.0.html

sigma 50-500, details in the exif

http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,12355.0.html

[Nikonfreak]

If you are considering between the 170-500 and the 50-500, believe me, the difference is noticeable and you would probably want to shoot with the 50-500.

take a look at this review.

http://www.lonestardigital.com/Sigma_50-500.htm

Trust me, hold off, save up and get the lens you are really going to want. There's no point in settling for an option that you aren't going to be happy with in the long run.

Julio

www.pbase.com/loansharkx

[Girevik]

Hmmm - I guess I'll have to hold off a bit then.* Sounds like the 50-500 is a better lense, but probably a bit more than I'm wanting to spend right now (especially since I'd probably need a new tripod for it as well).* Oh well, I guess I'll keep dreaming.

Thanks for all the input!

[rootrider]

the 50-500 is an EX lens with HSM.. the range is insane, but they actually do pack a rather insane amount of quality in there (as has been mentioned), especially considering that zoom range and price.

With Sigma, there's often a big difference in quality between their EX lenses and their regular lenses.