A lens I probably won't rent again

[Zone99]

I rented the Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 zoom a few weeks ago. I had rented the lens once before when the Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 lens wasn't available.

I know they aren't the best lenses for soccer games but I really can't afford the big 40mm f2.8s...yet. :)

I used this lens on my D300 and I think it pretty much confirmed that this lens is just odd. I'll never rent it again, that's for sure.

Now granted, this was at about 10:00 in the morning on a very bright and sunny day. I was also experimenting with some tips I had read here so I know I didn't have all my settings right.

However, check these out:

1. standard shot - cropped in some and some correction applied, mostly brightness and exposure. Check out the white jacket on the woman in the background on the left.


2. Now check it out a little closer:


It almost looks like a painting instead of a picture.

3) In this shot, the background just seems odd. It almost looks like it was passed through a photoshop filter.




Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? It has to be the lens. I didn't get anything like this when I used my Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8.

What the heck happened?

[insanefred]

WTF!?

What picture control did you use? It could have something to do with the highlight clipping like that. Something to do with the camera? What ISO did you use? Active d-lighting?

YOu also might of adjusted the exposure too much in Post

[pyry]

I've seen that effect a few times. Certain processing adjustments do that to highlights.

I don't think that was caused by the lens.

The background however probably is the lens, could you post these shots as they came out of the camera, with exif intact?

[Techv]

Kinda looks like dust or some other contamination somewhere in/on the lens causing splotchy highlights and bokkah effects in the second image.
The first image looks like it went through some kind of cartoon or posterizing filter.
Definitely strange.

Can you post a jpg straight from the camera.
You say that you've applied some filters ... it would be better to evaluate an original image from the camera.

[tijoseph]

I don't think it is your lense. Or maybe you have a bad one???? I also find weird the vertical banding in your first picture. Here is a pic from mine, same lense on a 5d mark2

[craig_d]

I'm pretty sure that's not the lens's fault. Your shot is overexposed and the highlights are clipping. The harshness is due to the linear responsiveness of digital sensors to light. Film would have rounded off the blown highlight better.

[Zone99]

Originally Posted by tijoseph

I don't think it is your lense. Or maybe you have a bad one???? I also find weird the vertical banding in your first picture. Here is a pic from mine, same lense on a 5d mark2

Out of curiosity, what vertical banding are you referring to (on mine and yours)?

[craig_d]

Originally Posted by tijoseph

I also find weird the vertical banding in your first picture.

I don't see any vertical banding... do you mean the OOF fence in the background?

[Zone99]

Originally Posted by insanefred

WTF!?

What picture control did you use? It could have something to do with the highlight clipping like that. Something to do with the camera? What ISO did you use? Active d-lighting?

YOu also might of adjusted the exposure too much in Post

So it appears that that may have been the case. I went back to the original and discovered that I had applied sync'd settings from another picture set and it apparently didn't go so well on the first picture. Original shot is here:



Granted this is way overexposed. I have no idea if I can adjust for this correctly and not wind up with more problems. However, the backgrounds on these shots are still odd to me. They don't look 'real'.

That was definitely a problem I had with this lens last year as well. The backgrounds looked flat and...digitized painting...sort of?

I don't know how else to describe it.

The other reference shot:


If you need a closer shot, the gallery is here:

http://zone99.smugmug.com/Photos-fro...02688975_txy35

and you can see the originals.

I still wouldn't rent this lens again. In comparison to the Nikon lenses, it's just not as sharp.

[Mitchell]

That lens is a dog with some ugly bokeh.

How much focal length do you need with these little kids on a small field? I'll shoot the little ones with a 300mm lens or my 70-200mm, f2.8 zoom.



If you can't afford the 300mm, f2.8, the 300mm AF-s, f4 is a pretty nice lens with much better bokeh than your shots here.