Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3 APO Aspherical A-mount lens reviews

reviews found: 16   
reviewer#44326 date: Jun-25-2019
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
overall: 4.2
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta - AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6
Minolta - AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 New
Minolta - AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 II
Minolta - AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 D
Tamron - 16-300 F3.5-6.3 Di II PZD MACRO
price paid:150 GBP
positive:Low cost 500mm zoom, decent performance for the price.
negative:Zoom creep, speed, the never ending worry about Sigma gears.
comment:Reading other reviews it seems that I am one of a crowd - like most reviewers I bought this lens as an affordable alternative to something better. I am not a birder or aviation fanatic, I just wanted to go beyond 300mm occasionally. A Dyxum user rating of 4.35 gave me confidence that it wasn't going to be a turkey - or be the best lens I have ever owned. I have to say that it fully met my expectations - a decent lens, okay for occasional use, but not really up to scratch for dedicated birders etc.
The one aspect that took me a little by surprise was just how long 170mm is, it takes some getting used to pointing the thing in the right direction, my first problems with birds in flight is finding them!
A common aspect of zooms is that they tend to perform best in the mid range, less well at the extremes - which is always a disappointment even though I expect it. However, it does outperform my 300mm zooms from 250mm or so and does pretty well up to 450mm(ish). It is slow though, it needs plenty of light to show at its best. AF is unexceptional, it gets there most of the time, but could never be described as snappy. I have used it handheld but more with a monopod.
Zoom creep is manageable with a lens band (I use charity wristbands) otherwise it is more race than creep.
All in all a decent lens for occasional use - exactly what I bought it for. I'd like better, but not enough to pay for it.
reviewer#44034 date: Mar-20-2018
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta 75-300, 100-300, 100-300 APO
Sony 55-200, 55-300, 18-250, 70-400
MF primes 300, 350, 450, 500
MF Mirror lenses 300, Tamron 500 (55B & 55BB)
price paid:£180
positive:Maximum Focal length
Sharpness
Removable tripod mount
Not that heavy for the FL.
negative:Slow AF
Heavy for hand-holding
Slow at the long end
Quite long MFD (though not the longest I've used).
Zoom creep if you hand-hold it.
comment:Handling: It's the heaviest lens I have by quite a long way, but it's also the only AF lens I have over 300mm and AF lenses reaching 500mm are not that light. It has a very good tripod mount which rotates, locks, and is easily removable for hand holding. Mine came in a very nice (original?) soft bag which is strong and well-padded and makes a good transit bag.
The bayonet lens hood is a little loose (I added some tape) and reverses onto the lens which is useful. I didn't notice a lot of flare or veiling without it, though.
On a tripod with a pan & tilt head it seems well balanced with a big camera like the A900 on it.
Sharpness: I'd echo Roo's comments. If you test it the way you test any other lens isn't as sharp as some, but the longest lenses never are. In comaprative tests over a fixed distance it gave sharper results than any of the xx-300mm zooms I have and at 500mm results were almost as sharp as the Tamron 500mm mirrors (which are very sharp), but of course the Sigma has AF which makes it a whole lot less difficult to get a sharp result (MF lenses can be a bit hit-and-miss). I have several long film-era MF present primes which I've also used for birding, and this beats them all except for weight.
I've had good results birding with this, especially with tripod, but if the light is good then hand-holding with IBIS on can work well but I wouldn't want to do that for long unless I can build my muscles back up! But carrying the tripod around with the camera and lens still fitted is actually quite easy. Interestingly enough, I didn't find any problems leaving IBIS switched on when mounted on a tripod, unlike shorter lenses.
The lens seems quite good in the corners with little CA, and is quite useable fully open. I got some very nice moon shots with it, and at 500mm found not a lot of difference between f6.3, f8, and f10. MFD is a bit on the long side and more than ocne I've had to lift it off the tripod and mvoe back when an enthusiastic bird comes too close, but for more wary birds like Kingdishers it's fine. I tried the 70-400 SOny in a shop and quite liked it, and that's very sharp too.

