- Messages
- 4,187
- Name
- Michael
- Edit My Images
- Yes
some more of mine from yesterdays session View attachment 33047View attachment 33048
Lovely.
It's good a certain pal from the states did not discover this thread
some more of mine from yesterdays session View attachment 33047View attachment 33048
theres two now mic ,just been fired a broadside good enough to sink the bismarkLovely.
It's good a certain pal from the states did not discover this thread
One from today, I have to say though that the lack of contrast with the lens is troubling me ... I am having to add quite a bit to get decent IQ.
Also, anything fairly close comes out nice and sharp but stuff further away can be very hazy/soft unlike my Pentax mount 50-500mm OS. I want to like this lens as the build quality is fantastic but I'm seriously thinking about returning it and paying the extra for a MKII 100-400mm.
Will try and get to Marwell zoo one day next week and then go from there.
Reed Bunting by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr
hmm yes agree its possibly a tad less contrasty than some mike ,but not to the point where it bothers me .i like to use a older generation 1D3 which at only 10mp may give a slightly softer image than something like a 7d2 as well .its a hard one to quantify i also don't think that u.k light has been in our favour for the past couple of weeks and atmospherics could be playing a part in it as well .like anything new its a learning curve and i think a bit of a marmite lens .i can't see any reason to sell mine it grows on you
i.e same bird as yours different scenario and lighting View attachment 33227
i simply cannot work it out its at a sharpness level that appeals to me lynne ,simple as that .its NOT a 500mm f4 ,or a 400mm f5.6 or any other expensive prime its purely and simply a lens that covers most situations without the cost of the big primes .i really don't know what to add if i sharpend it up further then someone would pop out of the woodwork declaring themselves to be the critic of the year and say its over sharpened .i go out and take photos of wildlife in natural surroundings its what i like to do to keep me happy in my retirement i put them on here and other places to give people pleasure that are hard at work 5 or 6 days a week and don't see these things themselves ,i'm not picasso ,or monet or david bailey .if you like what you see and were thinking of buying one of these lenses then go for it ,if not then look and pass on by ,lifes to short to worry over whether someone else photo is sharp /soft /contrasty of whatever your pet foible is this week .
as i have stated many times. personally i,m on a learning curve with this lens i,m not even sure which camera suits it out of the two i own ,or whether my settings can be improved ,or if the lens settings need adjusting i will get it right eventually either on my own or with help .o.k
not a chip lynne you just copped it for someone else who's been having a dig ,sorry mate i apologise .anyway i do listen to what people say and i have just been having a little play ,to see if i could improve things and i think the problem might weirdly enough lay on the shoulders of the way photoshop treats the image ,i am going to post two photos below one done purely in p.s.6 the other done in a mixture of aperture initially and just finished off in p.s.6 .while not super sharp it does show what i mean ,and having done another from today as well there is definitely work needed and it does need looking into View attachment 33230View attachment 33231Perhaps you need to fully extend it to 600mm to knock the chip of your shoulder instead then.Nobody is asking why you take pictures or what your artistic talents are comparable to. This thread was started as an open discussion on the lens,I think I have just as much right to ask questions and express my opinion as much as you or anybody else.
not a chip lynne you just copped it for someone else who's been having a dig ,sorry mate i apologise .anyway i do listen to what people say and i have just been having a little play ,to see if i could improve things and i think the problem might weirdly enough lay on the shoulders of the way photoshop treats the image ,i am going to post two photos below one done purely in p.s.6 the other done in a mixture of aperture initially and just finished off in p.s.6 .while not super sharp it does show what i mean ,and having done another from today as well there is definitely work needed and it does need looking into View attachment 33230View attachment 33231
BUT looking at the Tamron and Sigma shots posted on here, both lens are amazing value for money, particularly the Tamron, and (maybe) far better value than the Nikon 80 400mm
How on Gods earth can you come to that conclusion whilst viewing images/pics/photies posted at 1024 max longest side.
Sorry Bill, that is nonsense. Any old crap can look good at that resolution, as is proved in the bird section on a regular basis.
for whatever reason ade there seems to be something going on with using pure PS6 to process the shots from this lens ,which ever camera i use .to many comments re-lack of contrast on mine and other peoples shots .all i have done is go back to older method of p.p using aperture 3 to do the initial RAW editing and then finish off with noise reduction and layering and sharpening in P.S.6 ,have re-done several tonight and the difference is chalk and cheese ,i will be taking this up with sigma tomorrow at the show .see what they have to say .heres another the new way View attachment 33235I think that looks far better to be honest. Do you have to PP the shots more with this lens Jeff?
Maybe I never put it across correctly, but I am just trying to understand the lens a bit. I still need to satisfy myself that this is indeed a lens for me,just like anyone else makes a choice with their kit. I can afford it,but what I cannot afford to do is buy it and then find out it`s a bit of a mistake. I need to determine why I will be purchasing one, I guess most people do that anyhow Will I be purchasing one purely for the long focal length of 600mm, or perhaps because of the short and long focal lengths and everything in between? I guess that if my decision is based purely on the long reach then perhaps I would be better off getting a prime and TC, or look into the contempory version at a bit of a saving.Would be good to see some real life samples from the "C" version,does anybody know of any?
Hi Rich I looked at one yesterday at the photography show, the size and weight difference is very noticeable, it really does feel a lot lighter, I will have a look to see if any of the pics I rattled off are acceptable. Will check later on, waiting for an electrician atm.
I was very impressed with the af on it.
Cheers Michael much appreciated. I just did not want it to come across as a comparison to a prime for IQ,more a case of what is best for my needs.As we all have diferent needs and expectations I need to just look and read as many varied opinions as possible. I seen earlier about Amazon, am I right in thinking they do not have either a Canon or Nikon fit with them? I cannot see anything mentioned in their listings.
I think I need to give the lens a bit more time tbh ... I'm not looking for major sharpness (I have my 300mm f2.8 IS and 2x for that) but I sold my Canon mount 50-500mm OS a few months back because this lens was on the way and I thought it would give me at least the same IQ with a little more reach. It's not doing that though, especially on distant subjects but at 3kg with a gripped 7D on I also believe it's verging on too heavy for me to hand hold for any length of time. The images may be suffering a little because of that (trouble id I detest tripods/monopods) so maybe I would be better off with the contemporary version, especially as my intended use for it is air shows which involves pointing the lens upwards 99% of the time for long periods.
Would be interested to see what Sigma say though.
A classic case of "you get what you pay for", their is no free lunch when it comes to long lens image quality and thats why people pay £6K+ for the top quality gear.
To me it looks like good VFM.
Cheers Michael much appreciated. I just did not want it to come across as a comparison to a prime for IQ,more a case of what is best for my needs.As we all have diferent needs and expectations I need to just look and read as many varied opinions as possible. I seen earlier about Amazon, am I right in thinking they do not have either a Canon or Nikon fit with them? I cannot see anything mentioned in their listings.
Rich, there's a thread on the BirdForum discussing this lens. As you get deeper into the thread (18 pages in total) theres some good questions and comparisons over the Tamron 150-600 by Hosesbroadbill. I'm considering one or other, but waiting for the Sigma C to hit the shelves before deciding.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=290558
My Sigma is packaged up ready to go back to Amazon. Shame as I wanted to like it but at the end of the day I couldn't justify the cost vs performance. I'm pretty sure I could get better results if I started used a monopod/tripod but all my photography is done hand held and I'm not going to change now.
Maybe the Contemporary version will be more up my street.