Squirrel & 150-500 Sigma

jeffmeyersjeffmeyers Registered Users Posts: 1,535 Major grins
edited February 6, 2009 in Wildlife
468579172_Muwmq-L.jpg

Got the Sigma 150-500mm last night. Started to put it through the paces this morning. I'm not real happy with it. All my other lenses are Nikons. I thought I'd try this Sigma cause I didn't want to spend 5K on a Nikon 500mm or even 3 K on a smaller Nikon prime tele with a teleconverter.

Soft, very soft. I also get a purple cast at 500mm, some sort of CA or something.

Crap. I can get better images by cropping down my squirrelly little 70-300mm Nikon. I pretty sure I'm returning it tomorrow. Bummer.

Oh, and if you think the squirrel pict from this morning looks okay, it's only because I worked HARD on it in pp. I don't want to do that for every dang image.

I'm taking it out to to Grafton, Il, later today to see how it does with eagles. But I'm not very optimistic.
More Photography . . . Less Photoshop [. . . except when I do it]
Jeff Meyers

Comments

  • bfjrbfjr Registered Users Posts: 10,980 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2009
    Hey was squirrely up there to take down the Xmas Lights :D

    Yep, been there done that. Don't buy any lens that's not Nikon, but that's just me. ne_nau.gif
    Benjamin
    My Galleries
    Flicker
    G+
  • TangoTango Registered Users Posts: 4,592 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2009
    lets see the SOOC

    i was thinking it looked nice until i got to your discription of PP
    Aaron Nelson
  • jeffmeyersjeffmeyers Registered Users Posts: 1,535 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2009
    AaronNelson wrote:
    lets see the SOOC

    i was thinking it looked nice until i got to your discription of PP

    468604975_YPmkz-L.jpg
    More Photography . . . Less Photoshop [. . . except when I do it]
    Jeff Meyers
  • TangoTango Registered Users Posts: 4,592 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2009
    wowow
    Aaron Nelson
  • jeffmeyersjeffmeyers Registered Users Posts: 1,535 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2009
    AaronNelson wrote:
    wowow

    Wow what? How bad the original is?
    More Photography . . . Less Photoshop [. . . except when I do it]
    Jeff Meyers
  • TangoTango Registered Users Posts: 4,592 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2009
    ya i was wowow'n the difference between sooc & post
    Aaron Nelson
  • dlplumerdlplumer Registered Users Posts: 8,081 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2009
    The pp shot is wonderful Jeff...really wonderful imo clap.gif What did you do to make the pp that sharp?
    Dan
    http://danielplumer.com/
    Facebook Fan Page
  • jeffmeyersjeffmeyers Registered Users Posts: 1,535 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2009
    dlplumer wrote:
    The pp shot is wonderful Jeff...really wonderful imo clap.gif What did you do to make the pp that sharp?

    Thanks, Dan. It's faux sharp. It's not really very sharp. Blow it up and you'd see how bad it still is. I just worked with the contrast, esp. mid-tone contrast, and various sharpening strategies.
    More Photography . . . Less Photoshop [. . . except when I do it]
    Jeff Meyers
  • dlplumerdlplumer Registered Users Posts: 8,081 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2009
    jeffmeyers wrote:
    Thanks, Dan. It's faux sharp. It's not really very sharp. Blow it up and you'd see how bad it still is. I just worked with the contrast, esp. mid-tone contrast, and various sharpening strategies.
    Fooled me. Gotta learn that
    Dan
    http://danielplumer.com/
    Facebook Fan Page
  • dwayne_bradleydwayne_bradley Registered Users Posts: 52 Big grins
    edited February 6, 2009
    What were the camera settings when you took that shot?
    I've always heard that the long tele Sigmas need to be stopped down to get the picture sharp (at least on Olympus bodies). From what I've seen, wide open they tend to be pretty soft. The 135-400 Sigma was pretty notorious for needing to be stopped down to about F8 for decent sharpness but for that you need some decent light.

    Dwayne
  • jeffmeyersjeffmeyers Registered Users Posts: 1,535 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2009
    dwayne_bradley wrote:
    I've always heard that the long tele Sigmas need to be stopped down to get the picture sharp (at least on Olympus bodies). From what I've seen, wide open they tend to be pretty soft. The 135-400 Sigma was pretty notorious for needing to be stopped down to about F8 for decent sharpness but for that you need some decent light.

    Dwayne

    Okay. Here's an update from my trip to Grafton, Il, this afternoon to try out the 150-500 Sigma lens on some eagles. The short story: The lens is dreadful. Awful. I tried all the best technique for long lens. Tripods. Monopod. I stopped down the lens to f8 to f11. It didn't matter. The quality of the images are ridiculously bad. Soft. Horrendous bokeh. This lens is going back to B&H on Monday. I guess I'm gonna have to shell out the big bucks for a Nikon prime tele or maybe wait until they get a AF-S 80-400mm. I don't know. I do know I'm staying away from Sigmas forever. Maybe I got a bad one. I've heard that their quality control is spotty. Even so, forgetaboutit.

    I'm so glad I slung my IR-converted D70s over my shoulder for this trip. The only decent shots I got all afternoon were with that camera. I'll post a few tomorrow on the landscapes forum.

    Sigh. Double sigh.
    More Photography . . . Less Photoshop [. . . except when I do it]
    Jeff Meyers
Sign In or Register to comment.