Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Sigma 150-500mm issues


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21
Daniel

Daniel

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

Another sample shot from today using the D800e after updating firm ware and still using the lens with out the UV filter. Note a lot of picture grain because of the high ISO settings  to compensate for high shutter speeds I am using to lessen camera shake do to hand holding this lens.  

 

First picture was a 207 Mb TIF file converted to a 1.53 jpeg file. Second pic is a cropped image from the original TIFF file after the RAW conversion to a 2.61 jpeg file.

 

Setting used:  ISO  4000

                               f/11

                               1/2000

                               500mm

Attached Thumbnails

  • p003c copy.jpg
  • p003b copy.jpg


#22
Daniel

Daniel

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

Same process as the post before.

 

Settings used:  ISO  2500

                                 f/8

                                 1/5000

                                 500mm

Attached Thumbnails

  • p001.jpg
  • p001 copy.jpg


#23
Long Exposure

Long Exposure

    Senior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Location26.82N, 80.06W

I've done a few tests on my D60 from inside and it looks a little better for D60 standards but haven't taken it out yet and tested it out on any birds with that setup. The lens quality is also not acceptable on the D7100 body either. I also have the newer version of the Nikkor 80-400mm and it works great with the D800E and D7100. I've been told as well that the D800E is too much for the sigma 150-500mm lens from a professional but I wished I had known this before I bought it. I'm hoping someone has had some luck on here with it.

 

Correct the D800/e resolve much more than the Bigma lens.  That is no surprise as the Bigma is consumer oriented lens that does not have the line resolving excellence of Sigmas most recent offerings.

 

While I know you are probably disappointed, in reality you really probably should not be.  If you are going to use a big boy camera, the expectation (by Nikon) is that you will use only the best glass to match.

 

My personal experience is the Bigma lens is barely acceptable for the D7K, so it is no surprise about the D7100 or the D800/e.  IMHO, the Bigma has a consumer-ish build and resolving ability.

 

Furthermore, calibrating the lens for the specific body is always a good idea to squeeze out the most performance you can.



#24
Daniel

Daniel

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

I totally agree with you Long Exposure and also did have a professional fine tune the auto focus on my camera to this lens  but that didn't really make much of a difference. I am quite happy with the Nikkor 80-400mm lens that I do have as well but have parked it on the shelf for the winter and was hoping I could get some life out of this sigma lens and use it for the winter. Thanks for your suggestion about calibrating it though.



#25
Chrisf

Chrisf

    Active Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 76 posts
  • Country Flag

I've thought of af fine tuning the sigma 120-400 as well. I wonder if it would make a difference without the filter. Only issue is that it's technically my dad's lens and he might have a fit if I took the filter off. Personally I don't see any need to leave it on while shooting. I just leave mine on when they are in storage.



#26
Long Exposure

Long Exposure

    Senior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Location26.82N, 80.06W

Back to the original post, that started the thread.

 

To summarize the correct replies before the thread was derailed:

 

1.  The Bigma is cheap when comparing prices for similar reach.  Otherwise folks wouldnt buy it.

 

2.  There is no way the Bigma will resolve the 36Mpix sensor on the D800.  No way.  Nikon barely makes lenses good enough.  The Bigma is not in the same league as the "approved" lenses.

 

Now on to my opinions.  The Bigma is a slow to aquire focus lens.  I tried two models at the insistance of my local photo shop, since they are Sigma dealers.  I was skeptical when I walked out with the lenses.  I returned them two day and about 400 shots later.  It is just not a very good lens.

 

If you want to play the games that the big boys play with long lenses then you need the real toys the big boys lose.  Expensive?  Yes.  That is why there are rental houses for those who cant afford a real lens.  Period.



#27
Long Exposure

Long Exposure

    Senior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Location26.82N, 80.06W

I've thought of af fine tuning the sigma 120-400 as well. I wonder if it would make a difference without the filter. Only issue is that it's technically my dad's lens and he might have a fit if I took the filter off. Personally I don't see any need to leave it on while shooting. I just leave mine on when they are in storage.

 

If you are talking about a UV filter, they are a hoax.  Just take it off and throw it away.  it is just another piece of glass that is in the light path between you and a fantastic image. 

 

Begin this mantra now: " I will throw way all the UV filters the saleman convinced me to buy.  I will throw way all the UV filters the saleman convinced me to buy. I will throw way all the UV filters the saleman convinced me to buy. I will throw...."



#28
Moester1955

Moester1955

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Another sample shot from today using the D800e after updating firm ware and still using the lens with out the UV filter. Note a lot of picture grain because of the high ISO settings  to compensate for high shutter speeds I am using to lessen camera shake do to hand holding this lens.  

 

First picture was a 207 Mb TIF file converted to a 1.53 jpeg file. Second pic is a cropped image from the original TIFF file after the RAW conversion to a 2.61 jpeg file.

 

Setting used:  ISO  4000

                               f/11

                               1/2000

                               500mm

I have a Tamron 200-500 and it goes soft at 500mm ( good to about 450mm). Also I usually use f/6.3 to f/9 with iso settings of 400-800. I think you over compensated by going to ISO 4000. I never use a tripod with this lens. Also my camera has built in stabilization. I also use spot focus and at times spot metering...JMO



#29
Chrisf

Chrisf

    Active Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 76 posts
  • Country Flag

Considering the circumstances ISO 4000 would be a bit high. For that shot dialing down the shutter speed a bit might have helped since it is obviously not a moving subject. On ISO I try to keep it under 1600, and that is in the worst conditions.



