A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

This Sigma is not good



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 21st 20, 08:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
me[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default This Sigma is not good

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:13:19 +0200, Paul Carmichael
wrote:

The Sigma 120-400mm 5.6 is the only tele/autofocus that I have. My other lenses are mostly
Samyang primes.


FYI, Review of the lens at imaging-resource.com
https://www.imaging-resource.com/len...sm-apo/review/

Sharpness
The 120-400mm is a fairly sharp lens, but its performance is optimized
for the wider range of its focal length spectrum. As you zoom in
towards the 400mm range, image sharpness degrades significantly.
  #2  
Old June 21st 20, 08:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
me[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default This Sigma is not good

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 15:23:09 -0400, me wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:13:19 +0200, Paul Carmichael
wrote:

The Sigma 120-400mm 5.6 is the only tele/autofocus that I have. My other lenses are mostly
Samyang primes.


FYI, Review of the lens at imaging-resource.com
https://www.imaging-resource.com/len...sm-apo/review/

Sharpness
The 120-400mm is a fairly sharp lens, but its performance is optimized
for the wider range of its focal length spectrum. As you zoom in
towards the 400mm range, image sharpness degrades significantly.


and

Between 300 and 400mm, performance when used wide open (ƒ/5.6) is
nothing to write home about - very uneven and soft (3-5 blur units at
300mm, and 5-8 units at 400mm). Stopping down to ƒ/8 or ƒ/11 is
necessary to get any kind of sharpness out of the lens at this focal
length. Interestingly, image sharpness is better at ƒ/22-29 than when
used wide open at these focal lengths.
  #3  
Old June 22nd 20, 01:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default This Sigma is not good

On Jun 22, 2020, Paul Carmichael wrote
(in article ):

On 22/06/2020 08:58, Paul Carmichael wrote:
On 21/06/2020 21:24, me wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 15:23:09 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:13:19 +0200, Paul Carmichael
wrote:

The Sigma 120-400mm 5.6 is the only tele/autofocus that I have. My other lenses are
mostly
Samyang primes.

FYI, Review of the lens at imaging-resource.com
https://www.imaging-resource.com/len...sm-apo/review/

Sharpness
The 120-400mm is a fairly sharp lens, but its performance is optimized
for the wider range of its focal length spectrum. As you zoom in
towards the 400mm range, image sharpness degrades significantly.

and

Between 300 and 400mm, performance when used wide open (Æ’/5.6) is
nothing to write home about - very uneven and soft (3-5 blur units at
300mm, and 5-8 units at 400mm). Stopping down to Æ’/8 or Æ’/11 is
necessary to get any kind of sharpness out of the lens at this focal
length. Interestingly, image sharpness is better at Æ’/22-29 than when
used wide open at these focal lengths.


Wow. Time to play...


OK. I just went out onto the patio and took a few snaps at 400mm of stuff around the area.
Here they are straight from the camera. I haven't touched them, so they're big.

http://185.219.27.69:1961/tmp_delete_this_soon/


There you go!

Those are just fine, and there seems to be nothing wrong with your Sigma. However, it seems to me that the blue, clear sky background field removes much of the foliage distraction shown in your problem bird shots. Note, the best of your bird shots was the one with the clear sky background. That makes me think that for the bird shots the focus point had missed the target leading to those soft results.

At least you have some answers you can work with. Just remember that f/11 is not going to be the answer for all shots, and you will have to adjust all settings for different shooting environments.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

  #4  
Old June 22nd 20, 03:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
me[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default This Sigma is not good

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:46:36 +0200, Paul Carmichael
wrote:

On 22/06/2020 13:43, Paul Carmichael wrote:

OK. I just went out onto the patio and took a few snaps at 400mm of stuff around the area.
Here they are straight from the camera. I haven't touched them, so they're big.

http://185.219.27.69:1961/tmp_delete_this_soon/


f11.0 1/1000 iso400 AF stabiliser on, handheld.


