Sigma 50-500 samples and comments...

THE TOUCH

I just received the lens and photographed paintball today. I could not believe the difference in color! The zoom was amazing as well - instead of covering only ~25% of the field, I was easily covering 50%+! That's a lot of coverage!

So far I'm pretty happy. I thought I could easily handhold the lens but after ~20 minutes, both my wrists and arms were exhausted! Before long I couldn't keep the frame so I got the monopod - smooth sailing from there. Only negative so far - the zoom ring is pretty tight, making it difficult to quickly zoom for max to min.

I did get some odd pictures though - maybe 5 out of 350. It's picture #3 - does this look odd to anyone? I can't really tell what's wrong! It just looks weird - maybe slightly out of focus but it's more than that.

I had to show a before (Canon 55-200) and after (Sigma 50-500) picture!

Canon 55-200


Sigma 50-500 (Bigma)


Odd problem -


You can see more samples between the two lenses - I shot last week with a 55-200 and this week with the 50-500.

55-200 - http://the-touch.smugmug.com/gallery/1479953

50-500 - http://the-touch.smugmug.com/gallery/1498820

Matthew Saville

Hi TT,

The "odd" look to me is the striking DOF, the blurry background. Looks a little funky, does it? That's just a characteristic of the lens, I guess. Can't really explain it, cause I don't know anything about the optics in the lens.

I did note that you have PROOF on your S/M/L images, you have a professional markup on the pics, but... the Original sizes are still available. (The Canon gallery, not the Bigma gallery. And also in your 2nd featured gallery on your main site, I noticed Originals were allowed. Oops!)

(Although, I have allowed originals in the past, and I still get people who order prints from me because they don't want to have to go through the hassle of downloading each picture and putting it on a CD and taking it to a photo lab...)

To say a little more about the Bigma- I consider it from time to time because AF speed is sorely missing from the Nikon 80-400 that I love so much. (And the Sigma 80-400 OS doesn't have HSM) I may end up with the Bigma someday, especially for Airshows. At an airshow the Bigma is unbelievably useful!

Take care,
-Matt-

DF79

Looking at the Sigma samples I might have to pick one up for myself. Just wish I didn't have to check this thread out. Trying to keep myself away from paintball, lmao. That was my fix, but more and more I'm headed back to the fields to play. Once again nice shots.

THE TOUCH

Matthew Saville wrote:

The "odd" look to me is the striking DOF, the blurry background.

Wow. I don't think I've ever had a lens that did that much DOF! I noticed it on all the other pics but something with the trees in the back just really set it off...plus the slight OOF.

the Original sizes are still available.

SHOOT! I can't believe that! :pissed I didn't know it took the proof off! (Guess I should have checked! )First it was no watermark and we figured that they could do screenshots so we added that, then we found Easy Sharing Option which really screwed us, then I read about External Links. Now I have to click another button!? HEHE!

Thank you for pointing that out!!!

To say a little more about the Bigma- I consider it from time to time because AF speed is sorely missing from the Nikon 80-400 that I love so much. (And the Sigma 80-400 OS doesn't have HSM) I may end up with the Bigma someday, especially for Airshows. At an airshow the Bigma is unbelievably useful!

The AF speed was great within a certain range. Once you get out of that range, it seems to have trouble recovering. This only happened when I would accidently rotate the focus ring.

Thank you for all the info!

THE TOUCH

DF79 wrote:

Looking at the Sigma samples I might have to pick one up for myself. Just wish I didn't have to check this thread out. Trying to keep myself away from paintball, lmao. That was my fix, but more and more I'm headed back to the fields to play. Once again nice shots.

HAHA! I never would have even considered Sigma. Seefutlung really talked me into it.

I really enjoy watching but still haven't played! I can see how it's a fix but a real expensive one - I don't know how these kids do it!

Thanks for the comment!:D

DF79

THE TOUCH wrote:

I can see how it's a fix but a real expensive one.

Yeah I buried my love for paintball to concentrate on a different passion...photography, also a very expensive hobby. .

Chase

That funky anomaly might perhaps be a mesh fence that they often have at paintball courses in the bokeh......would give it a real choppy look. Were there fences like that at this field?

