I need your advice!

[EDDF89]

Hello guys!

I'm having currently a problem with buying a new lens, first I wanted to buy the 70-200 f/4, but here in Germany there's a big problem concerning the availability of this lens. It is supposed not to be available until the end of this year (there's still a cashback auction until the end of 2005). Now I'm thinking of saving some more cash up for a lens with a greater focal length. I thought of the 100-400 L (too expensive) and the Sigma 50-500mm.

And here's my question: Is the Sigma 50-500 lens a good alternative for the 100-400L? Anybody with some experiences maybe?

Thanks in advance

Michael

[Greg Wilson]

Michael

No.
The sigma 50-500 can be a very badly built lens and the problem is there is a marked difference between the best and worst.
Does Sigma themselves have an office in Germany.If not you will be working through an agent as we do here,another hurdle to overcome.
Direct contact with Sigma in Japan left me wondering about their knowledge and customer service.
I researched and tested this lens prior to purchase.The lens tested was part of a kit containing a 2X,so another lens was ordered for me.......................and i got the lemon.My 75-300 APO Sigma outperforms by a large margin my 50-500.
Also bear in mind this is a lens that struggles in less than optimum light conditions.
Vignetting is a major issue and starts arround the 320 mm mark,and when I say major,... it's major
You will have others that say it is a brilliant lens,and I agree some are,but be careful and certainly test the one you will actually purchase

[Tanner_J]

I have the 70-200 f4 and absolutely love it. The photos are crisp and clear; only thing I wish was that I would have gone for the f2.8 version for the extra f-stop since I shoot mainly sports and hardly aviation.

If you're just going to use the 100-400 for just aviation then go ahead. But let's say you're shooting sports at 400mm at night; unless you're in a professional or college stadium/arena you'll probably have a hard time at f5.6. Just my two cents worth.

[medic1]

If you only need in the range of 200mm, then I would say get the 70-200 2.8, which will cost you about the same as getting the 50-500 and less than the 100-400 IS.

The 70-200 is a great lens (all 3 versions of it).

[Peter Lund]

Hi
I have last month ordered a Sigma 170-500mm to my Nikon D70. I havenīt got it yet, but that is because that they are making a "new" objective designed for digital.

As soon as I get it, I will test it and post a picture or two.

I really look forward to try it.

Peter

[seahawk]

I would llike to point out the Sigma 100-300 f4 HSM, I heard only good things about it. Should outperfom the 50-500 by a healthy margin and might even be very close to the 100-400 Canon (which I honestly do not know).

[B7772ADL]

Get a bad 100-400 and it's performance can be as bad as any cheapo lens. The IS on mine failed early on and had to be replaced and it now has major softness issues at anything over 300mm. It's beginning to annoy me slightly and the 70-200 f2.8 LIS and 1.4x combo is looking a much better alternative.