Bigma vs 170-500

theCameraLens · 02-15-2007, 11:13 PM

Does anybody have any side by side comparisons of the Sigma 170-500 and the 50-500?

I am curious as to how the images compare to each other. Is the 170-500 better than the Bigma in terms of image quality and distortion because it is a 3X approx zoom compared to a 10X?

How do they compare wide open or stopped down a couple of stops? How do they compare at say 400mm? At what point does the Bigma reach f5.6 as the max aperture? Is it faster or slower than the 170-500 at say 200mm?

I am trying to decide if I would be better off with the Bigma or the 170-500 and the Sigma 2X APO conerter to use on my FA* 200 2.8.

Will I get noticeably better images with the 200 and converter at 400mm than either of the other two? If so is it justifiably better getting that and the 170-500 or the Bigma?

Sample images showing a comparison of the two would be ideal, but I guess that is a long shot (pun intended) as most of you won't have both.
Colin

roentarre · 02-16-2007, 12:08 AM

You can check out these two threads:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/2966-sigma-170...-thoughts.html

and

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/1727-need-help...long-lens.html

Cheers

theCameraLens · 02-16-2007, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by roentarre

You can check out these two threads:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/2966-sigma-170...-thoughts.html

and

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/1727-need-help...long-lens.html

Cheers

Thanks for the links. They were very helpful.

Colin

PeterAM · 02-16-2007, 12:15 PM

Can't help you with specific information. However, there is a fellow ( uses the handle "the hotel" ) that posts a lot of nice wildlife Bigma shots over on the Pentax Forum at DPReview. Some of his pix that I've seen on there were taken at the long and short ends of the focal length range. He's had a lot of back and forth with others about the lens that you could read through. What I found really interesting is that he uses a rifle type sight device in the camera's hotshoe, along with the lens.

dave kitson · 02-17-2007, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by theCameraLens

I am trying to decide if I would be better off with the Bigma or the 170-500 and the Sigma 2X APO conerter to use on my FA* 200 2.8.

I had the Sigma 170-500mm and traded it in for the Bigma.

I only used them in the range 400mm-500mm. In my opinion the Bigma is a bit sharper at 500mm, and auto-focussed more quickly. The Bigma is much heavier, built like the proverbial tank.

The Bokeh is not especially pleasing on either.

One thing to be aware of, is that there is no lens-lock on the 170-500 and if you carry the camera with the lens down it slowly extends and usually ended up around my knees. The Bigma has a lock to prevent this from happening.

dave

roentarre · 02-17-2007, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by dave kitson

I had the Sigma 170-500mm and traded it in for the Bigma.

One thing to be aware of, is that there is no lens-lock on the 170-500 and if you carry the camera with the lens down it slowly extends and usually ended up around my knees. The Bigma has a lock to prevent this from happening.

dave

The lens lock on bigma tends to be really loose itself. Not doing its job that well. But there is a good fill turning the zoom ring and it is not so tight or so loose.

rfortson · 02-17-2007, 04:03 PM

I just got the Bigma. I sold the 135-400 to get the Bigma. The majority of the posts I read said to get the Bigma over the 170-500, due to the zoom lock and slightly sharper shots. It does seem like the 10X zoom range would degrade the image over the ~3X zoom of the 170-500, but apparently that's not the case. I can say that the Bigma is only slightly larger than the 135-400. I like the zoom lock (mine seems tight enough) and the wide range is convenient. It does seem smoother in operation than the 135-400, and more solid in construction. It's one of Sigma's EX lenses, which IIRC is the top of their line. Here are a few shots of it on my K100D.

joele · 02-17-2007, 04:56 PM

I used to own the 135-400 (which is apprently slightly better than the 170-500) and would have to agree the 50-500 despite the longer range is actually a noticably sharper lens..

I would definately recommend the 50-500, sharper and much bigger range..

roentarre · 02-17-2007, 07:45 PM

The zoom ring is always tight to start with. After some repeated use, the zoom ring becomes very loose and then the lock is almost non-existent...

