Sigma 175-500 vs Bigma 50-500

[VAV]

Hello, I am considering getting of these lenses (Sigma 175-500 vs Sigma 5--500) for wildlife/treks etc and would appreciate your inputs comparing these two for image quality. The Sigma 175-500 is cheaper - I have been offered this lens for about half the price of the Bigma (currently around US$1,000) and am trying to decide which lens I should go for.

Thanks for your inputs,
VAV

[offertonhatter]

Go for the Bigma (50-500). I have the 170-500, and to be perfectly honest, it is not my favourite by any means, too soft, and too slow. The Bigma however is heavier, but it has far better optics.
I know a few people who have the Bigma (on Canon and Nikon) and really like them. So for me, the extra expense for the Bigma is well worth it over the 170-500.

Hope this helps.

[Canada_Rockies]

Originally Posted by offertonhatter

Go for the Bigma (50-500). I have the 170-500, and to be perfectly honest, it is not my favourite by any means, too soft, and too slow. The Bigma however is heavier, but it has far better optics.
I know a few people who have the Bigma (on Canon and Nikon) and really like them. So for me, the extra expense for the Bigma is well worth it over the 170-500.

Hope this helps.

I can confirm the softness of the 170-500 Sigma. I bought one in Chicago, where I was living a few years ago, and compared the image quality with my ancient M 400/5.6 - no contest. I sold the Sigma off at a large loss and kept the M.

I also found that AF and birds in trees = out of focus birds, in focus branches, but MF is not a problem in my world. The ability to zoom between 170 and 500, rather than "foot zooming" the 400 was very attractive.