it's a good lens. it's about as sharp as my FA 24-90, perhaps a little better, but it is significantly heavier than the Sigma 170-500. i don't know if you will find it very cheaply on the used market. two things i don't like about it. it only stops down to F22, and there are no click stops on the rotating tripod collar at 0 and 90 degree marks. since the lens is so heavy, you must get a very sturdy tripod and head. figure on spending close to half the price of the lens on a tripod. you'll never use the 50-500 at the short end except in emergencies, so count on the lens being extended most of the time and it's pretty long.
Herb... ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 11:32 PM Subject: Re: Lens Tripod Mount? > Kind of what I thought. Heavy tripod. > > Since Cameron thinks the 170-500mm stinks, what do you think of the 50-500mm?