Still, bigma is a GREAT lens

02-15-2007, 11:13 PM	#1
theCameraLens New Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Portland OR Posts: 2	Bigma vs 170-500 Does anybody have any side by side comparisons of the Sigma 170-500 and the 50-500? I am curious as to how the images compare to each other. Is the 170-500 better than the Bigma in terms of image quality and distortion because it is a 3X approx zoom compared to a 10X? How do they compare wide open or stopped down a couple of stops? How do they compare at say 400mm? At what point does the Bigma reach f5.6 as the max aperture? Is it faster or slower than the 170-500 at say 200mm? I am trying to decide if I would be better off with the Bigma or the 170-500 and the Sigma 2X APO conerter to use on my FA* 200 2.8. Will I get noticeably better images with the 200 and converter at 400mm than either of the other two? If so is it justifiably better getting that and the 170-500 or the Bigma? Sample images showing a comparison of the two would be ideal, but I guess that is a long shot (pun intended) as most of you won't have both. Colin

02-17-2007, 01:43 PM	#6
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	But... Originally posted by dave kitson I had the Sigma 170-500mm and traded it in for the Bigma. One thing to be aware of, is that there is no lens-lock on the 170-500 and if you carry the camera with the lens down it slowly extends and usually ended up around my knees. The Bigma has a lock to prevent this from happening. dave The lens lock on bigma tends to be really loose itself. Not doing its job that well. But there is a good fill turning the zoom ring and it is not so tight or so loose.

02-17-2007, 07:45 PM	#9
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Zoom lock The zoom ring is always tight to start with. After some repeated use, the zoom ring becomes very loose and then the lock is almost non-existent... Still, bigma is a GREAT lens

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-5 and Sigma 170-500	apac	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	7	08-31-2011 05:01 PM
Nature Sigma 170-500 closeup lens	crewl1	Post Your Photos!	5	07-12-2011 10:56 AM
Sigma 170-500+1.4X Tamron TC	john1938	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	05-18-2011 10:22 AM
Sigma 50-500 vs 150-500 vs 170-500	juanraortiz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	10-30-2009 03:32 PM
Sigma 170-500 mm f/5-6.3 APO Aspherical AF Lens	Darius4522	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	10-15-2009 07:39 PM

02-16-2007, 12:08 AM	#2
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	You can check out these two threads: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/2966-sigma-170...-thoughts.html and https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/1727-need-help...long-lens.html Cheers

02-16-2007, 05:19 AM	#3
theCameraLens New Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Portland OR Posts: 2 Original Poster	Originally posted by roentarre You can check out these two threads: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/2966-sigma-170...-thoughts.html and https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/1727-need-help...long-lens.html Cheers Thanks for the links. They were very helpful. Colin

02-16-2007, 12:15 PM	#4
PeterAM Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Litchfield, CT Posts: 539	Can't help you with specific information. However, there is a fellow ( uses the handle "the hotel" ) that posts a lot of nice wildlife Bigma shots over on the Pentax Forum at DPReview. Some of his pix that I've seen on there were taken at the long and short ends of the focal length range. He's had a lot of back and forth with others about the lens that you could read through. What I found really interesting is that he uses a rifle type sight device in the camera's hotshoe, along with the lens.

02-17-2007, 07:11 AM	#5
dave kitson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Lichfield, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 486	Originally posted by theCameraLens I am trying to decide if I would be better off with the Bigma or the 170-500 and the Sigma 2X APO conerter to use on my FA* 200 2.8. I had the Sigma 170-500mm and traded it in for the Bigma. I only used them in the range 400mm-500mm. In my opinion the Bigma is a bit sharper at 500mm, and auto-focussed more quickly. The Bigma is much heavier, built like the proverbial tank. The Bokeh is not especially pleasing on either. One thing to be aware of, is that there is no lens-lock on the 170-500 and if you carry the camera with the lens down it slowly extends and usually ended up around my knees. The Bigma has a lock to prevent this from happening. dave

02-17-2007, 04:03 PM	#7
rfortson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,129	I just got the Bigma. I sold the 135-400 to get the Bigma. The majority of the posts I read said to get the Bigma over the 170-500, due to the zoom lock and slightly sharper shots. It does seem like the 10X zoom range would degrade the image over the ~3X zoom of the 170-500, but apparently that's not the case. I can say that the Bigma is only slightly larger than the 135-400. I like the zoom lock (mine seems tight enough) and the wide range is convenient. It does seem smoother in operation than the 135-400, and more solid in construction. It's one of Sigma's EX lenses, which IIRC is the top of their line. Here are a few shots of it on my K100D.

02-17-2007, 04:56 PM	#8
joele Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,308	I used to own the 135-400 (which is apprently slightly better than the 170-500) and would have to agree the 50-500 despite the longer range is actually a noticably sharper lens.. I would definately recommend the 50-500, sharper and much bigger range..

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search