Sigma Photography
Sigma 135-400mm Vs. 170-500mm (+ show me your shots!)
After narrowing down to these two to accompany an eos 400d, i have a few questions.
Is one better than the other in image quality ( a shop assistant seemed to think 170-500>135-400mm in quality ) ?
Have both these lenses got the potential for producing good images?
I have heard stories about the 170-500 being very soft. True?
I have seen some great images produced by either lens, but ( and no offence to those who have taken pics with one ) the 135-400 images seem to be better. Is this just the 'quality' of photographer? ( i dont think its the camera, because there are shots with the same camera )
please can anyone show me results they are proud of ( taken with one of the two lenses ) along with the relevant info.
Last but not least, is it worth the extra dosh for the extra 100mm?
thanks to anyone who takes the time to reply, i much appreciate it 
Hi AC/DC.I have been using the 135-400mm for a few months now and am chuffed to bits with it.The pics below were taken with it on my 300d.As for the 170-500 I couldnt comment as I have never used one.I have seen some great shots with it though.
PS.The redstart was taken with my Kenko pro DG 1.4x teleconverter attached as well.
thanks mike. In fact, it's your pictures that are making me lean toward the 135-400mm - they really are brilliant. The fact that the 400 is cheaper and being able to see excellent results with a teleconverter attached helps too.
Just out of interest, do you have to crop your pictures a lot to get the bird pretty much filling the frame?
thanks