It's by far the cheapest zoom available in its length, and on a tripod will give better results than any of the 300mm lenses, but it's not the casually carried lens like some of the others are. If you need something of this size and don't have much money to spare, it's a good choice.
Oh, I should say that my copy has no MF due to a freely-spinning MF ring, but that hasn't been an issue for me as the AF works well. AF is a trifle slow, like most long lenses, and AF definitely works better on the A900 than the A58.
reviewer#28609 date: Jun-16-2016
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 3
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sigma 120-400 f4.5-5.6 APO HSM
Sony 18-250 f3.5-6.3
price paid:$150
positive:Light for the length
Price
Surprisingly sharp
negative:Creep
Build quality
Noisy and slow AF
Very long minimum length
comment:I don't know why I bought this. I'm not a big fan of Sigma; I've had a 70-300mm and a 400mm AF strip gears on me and another get fungus within months. And I already have the 120-400mm. Price is really the only reason I can think of- it was tough to pass up 500mm of almost mint lens with a Dyxum rating above 4 for about $150.
Once I unpacked it my first impressions were not good; it is hard to believe that only 3 years and .05 on Dyxum ratings separate this from the 120-400mm. It has chronic zoom creep, and it doesn't even have the basic short-end lock of the comparison lenses. It looks plasticky and the barrel feels like plumbers' PVC piping. In appearance it's a dinosaur from another era: skinny barrel and massive hood. I'm used to the versatility of the 18-250mm and I've always felt that the short end of the 120-400mm is way too long for a modern zoom (we can't all afford a 70-400mmG or even the Sigma 50-500mm), so 170mm is even worse. Oh, and the 86mm front element means that if I want a decent polariser it'll cost about half the price of the lens!
So, was the extra 100mm worth $150?
Surprisingly, yes. 100mm more length is not to be sneezed at, especially for birds. It's lighter than the 400mm. Sure, it hunts like a hungry honey-badger and the AF, compared to the HSM on the newer lens, sounds like truck traffic. But once you have the subject in focus it takes a damn fine image, and the rating begins to makes sense. I went out into the garden, and at full length, in tricky light, handheld, got some sharp pictures of nesting barbets. The high contrast shots show no CA at all, and with the big hood, no evidence of flare. As another reviewer has pointed out, even the creep can be turned into a positive, allowing for push-pull zooming more quickly than turning the ring.
Will I use it instead of the 400mm? Not often, but it's not bad for a backup. It'll certainly be on the spare camera on the game park trips, at least until I can afford that 70-400mm!
reviewer#11730 date: Mar-17-2014
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.4
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:- Minolta AF 100-300 Xi
- Minolta AF 75-300 Big Beercan
- Sony AF 75-300
- Cosina 60-300
- Tokina AF 400mm F5.6
price paid:270 GBP used ebay
positive:- Very sharp from 170 to maybe 400mm.
- Pretty sharp at 500mm if stopped down and focused correctly.
- Low CA if focused correctly.
- Can AF on birds on flight.
- Light enough for hand holding and walking around for a day.
- Good image quality on A580.
- Zoom creep can be used as push-pull zoom.
- Cheap for 500mm.
negative:- Low image quality on A700.
- Focus ring is heavy and not smooth making MF quite difficult.
- No focus limiter.
comment:People complain about the zoom creep but this problem can easily be avoided using a band, string etc. The zoom creep can actually be utilized as push-pull zooming. This is quite useful to capture small objects like birds and insects in the finder, which are not very easy to capture at 500mm, on wide end and zoom in by pulling the end of the lens. This is actually a varifocal lens and not strictly a zoom lens in that the focus changes (a little bit) with zooming in or out. But once you capture an object and focus on it, zooming in with AF-C will keep it in focus. Pulling action will help keep the axis of the lens straight to the object while rotating zoom ring tends to misalign the lens.