Seefutlung

It's call bokeh (bow-kay). Technically not the DOF but rather the OOF background. There is good bokeh and bad bokeh ... as this is very striking ... almost like an impressionistic painting, I'd call this good bohek ... dunno if it works for paintball. But in most cases different is better. That zoom ring will loosen with time and some of that extra paint. The Bigma gets the arms tired. Shooting soccer by the end of the match I'm switching to the 70-200L 2.8 to lighten the load. Hate using a monopod ... but I should.

If you ever head south ... email me I belong to a group called LAShooters ... we shoot every weekend and inbetween.

-Gary-

THE TOUCH

Chase wrote:

That funky anomaly might perhaps be a mesh fence that they often have at paintball courses in the bokeh......would give it a real choppy look. Were there fences like that at this field?

No fence...just bushes and trees. Good thought though!

THE TOUCH

Seefutlung wrote:

It's call bokeh (bow-kay). Technically not the DOF but rather the OOF background. There is good bokeh and bad bokeh ... as this is very striking ... almost like an impressionistic painting, I'd call this good bohek ... dunno if it works for paintball. But in most cases different is better. That zoom ring will loosen with time and some of that extra paint. The Bigma gets the arms tired. Shooting soccer by the end of the match I'm switching to the 70-200L 2.8 to lighten the load. Hate using a monopod ... but I should.

If you ever head south ... email me I belong to a group called LAShooters ... we shoot every weekend and inbetween.

-Gary-

Thank you for the invite Gary - I head down to the LA area pretty often so we'll have to hook up!

Steve Cavigliano

Nice work TT

That Bigma looks like just the ticket for paintball shooting Just keep the lens away from stray paint...lol

I looked back through lots of shots and I only found a few with "funky bokeh". You can always run the bg through a noise reduction software program to blur (and take the edge off).

Steve

THE TOUCH

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Nice work TT

That Bigma looks like just the ticket for paintball shooting Just keep the lens away from stray paint...lol

I looked back through lots of shots and I only found a few with "funky bokeh". You can always run the bg through a noise reduction software program to blur (and take the edge off).

Steve

Thank you for the comment!

The lens really did a great job! Of coarse, I'm comparing it to the Canon 55-200

I guess as long as it's somewhat normal, I'm okay with it. I've just never had a lens that gave me THIS MUCH background blur. Plus, I think the trees/bushes caused more than usual lines, glare, etc.

Thanks for the tip!

Steve Cavigliano

Hey TT,
I have another tip. The Bigma zooms 2 ways. By using the ring and it also "push-pulls". So all you have to do is grab the hood, while holding the camera with your other hand, and pull

FWIW, a tight zoom is a good thing. It will eventually loosen up somewhat, but it shouldn't get loose enough to "creep" on you.

Steve

THE TOUCH

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Hey TT,
I have another tip. The Bigma zooms 2 ways. By using the ring and it also "push-pulls". So all you have to do is grab the hood, while holding the camera with your other hand, and pull

FWIW, a tight zoom is a good thing. It will eventually loosen up somewhat, but it shouldn't get loose enough to "creep" on you.

Steve

Steve - thanks for another tip! I'll have to give that a shot tomorrow.

It already creeps a little bit but I really like how you can lock the lens at 50mm!

I was starting to think that the only advantage to a push-pull lens (100-400) would be zooming that much faster.

Thanks - Kevin

JCDoss

Regarding the tight zoom ring comment... I have a Sigma 100-300/4, and it came with a very tight zoom ring that smoothed out over time. It's buttery smooth nowadays, and I expect the same will happen with your lens too.

Great shots, and thanks for posting!

THE TOUCH

JCDoss wrote:

Regarding the tight zoom ring comment... I have a Sigma 100-300/4, and it came with a very tight zoom ring that smoothed out over time. It's buttery smooth nowadays, and I expect the same will happen with your lens too.

Great shots, and thanks for posting!

Thanks!

Pezpix

FWIW, I have owned the Bigma for over a year now and I can say, it does have some great range in a pinch. However, I have nicknamed mine the "Softma" especially at 400-500mm since the image degredation is very noticable and unaccepable to me even with a great tripod/head combo to elimnate shake.
Another complaint it the filter size. 86mm threads? Cmon Sigma, you can do better than that. Fitting a polarizer on that thing is out of the question for less than $150 for a good circular polarizer, let alone one from B+W (my preferred filter glass). Tis a shame they went that route.
I should just sell mine outright but unfortunately the only good alternative is Canon's 100-400 push pull glass. Blah.