#30
Daniel

Daniel

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

Considering the circumstances ISO 4000 would be a bit high. For that shot dialing down the shutter speed a bit might have helped since it is obviously not a moving subject. On ISO I try to keep it under 1600, and that is in the worst conditions.


The lighting condition wasn't great for that shot, as well as I was trying to get as sharp a shot out of that lens as I could get so I cranked the shutter speed and had to crank the ISO to compensate, besides that what if the pigeon decided to take off then my shutter speed would have been perfect for an action shot.

I have a Tamron 200-500 and it goes soft at 500mm ( good to about 450mm). Also I usually use f/6.3 to f/9 with iso settings of 400-800. I think you over compensated by going to ISO 4000. I never use a tripod with this lens. Also my camera has built in stabilization. I also use spot focus and at times spot metering...JMO


I was testing the lens and needed the high ISO.

#31
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

If you are talking about a UV filter, they are a hoax.  Just take it off and throw it away.  it is just another piece of glass that is in the light path between you and a fantastic image. 

 

Begin this mantra now: " I will throw way all the UV filters the saleman convinced me to buy.  I will throw way all the UV filters the saleman convinced me to buy. I will throw way all the UV filters the saleman convinced me to buy. I will throw...."

 

I have shot with and without UV filters and really don't notice enough difference to add (or remove) one.  I have seen lenses saved by folks having a UV filter on them and I have seen lenses that weren't saved...I personally have bent the edge of a "protective filter" rather than the edge of my lens because I happend to have one on that lens.  I personally prefer the added security because my lenses DO get banged sometimes.  Other than that one situation, it wouldn't have mattered whether I had a filter on a lens or not.  I agree that some sales folks over-sell the benefits of adding a filter, but having one can help and shouldn't hurt.



#32
Chrisf

Chrisf

    Active Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 76 posts
  • Country Flag

i

 

I have shot with and without UV filters and really don't notice enough difference to add (or remove) one.  I have seen lenses saved by folks having a UV filter on them and I have seen lenses that weren't saved...I personally have bent the edge of a "protective filter" rather than the edge of my lens because I happend to have one on that lens.  I personally prefer the added security because my lenses DO get banged sometimes.  Other than that one situation, it wouldn't have mattered whether I had a filter on a lens or not.  I agree that some sales folks over-sell the benefits of adding a filter, but having one can help and shouldn't hurt.

In the end you can always remove the filter when shooting.



#33
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

 

In the end you can always remove the filter when shooting.

 

Then I would be shooting my hand at the front of the lens :D

 

Seriously though, shooting sports, the lens is in danger while shooting as much as it is at just about any other time so probably not the best time to take it off.  But you are very correct that in other situations I can always remove it if I choose to...



#34
Daniel

Daniel

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

I've got some more testing to do with the lens but was waiting for the weather to warm up a little more. Maybe I'll take it to the air port with me today and take some shots with it on the camera. And there may be some focusing issues with a UV filter on it but not to sure yet. Also I noticed when taking shots out the hotel window that there was some distortion or ghosting. Not sure if this was caused by the window glass or not, but that has not appeared when shooting out side with no glass barrier. I really haven't used or tested this lens too much since I got my 80-400mm shortly after purchasing the 150-500mm.



#35
Daniel

Daniel

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

Test shots with the lens today from the air port. (Was an overcast day)

 

Without UV Filter!!

 

Camera used: D800E

 

Settings: For the first picture:  f/8 -  1/2000 -  ISO 2500 -  500mm

 

These photos have been resized or reduced so if you try and zoom in close to the picture it will not be clear.

 

Surprisingly all pictures taken were sharp WITHOUT the UV Filter, not sure if it was the UV Filter or the firm ware update on the camera. You will notice that there is a white HALO around the second photo, not sure if it is the lens, or lens shade, and or camera???

 

Fourth Pic is a cropped image from the third image to show you that when zoomed into the photo you can read the small letters on the plane with no blur.  :)

 

Over all I was impressed with the lens today and I know the photos will get better with favorable conditions. Next test will be with out the lens shade and when it is clear and sunny. ALSO WITH LOWER ISO!!

Attached Thumbnails

  • test001.jpg
  • test002jpg.jpg
  • test006jpg.jpg
  • test006jpg2.jpg
  • test008.jpg
  • test004jpg2.jpg


#36
Moester1955

Moester1955

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Test shots with the lens today from the air port. (Was an overcast day)

 

Without UV Filter!!

 

Camera used: D800E

 

Settings: For the first picture:  f/8 -  1/2000 -  ISO 2500 -  500mm

 

These photos have been resized so if you try and zoom in close to the picture it will not be clear.

 

Surprisingly all pictures taken were sharp WITHOUT the UV Filter, not sure if it was the UV Filter or the firm ware update on the camera. You will notice that there is a white HALO around the second photo, not sure if it is the lens, or lens shade, and or camera???

 

Fourth Pic is a cropped image from the third image to show you that when zoomed into the photo you can read the small letters on the plane with no blur.  :)

 

Over all I was impressed with the lens today and I know the photos will get better with favorable conditions. Next test will be with out the lens shade and when it is clear and sunny. ALSO WITH LOWER ISO!!

What camera are you using?


What camera are you using? I seen it...too early in the morning :)



#37
Long Exposure

Long Exposure

    Senior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Location26.82N, 80.06W

Try shooting into the sun +/- 30-degrees and note the additional flare you get.



#38
Daniel

Daniel

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

Ok

#39
Daniel

Daniel

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

Took some test shots today using the D800e. I was looking for some hawks but didn't see any but did run into these. 

Attached Thumbnails

  • goose003.jpg
  • goose004.jpg
  • bird00.jpg
  • Bird03.jpg