Optically, I think this lens is pretty good. At 500mm it produces lots of rubbish but it creates some of decent images as well when stopped down to F9-11. I think that means the lens is optically good and something other than optics is wrong in those low quality images. It is very likely slight out-focusing.

There is CA (color fringing) in out-focused images but almost no visible CA in correctly focused images. IMH, for a telephoto lens, low CA is almost as important as being sharp. This lens is good in this regard as well.

With A700 this lens required very good light to produce a good image but with A580 I feel like the lens has a new life. A better sensor definitely help in not-so-good light situations.

AF is not fast but my A580 manages to focus birds in flight with simple background like sky or water. On the other hand, focusing on bird on a branch of a tree can be a nightmare. AF locks on branch almost all the time, and without DMF on camera side, switching to MF cannot be done in a smooth&quick action. On my copy focus ring is not smooth and heavy at some places so MF is very difficult.
reviewer#10315 date: Jun-20-2012
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Beercan
Sony 75-300
price paid:300 USD (used)
positive:Cheap
500mm
Weight
Reasonably sharp wide open.
negative:No focus limiter
MFD (almost 10 ft!)
Slow.
comment:For the price that I paid for it, I have no complaints.
The big advantage is obviously the long end.
It is reasonably stopped at 500mm and wide open and I'm happy. I don't expect the same performance from this lens as my 85mm/1.4 GD. Neither should you.

I got sharp images at 1/80s, thanks to SSS at 500mm f/6.3.
At f/8 and f/11 it is remarkably sharp but obviously not as good as the 70-400G.

Focus hunts a bit in low light but that's common to lot of other cheap zooms.
It is a slow lens, though, and I think it hits f/6.3 by 250mm or so. This is a good daylight/bright light lens but not suitable for hand held indoor low light shots. But then one would need to be quite inexperienced to expect that kind of performance from this lens.
The immediately obvious uses of this lens is for birding, airshows, sports, moonshots etc. I haven't used it on my A700 (yet) but I'm expecting quicker focus locking than my A100. Still, it could be a little slow for airshows, sports etc unless you pre-focus and shoot.
I don't have a problem hand holding at 500mm even at 1/80s.
On the whole, I am very satisfied. Check out some of the sample images I have posted.
reviewer#7571 date: Jun-15-2010
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.2
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sony 18-70mm Kitlens
Sony 55-200mm Kitlens
Sigma 105mm macro

price paid:375 euro (second hand)
positive:Cheap
Good quality for little mony
negative:Slow and noisy focus
Heavy but not so heavy as the Sony 70-400mm G
comment:I have this lens 1 year now and yesterday i got my first G lens (sal 70400). I can see clearly now. But to begin with it is a good lens.

And now i sold him. Because i only use the sal70400.
reviewer#7375 date: Apr-28-2010
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:
missing
price paid:
missing
positive:Long reach, lighter then more modern editions (eg 150 500 HSM). Useable IQ but stopping down helps.
negative:Heavy lens, needs a lot of light. Slow focussing
comment:
missing
reviewer#7126 date: Mar-20-2010
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.6
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Tokina 100-300 F4 Big Beercan
price paid:470.00
positive:Inexpensive. Focal Range. Compact for a 500mm tele.
negative:Zoom Creep. No Focus Limiter. Awkward MF due to focus ring at rear of lens. My copy doesn't really get sharp until F10 but, is usbale at F7.1
comment:I bought this lens, off Ebay, for some extra focal length now that I have the "birding bug". Just have had it one week and am pleased with it so far. Adjusting to the narrower field of view and slower AF, compared to my Tokina, will take some time. FYI... I handhold 90% of the time but, I am a stronger man also.

My biggest gripe is having to shoot at F10-F14 for really sharp images. For the money I paid I should complain too much about the F Stop issue but, I will. And so, under the best conditions I shoot at ISO 320-500 to balance shutter speeds of 1/1000th to freeze BIF's.