Seefutlung

Pezpix wrote:

However, I have nicknamed mine the "Softma" especially at 400-500mm since the image degredation is very noticable and unaccepable to me even with a great tripod/head combo to elimnate shake.

Maybe you should get it re-calibrated or aligned ... my Bigma shots at 500 are sharp.

johno

I'm looking forward to seeing more. This might be a lens in my future.
BTW, personal note... I'm trying to get my friends info for you.

peace.
johno~

THE TOUCH

Seefutlung wrote:

Maybe you should get it re-calibrated or aligned ... my Bigma shots at 500 are sharp.

Seefutlung - I think I'm starting to agree with Pezpix on the softness. Here's a sample at 100%. So far, every shot at 500mm looks just like this one. 1/400 sec., f/8.0, 500mm.

Maybe you got lucky on your lens?

BigAl

Judging from the blurred edges on the egret, you've got camera shake. Here's a robin taken with the Bigma and a beamer (no postprocessing on this other than a bit of saturation enhancement):


Here's a gadget you may consider making (or buying from the inventor) to assist in handholding:
http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forum/showthread.php?t=1862

THE TOUCH

BigAl wrote:

Judging from the blurred edges on the egret, you've got camera shake. Here's a robin taken with the Bigma and a beamer (no postprocessing on this other than a bit of saturation enhancement):
Here's a gadget you may consider making (or buying from the inventor) to assist in handholding:
http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forum/...ead.php?t=1862

BigAl - Thank you for the link. I'm not sure I understand though - if the monopod is mounted to the camera already, why not extend it to the ground? It seems that the monopod would have more stability on the ground over a body.

Yup...you guessed it - it was handheld but I was well supported by the car door. I find it hard to imagine that much blur at 1/400th second though don't you think?

BigAl

THE TOUCH wrote:

BigAl - Thank you for the link. I'm not sure I understand though - if the monopod is mounted to the camera already, why not extend it to the ground? It seems that the monopod would have more stability on the ground over a body.

It's great for panning. You'd actually be surprised how much more stable a monopod is when it's shorter - I'm now using this for landscape/walkaround shots as well.

THE TOUCH wrote:

Yup...you guessed it - it was handheld but I was well supported by the car door. I find it hard to imagine that much blur at 1/400th second though don't you think?

That is a bit strange. This guy was also taken using my pickup's door as a support:
http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/gallery/556774/4/45773124

I try and get the shutter speed to above 1/500s where possible - even if it means going up to ISO800.

Seefutlung

There are now four photogs in LAShooter with Bigmas ... no problem with softness. Try a higher shutter speed, 1000+... remember that the shot is in focus when the green light comes on in the viewfinder ... not the red AF point(s). THe Bigma with an APS-C sensor has a focal length perspective of 840mm ... I shoot mostly wide open.

BigAl

THE TOUCH wrote:

Yup...you guessed it - it was handheld but I was well supported by the car door. I find it hard to imagine that much blur at 1/400th second though don't you think?

Just something I've thought of - was the car switched off?

Steve Cavigliano

TT,
I have to agree with the group on your shot. Looks like camera shake. 1/400 is too slow @ full tele unless you've got your Bigma handholding technique mastered. It took me around 1000 frames to get halfway decent at 1/500 handheld

While it is true that the Bigma gets a bit softer from 400mms on out (especially wide open), if you stop down to F8-F10, it is really pretty darn sharp at this length.

Try grasping the tripod collor foot with your knuckles pointed upward, while resting your left elbow on your abdomen. I also find shooting a burst helps if you're a bit unsteady.

This shot is typical of what I saw using F8-F10 at full tele, 1/500 H/H. A Parameter 1 jpg right from the camera.



Here's the orig size version.
http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/73154136-O.jpg

As mentioned, your lens may need adjustment. But until you eliminate the shooter/technique/settings as possible causes, I wouldn't worry about that just yet

Steve

THE TOUCH

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. I thought 1/400 was enough, but I've never used a lens even close to this size! I'll keep working on it!:D

Thanks guys!

THE TOUCH

So I would really hate to drag this on but I'm seriously considering sending this lens back. Here's some more samples at 100%, 1/800 - same problem.