They look better. One other ting is they are much more contrasty for
the focus to lock on. It would be helpful if you could show the focus
point for on of the poorer flamingo shots.
  #5  
Old June 22nd 20, 04:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
me[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default This Sigma is not good

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:52:56 +0200, Paul Carmichael
wrote:

On 22/06/2020 16:48, me wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:46:36 +0200, Paul Carmichael
wrote:

On 22/06/2020 13:43, Paul Carmichael wrote:

OK. I just went out onto the patio and took a few snaps at 400mm of stuff around the area.
Here they are straight from the camera. I haven't touched them, so they're big.

http://185.219.27.69:1961/tmp_delete_this_soon/


f11.0 1/1000 iso400 AF stabiliser on, handheld.


They look better. One other ting is they are much more contrasty for
the focus to lock on. It would be helpful if you could show the focus
point for on of the poorer flamingo shots.


Will LR know that? Or would I have to load them into the Canon app?


I believe this is a plugin available. Don't know if it's free.
  #6  
Old June 22nd 20, 05:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default This Sigma is not good

On Jun 22, 2020, Paul Carmichael wrote
(in article ):

On 22/06/2020 16:48, me wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:46:36 +0200, Paul Carmichael
wrote:

On 22/06/2020 13:43, Paul Carmichael wrote:

OK. I just went out onto the patio and took a few snaps at 400mm of stuff around the area.
Here they are straight from the camera. I haven't touched them, so they're big.

http://185.219.27.69:1961/tmp_delete_this_soon/

f11.0 1/1000 iso400 AF stabiliser on, handheld.


They look better. One other ting is they are much more contrasty for
the focus to lock on. It would be helpful if you could show the focus
point for on of the poorer flamingo shots.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/9goddxv3to...74228.png?dl=0


Yup! I would say that having the focus point between two flamingoes misses either one. If you had been shooting at them with a rifle you would have been close, but there would be no hit, just a bewildered look from the flamingoes.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

  #7  
Old June 22nd 20, 05:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default This Sigma is not good

On Jun 22, 2020, Paul Carmichael wrote
(in article ):

On 22/06/2020 18:48, Savageduck wrote:
On Jun 22, 2020, Paul Carmichael wrote
(in article ):

On 22/06/2020 16:48, me wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 13:46:36 +0200, Paul Carmichael
wrote:

On 22/06/2020 13:43, Paul Carmichael wrote:

OK. I just went out onto the patio and took a few snaps at 400mm of stuff around the area.
Here they are straight from the camera. I haven't touched them, so they're big.

http://185.219.27.69:1961/tmp_delete_this_soon/

f11.0 1/1000 iso400 AF stabiliser on, handheld.

They look better. One other ting is they are much more contrasty for
the focus to lock on. It would be helpful if you could show the focus
point for on of the poorer flamingo shots.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9goddxv3to...74228.png?dl=0


Yup! I would say that having the focus point between two flamingoes misses either one. If you had been shooting at them with a rifle you would have been close, but there would be no hit, just a bewildered look from the flamingoes.


I think in the future I'll forget AF and just use my eyes.


There is nothing wrong with using AF, just make sure that you have at least one of your subjects covered by the camera’s focus point. AF can be more accurate than aging eyes.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

  #8  
Old June 22nd 20, 07:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
me[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default This Sigma is not good

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:48:33 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 22, 2020, Paul Carmichael wrote
(in article ):

On 22/06/2020 16:48, me wrote:

They look better. One other ting is they are much more contrasty for
the focus to lock on. It would be helpful if you could show the focus
point for on of the poorer flamingo shots.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/9goddxv3to...74228.png?dl=0


Yup! I would say that having the focus point between two flamingoes misses either one. If you had been shooting at them with a rifle you would have been close, but there would be no hit, just a bewildered look from the flamingoes.



Agreed. One thing to keep in mind for bird shots is that typically you
want the eye(s) to be sharp.
  #9  
Old June 22nd 20, 07:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
me[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default This Sigma is not good

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:57:23 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 22, 2020, Paul Carmichael wrote
(in article ):

I think in the future I'll forget AF and just use my eyes.


There is nothing wrong with using AF, just make sure that you have at least one of your subjects covered by the camera’s focus point. AF can be more accurate than aging eyes.


For birds in flight you may wish to consider using continuous auto
focus as the distance to the subject is continually changing.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
This Sigma is not good geoff Digital Photography 0 June 19th 20 12:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.