The F Stop is relative to the focal length you are shooting at too. The closer I am to my subject the lower I can leave my F Stop at. I'll be sure to post an update down the road some. If you are looking for an inexpensive, longer focal length birding lens, this might be a good place to start.
reviewer#6811 date: Jan-23-2010
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
overall: 4.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Beercan
Minolta 100-200
Minolta 75-300 D
sigma 70-300 APO
Minolta 100-300 APO
Minolta 500 Reflex
price paid:
missing
positive:Affordable 500mm
Good sharpness at f9-f11
negative:No zoom lock
No limit switch
comment:I managed to pick up a mint boxed 170-500mm for very little cash, at first I thought it was soft, but as I got used to handling the lens it showed me I was mistaken - loads of examples of great images of motorsport and aviation plus wildlife on flikr etc had made me think it could be me.......

Maximum Sharpness is there at f9-f11, I tested it in real life conditions(but all tripod mounted) against the Beercan, Minolta 100-200, Minolta 75-300D, Sigma 70-300Apo, Minolta 100-300Apo and to my surprise at f9-f11 it was a crisp and clear winner, it gets softer above 460-480mm so if you can back off a touch all the better.

It has that very slight Sigma yellow cast to my eye and it does not have fantastic contrast, which can give a slightly washed out and soft look at times - easily tweaked in pp

Af is good in good light, but it can take a long time to go from infinity and back in low light, tracking BIF is ok on fine days, but to be honest I leave it at home if too dull and I want to shoot wildlife as I can travel a lot lighter then.

Build quality is very good but there is no limit switch sadly and also no zoom lock, the supplied hood does a great job and offers good protection for the front element as a bonus.It takes 86mm filters, I shoot without one and always use the hood.
Make sure you get the tripod collar with your lens as its OK for short periods of hand holding, but its a large lens and a tripod/monopod gives you more consistant results.

I would recommend it as an affordable mid range lens for aviation, motorsport and wildlife at sensible distances as it seems a bit softer at infinity - it is slightly more forgiving for man made objects compared to how critical the eye can be for birds etc. to steal someone elses quote "its the last stop before big money" for a 500mm lens.

This is just my personal opinion on my lens and there may be sample variation.
reviewer#4755 date: Jan-28-2009
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.2
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sigma 70-300 4.5-6 Apo Macro
price paid:375 USD (used)
positive:Inexpensive
Lightweight
Well-built
Reasonably Sharp when stopped down
negative:Very large
Zoom creep
comment:While this lens certainly pales in comparison to the faster $1000+ lenses out there, it's still a pretty good value.

It's sharpness degrades somewhat at 500mm and it works best when stopped down to about F/8. This should be expected for a zoom lens at this price range.

It is substantially sharper than the Sigma 70-300 APO, even at 500mm, which surprised me, as I have been very happy with that lens.

The AF is quieter and faster than the 70-300 (and the Sony 18-70 kit lens) but it definitely hunts in low light or at full zoom.

The construction feels very solid, despite being mostly plastic. When mounted the lens and camera feel like a single piece, which is very reassuring.

When pointed down, the zoom has a tendency to extend, so I have to be careful when carrying it out of the case.

Speaking of the case, this lens is huge - much to large to fit in my normal walkabout camera bag, so I have to carry a separate case for it. Often I know that I'll be using this lens exclusively (shooting birds nesting, for example) so I can leave the rest of my kit in the car. But if I'm not sure what lens I'll need, it's a hassle to carry an extra case along just for this lens.

Overall, this is a nice lens that falls into a much-neglected middle ground between small zooms (70-300) and truly big glass (400mm F/4). Many people advise to wait until you can afford the big glass, but that's not always feasible.

