Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DL Aspherical IF Hyoperzoom Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3 APO Aspherical Sigma 135-400mm F4.5-5.6

Which should I buy(if any of them). I would like to photgraph wildlife, nature, and all around take pics. Thanks for any help.

Robert

-- Robert Greer (jeep_88@hotmail.com), January 07, 2002

Answers

if you happened to get one, i would go for the 135-400 because of its relatively "fast" f/5.6 apeture. i believe that it is the only one that would autofocus reliably throughout its zoom range.

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), January 07, 2002.

I had the 28-300, and when used on my EOS 3 it consistantly registered 5.6 at the long end. I liked it for its fantastic versatility, but I use Canon primes now and wouldn't go back. My wife uses it now on her Rebel 2000 and it indicates 5.6 there as well. She loves it because she never has to change lenses. I asked Sigma about the 5.6 vs. the advertised 6.3 and they said something about product differentiation and variations in the way different cameras might 'read' the lens. Whatever. That said, given the choices you present, I'd go for the 135-400 too. And get a wider zoom or a straight 50 for your "all around" pics.

-- Derrick Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), January 07, 2002.

if you happened to get one, i would go for the 135-400 because of its relatively "fast" f/5.6 apeture. i believe that it is the only one that would autofocus reliably throughout its zoom range.

f6.3 is only 1/3 stop slower than f5.6, not really enough to affect the AF performance. I have the 170-500 and it will reliably (light conditions permitting) focus with my Elan IIe, EOS-3 and D-30. I would imagine the same would hold true for the 28-300 although I have no personal experience with that lens.

...and when used on my EOS 3 it consistantly registered 5.6 at the long end. ..... wife uses it now on her Rebel 2000 and it indicates 5.6 there as well. .... asked Sigma about the 5.6 vs. the advertised 6.3 and they said something about product differentiation and variations in the way different cameras might 'read' the lens. Whatever.

The slower Sigma lenses (f6.3) and I assume other manufacturers 'lie' to the camera about the aperture being 5.6 rather than something higher because most of the bodies will not even attempt to AF if the lens is not at least 5.6.

In so far at the Sigma rep giving a 'song and dance' about product differentiation it sounds like you got hold of someone who didn't have a clue as to what they were talking about.

Robert,

As to what lens you should buy a number of factors come into play. The 28-300 is $299, the 135-400 is $499 and the 170-500 is $609. (All the previous prices from B&H.)

If you only have $300 to spend the choice is obvious.

If you need to get out to 500mm the choice is equally obvious.

If you have money to burn get a Canon 100-400 for versatility and a big bag of 'L' primes for quality.

If you're like most of us and money is a consideration you really have to sit down and analyze what you need/want and what you're willing to spend. It sounds to me like you are looking to get some length and if that's true the $110 difference for the 170-500 over the 135-400 is a small incremental cost to get a lens that is 25% longer.

Dick

-- Richard Tope (RTope@yahoo.com), January 07, 2002.