I currently take pictures of my son's baseball games, and was looking for an additional tele-photo lens to get some better closes ups. Currently use Cannon EOS rebel with sigma 100-300(f4.5-6.7) DL lens and 400 Kodak Royal Gold film and sometimes Fuji Superia. Was looking at either the SIGMA AF170-500 F5-6.3 APO ASP EOS or SIGMA AF 135-400 F4.5-5.6 APO-ASP EOS or should I just get a better quality 100-300. Again, I just do this as a hobby for myself and usually give away the photos to the other kid's parents. Any advice is welcomed.

-- Mike Johnson (golferat@bellsouth.net), December 02, 2001

Answers

get the canon 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 zoom. it has great image quality and super fast ring-usm focusing. anything over 300 and you will want some kind of support like a mono or trypod and i dont think you want to waste your time at your son's game fooling with that stuff.

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), December 02, 2001.

If you have nice sunshine the Sigma 170-500 is a very good and sharp lens. But needs much light because of it's F5-6.3. I owned one until August but sold it because I bought some faster Canon L lenses. If it's a budget decision there is nothing wrong with the Sigma lens. Keep in mind that it doesn't use USM or HSM autofocus. The build of the lens is very good (metall and very little plastic). In different reviews in german photo magazines the 170-500 always got better results as the 135-400. If you need the 500mm lenght go for the Sigma, if 300mm is enough go for the Canon 100-300. Or try to get a Canon 2.8/70-200L second hand and a combine it with the Canon 2x converter.

-- Martin (uboot67@yahoo.com), December 05, 2001.

You really have to look at what you are expecting from a lens. If all you are going to do is 4x6 prints, a few slides to show friends, and an occasional 8x10 enlargement the Sigma 170-500 will be more than adequate for your needs. I've taken shots with it that I cropped to half frame and still got decent 8x10 prints.

For the cost differential between it and the 135-400 the extra reach is well worth it, expecially for baseball.

If you're happy with your ability to get the picture with your current relatively slow 100-300 then the speed of the 170-500 won't be an issue. I've used it at night football games using 3200 film but that is really asking for a lot from the lens - it really is a daylight lens only.

Another thing to consider is there is a huge difference between using a 300mm and 500mm lens. While it's possible to effectively hand hold a small 300mm the 500mm will require a monopod or tripod (I suggest a monopod for sports).

One more issue to think about is the autofocus speed. The 170-500 does not have HSM (Sigma's answer to Canon's USM) so it does not AF real fast. That said I also own the Canon 75-300IS USM and the Sigma will AF as fast as it, but they are both much slower than my Canon 28-135. If you're happy with the AF speed of your current 100-300 you won't be giving up anything.

The following links are to images taken with a Sigma 170-500 on either an Elan IIe or an EOS-3. The last 3 also had a 1.4x TC attached. You can decide for yourself if the quality of the image is adequate for your needs - nobody else can make that decision.

The hydroplane images were the first time I had shot these fast boats and as a result is was a learning experience for me. Panning with a long lens is an art form it itself and takes some time to master. The softness in some of these pictures is a result of my technique and not a shortcoming of the lens.

Hydro 1
Hydro 2
Hydro 3
Hydro 4
Hydro 5
Hydro 6
Hydro 7
Bear
Bird
Bird
Prairie Dog
Giraffe< br> Zebra


-- Dick Tope (RTope@yahoo.com), December 06, 2001.