If sharpness is all that matters, then you should spend 4-5 times as much on a long prime. But if you're willing to sacrifice a little sharpness for affordability, this lens is a good option.
reviewer#2265 date: May-6-2007
sharpness: 2.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.1
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Beercan
Minolta 75-300
Sigma 135-400
price paid:Ł300 (used)
positive:Cheap
negative:Very Soft
comment:I have owned this lens along with the 135-400 a few months now and would rather take the 135-400 and crop the images. I find the lens is always soft and personally have never had an image that I would consider a keeper.
reviewer#1484 date: Nov-28-2006
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:
missing
price paid:Ł200 on e-bay
positive:Very sharp throughout range
robust build
extremely good for African wildlife
negative:prone to zoom creep
sometimes slow to focus
comment:I bought this lens on e-bay to take on safari to Tanzania and Kenya with my 5D and couldn't have made a better purchase.
It performed really well handheld and rested on roof of landrover (took tripod but had no chance to use it). Coped extremely well with the inevitable dust and none seems to have been sucked inside the lens.
Took well over 1,000 shots. Found that I could see more through the lens than most of my companions saw through their binoculars.
I also used a 70-300mm Sigma APO lens for when on walks in bush as the big lens was rather heavy. Took a Dimage A2 as well which, with its 28-200mm fixed lens, was great for wider angle work.
On the African plains I found that an aperture of F8 worked best under most conditions. I didn't get the chance to shoot a high speed chase but had I done so I think that opening up as wide as possible would have been my best course.
While the performance is not quite upto the same standard as Minolta G series of prime lens it does come close to the pictures I have seen taken with those.
For anyone looking for a reasonable cost wildlife lens I couldn't recommend this more highly.

Now I have tested it on the A100 I am even more impressed with its performance and sharpness
reviewer#788 date: May-15-2006
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.4
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I have experience with this lens
compared to:
missing
price paid:
missing
positive:Superzoom range.
negative:Is a bit soft on 7D.
Slow AF.
comment:I bought this lens used last year, and have been happy with it for the most part. It is adequate, but not perfect. It is slow to respond in AF mode, and the manual focusing ring is not very precise because it has too much play. I have gotten some nice bird shots with it, though. The images are soft on my 7D, and much sharper on my 800si film body. Chromatic aberration is also noticable on the 7D and non-existant on the 800si.
reviewer#512 date: Feb-16-2006
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 3
distortion: 4
flare control: 3
overall: 3.6
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I used to own this lens
compared to:
missing
price paid:$NZ400.00 (used)
positive: having a 500mm lens is cool
negative:very slow AF.
comment:Colour tends to be a little cool. AF is just to slow to use for action especially at 500mm. Images can be soft at 500mm if they are focused at infinity of way of in the distance. Have done some great moon shots hand held on the 7D (need slight cropping after)
reviewer#414 date: Jan-19-2006
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.9
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I have experience with this lens
compared to:Sigma 50-500
Canon 100-400L IS
price paid:
missing
positive:Image quality
value/price
Build quality
negative:no zoom lock
comment:I've owned & used both Sigma 50-500 and Canon 100-400L IS on my Rebel XT and used the Sigma 170-500 on my KM 7D.
The Sigma 170-500 I have is not the latest DG version and I bought it new for $300. IMHO the DG does not provide any significant benefit on this (telephoto) lens.

The 170-500 is every bit as sharp if not sharper than the 50-500 and appeared to have better contrast than the 50-500.

Neither the 170-500 or the 50-500 were as sharp as the Canon 100-400L, but it was only evident on 100% crops.

Of course the Canon costs 5 times as much as what I paid for the 170-500.

When using the lens with my 7D, I was pleasantly surprised (shocked is a better word) that handheld shots @ 500mm were very sharp (it was freezing cold and I was shaking so bad I thought there was no way the pics were going to be any good).
I would highly recommend this lens.
reviewer#158 date: Oct-17-2005
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I have experience with this lens
compared to:Quantaray 100-300
price paid:
missing
positive:Bought new on Ebay for $300. Feels great, works great.
negative:AF could be faster. There is some "seek".
comment:This is a great 500mm for $300 on Ebay new. At that price I couldn't refuse.
reviews found: 16   

rating summary

lens image
  • total reviews: 16
  • sharpness: 4.16
  • color: 4.19
  • build: 4.25
  • distortion: 4.63
  • flare control: 4.50
  • overall: 4.34

to add your review
you need to login

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer
In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania