Slightly disapointed, should I be?

D

daharro

Messages
446
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all. Got a sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG macro HSM the other day, first time using it and I don't think I'm that impressed, am I expecting too much?

Some samples here, been processed as I would process anything else:


70-200 (3 of 5) by daharro, on Flickr



70-200 (2 of 5) by daharro, on Flickr


70-200 (1 of 5) by daharro, on Flickr

and with a sigma 2x converter.


140-400 (1 of 2) by daharro, on Flickr


140-400 (2 of 2) by daharro, on Flickr


I keep thinking they aren't as sharp as my 80-200 f2.8 Nikon, but I'm not sure if I'm just being uber picky?
 
They look fairly sharp (as much as can tell on small Flick images) but you didn't exactly pick the best light and looks like a dull image sapping day to me. Yes realise you can't control the weather :)
 
I have the O.S version of the Sigma 70-200 and to be honest these do look a little soft. My copy is far sharper than this. Bear in mind though that using the t.c like on the last image will reduce I.Q and allowing for that is probably not bad. The one's taken with the t.c to my eyes look sharper than the one's without it may just be down to case of poor light.
 
Last edited:
What focal length, shutter speed, ISO settings were you using? Tripod or hand held?
 
all hand held, the . A range from f2.8 - f8. the horses were 1/250 with a higher iso, the flowers 1/2000 and 1/2500. i guess it could be hand shale/poor technique.

The weather wasnt great, but it should have been good enough.
 
daharro said:
all hand held, the . A range from f2.8 - f8. the horses were 1/250 with a higher iso, the flowers 1/2000 and 1/2500. i guess it could be hand shale/poor technique.

The weather wasnt great, but it should have been good enough.
Click to expand...

With no o.s and using a lens of that focal length without a tripod and especially with a t.c these are not bad at all to be fair.
 
Agreed. Reciprocal rule applies. If you shot the horses at 200mm say and 250th, you are on the limit.
 
daharro said:
Hi all. Got a sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG macro HSM the other day, first time using it and I don't think I'm that impressed, am I expecting too much?

Some samples here, been processed as I would process anything else:


I keep thinking they aren't as sharp as my 80-200 f2.8 Nikon, but I'm not sure if I'm just being uber picky?
Click to expand...
A word of advice.
If you want useful opinions, you MUST post photos straight from camera (except for re-sizing). Any processing will hide what you're trying to show.
 
yeah your right about the length/speed. I'll hope for some better light tomorrow and go for another try. I've heard some good things about the lens so hopefully it'll redeem itself!
 
My sigma is pin sharp, more so than my Nikon 70-200 I had. Hard to say on photos of this size and type, but I can't see anything is be hugely worried about.
 
90% of lenses are better than 99% of the users, you must be in the 1% lol

they look grand to me
 
Thanks, I think maybe I'm just pixel Peeping in less than ideal conditions. Hopefully the weather will improve tomorrow! Just as a comparison these two are some from the 80-200 I took recently:


cow by daharro, on Flickr


cow2 by daharro, on Flickr


bunnies by daharro, on Flickr
 
Yeah i think its more likely the shutter speed at 1/250. The bokeh on the 80-200 doesn't look very nice have you done something to them in PP?
 
Last edited:
The 80-200 didn't meter right, I think these were quite over exposed so that might have had an effect.
 
You bought one of the earlier models that doesn't start to get sharp until above f4. That's the problem.

It doesn't matter what shutter you use or ISO etc, it will always be soft wide open.

You should have got the latest OS model.
 
The nikon shots were taken in the golden hour, it was a lovely evening! Unfortunately i cant stretch to the OS version! Hiding this one from the mrs was a struggle!
 
Phil Young said:
You bought one of the earlier models that doesn't start to get sharp until above f4. That's the problem.

It doesn't matter what shutter you use or ISO etc, it will always be soft wide open.

You should have got the latest OS model.
Click to expand...

This isn't my experience at all I'm afraid. Maybe your's was a bad copy.
 
I've been playing with it some more bouncing flash around whilst chasing the cat, seems to be a bit better. Starting to think it probably was user error!
 
daharro said:
I've been playing with it some more bouncing flash around whilst chasing the cat, seems to be a bit better. Starting to think it probably was user error!
Click to expand...


Welcome to the 99% of users lol
 
Phil Young said:
You bought one of the earlier models that doesn't start to get sharp until above f4. That's the problem.

It doesn't matter what shutter you use or ISO etc, it will always be soft wide open.

You should have got the latest OS model.
Click to expand...

I have the same model and mine is tack sharp wide open, so with the greatest respect your statement is incorrect.