So what to you think? I'm also starting to notice that I don't have this problem lower than 500mm. If I get some time, I'll do some tests at different ranges.

Steve Cavigliano

TT,
If these are 100% crops, this is about what you will see. The only way to get great detail and good sharpness is to "lay enough mpxls" on your subject. These shots, again if 100% crops, are less than 5% of the original frame. So instead of 8mpxls, or whatever, we're talking 160kpxls (400x400)for the entire frame. With maybe 1/4 of that for your subject.

Try getting closer to your subjects to fill more of the viewfinder. Also, get your speed over 1/1000. At 500mm you have an FOV of around 800mms. So 1/800 should be your minimum hand holding speed until you get a good handle on H/H technique. Go shoot a duck or something else large and perched. Fill up as much of the VF as possible at full tele. Again, fast speed and see what you get.

You may be expecting too much from this lens. Just because you can see your subject in the VF, doesn't mean you will capture much detail sharply.
Any large sized birds more than say 100-125 feet away are going to be an issue (unless it's an Emu....lol)

Example: This shot is slightly cropped (down to 4.6mpxls) with the subject taking up maybe 75-80% of the frame. Lots of detail and sharpness.
F9, ISO400, 500mm and 1/500 (do as I say regarding shutter speed, not as I do...lol)


http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/17010697-O.jpg

Just like in basketball, where you can get yourself going by hitting a couple of layups first (instead of those long range shots). Try some easy stuff first. You may actually have a lens problem. Easy stuff would also show that and help eliminate other issues By easy I mean big sitting targets. Or, better yet bolt that puppy to a tripod to eliminate hand holding (camera shake) as a variable.

I already mentioned that it took me over 1000 shots to get the hang of hand holding this lens. I was a real spaz I also got lots of really bad images. It wasn't the lens.....lol

Good luck,
Steve

THE TOUCH

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

TT,
If these are 100% crops, this is about what you will see. The only way to get great detail and good sharpness is to "lay enough mpxls" on your subject. These shots, again if 100% crops, are less than 5% of the original frame. So instead of 8mpxls, or whatever, we're talking 160kpxls (400x400)for the entire frame. With maybe 1/4 of that for your subject.

That makes a lot of sense!

Try getting closer to your subjects to fill more of the viewfinder. Also, get your speed over 1/1000. At 500mm you have an FOV of around 800mms. So 1/800 should be your minimum hand holding speed until you get a good handle on H/H technique. Go shoot a duck or something else large and perched. Fill up as much of the VF as possible at full tele. Again, fast speed and see what you get.

I really stink at wildlife! I've gone to two different refuges to shoot some birds and the closest I ever get is ~125ft! :giggle Maybe it's because I'm driving in my green SUV! :lol Time to go to the zoo! Also, even in the mid-day sun at ISO400 I'm luck if I get 1/800.

Example: This shot is slightly cropped (down to 4.6mpxls) with the subject taking up maybe 75-80% of the frame. Lots of detail and sharpness.
F9, ISO400, 500mm and 1/500 (do as I say regarding shutter speed, not as I do...lol)

Amazing detail!!! Handheld at 1/500!? I can count the hairs on his head!

Below is a link to an original sized sample I took on a tripod of a tree out front. What do you think? Focus point is in the center.

http://the-touch.smugmug.com/photos/74084523-O.jpg

Thank you Steve for all your help!!!:D

Scott_Quier

THE TOUCH wrote:

Below is a link to an original sized sample I took on a tripod of a tree out front. What do you think? Focus point is in the center.

http://the-touch.smugmug.com/photos/74084523-O.jpg

Thank you Steve for all your help!!!:D

I grabbed a copy of the above image. I'm looking at a 100% crop of the upper-left corner. There is some bark seperating from the trunk of the tree. Looking at this, even with the camera/lens on a tripod, it is clear you have camera shake/vibration. That's not the only place you can see it, it's just the easiest place to see it.

I used to have a very nice copy of this lens. The ONLY way I was ever able to get good, clear, crisp images was to mount on a very stable tripod, use mirror lock-up, a shutter release cable, and a 2 - 10 second delay between mirror pop-up and exposure. This technique tended to ensure that camera and lens were both quite at the moment of exposure.