Proof if it is needed, f/2.8, 200mm, ISO 800. View full size on Flickr and tell me that's not sharp, focus is on the right eyeBear in mind Flickr tends to soften images a bit too. On the pc is even sharper.


Sebbe by TCR4x4, on Flickr

Another, f/2.8, 150mm, ISO 400, focus on the left eye..


DSC_9558-2 by TCR4x4, on Flickr

Another f/2.8, 200mm, ISO 400


The Moment by TCR4x4, on Flickr


Think I made my point, although I have plenty of other examples!
 
Last edited:
Tcr, they are sharper than a sharp thing! What was the shutter speed on these? I think I need to be trying to get mine much faster. Is there anything else I should be doing? I try to brace myself to be as stable as possible.
 
daharro said:
Tcr, they are sharper than a sharp thing! What was the shutter speed on these? I think I need to be trying to get mine much faster. Is there anything else I should be doing? I try to brace myself to be as stable as possible.
Click to expand...

First one is 1/640
Second is 1/2000
Third is 1/5000

I might have examples with slower speeds too.


Phil Young said:
You won't have to look far on the internet to see the lens is soft wide open.
Click to expand...

You can look much closer to see that it isnt ;-)
 
Here you are.
1/100th, ISO 200 f/2.8, 70mm. Focus is on the Cavalier's nose. There is a little motion blur too, so its not as sharp as could be. Still not soft because of the lens though.


DSC_9642-Edit by TCR4x4, on Flickr
 
Phil Young said:
Sorry!!!!! A quick search on the internet showed me I was confusing my lenses and on this occasion am wrong!

It is supposed to be very sharp (as Tom's images demonstrates) even wide open.

I officially stand corrected.
Click to expand...

What lens was it you were thinking of?
 
I had a sigma 70-200 F2.8 which I traded a few months ago. I never used it below F4, it was always soft. I only used it between 80-170mm, otherwise it was soft. The best settings seemed to be about 5.6 or 6.3 in the mid focal range. I'm pretty sure it was the non-OS version. This lens was HARD work - I was constantly having to think about not going below F4! I don't think yours is this version though? I hope you manage to master it to get the best performance.
 
Phil Young said:
Perhaps version 2 I'm not sure now but I do remember reading how one version at least was soft used wide open. I'll have a look when I get home tonight...I could be making up this story but am sure I read a review on one supporting it...
Click to expand...

Maybe one of the earlier ones. The non macro HSM or the original APO.
Pretty sure all from macro HSM onwards have been generally good.
 
I'm pretty new to my 70-200 2.8 HSM II macro. Not had a chance to use it in anger properly yet but test shots show it to be pretty spot on at 2.8.
Just need a chance to get out somewhere - bank holiday weekend coming up:)
 
Last edited:
StuartH said:
Phil dont believe everything you read on the internet mate..:thumbs:
Click to expand...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

There we go...new I found it somewhere!

The OS version is quite nice indeed and I think that is going on my wishlist.

Stuart: I have always found the digital picture 100% bang on with these tests - I have concluded around 10 lenses from this site all to be pretty much an exact match so I would trust this particular site.

Scrolling through the focal range wide open is shockingly bad - especially the 135mm...

I usually only bother with DP review and the digital picture for lenses.
 
Last edited:
Phil you say you find the site bang on but have you tested these lenses yourself? Sorry but I wouldnt put my trust in the say so of a reviewer and one copy of a lens...Yes it can be a good guide but cant beat hands on experience IMO..:thumbs: Much rather hear from people that use a certain lens day in day out rather than someone using a copy for a few hours shooting test charts.
 
StuartH said:
Phil you say you find the site bang on but have you tested these lenses yourself? Sorry but I wouldnt put my trust in the say so of a reviewer and one copy of a lens...Yes it can be a good guide but cant beat hands on experience IMO..:thumbs: Much rather hear from people that use a certain lens day in day out rather than someone using a copy for a few hours shooting test charts.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough...to answer your question: not this particular lens no, but I have tested many lenses and dIscussed wIth other users and It Is a relIable source from what I have found...

Anyway, I was interested in buying it and I remember looking quite extensively at the time but decided it doesn't suit my needs.
 
Comparing the sharpness of any lens to that of the Nikon 80-200mm is going to be an exercise in disappointment.
 
Phil Young said:
Tom: do you by any chance have the off camera images to those samples? those images rival the Nikon version! ...wondering how much PP was applied to get them to that standard...?
Click to expand...

I will post some later.
All they had was some contrast, highlight and clarity in Lightroom.

Like I said, I find this miles better than the Nikon version I owned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top