These images were shot at 500mm. On purpose I squeezed out all the reach I could from this Sigma 150-500. To be fair to this lens' I shot and PP as if the pix are for keep.
Some look sharper than others, but honestly, without some 100% crops, it's hard to judge sharpness. I have images I think are on the soft side that look great at 800 pix wide.
They look just o.k. Certainly no better than the 50-500 I had (which I replaced with the 80-400 because of VR).
I'd have to see more to be convinced (including more practice with the lens on your part, some tripod shots sans OS, and some 100% crops of images that are technically better than the ones I see here).
chemprof wrote:
They look just o.k. Certainly no better than the 50-500 I had (which I replaced with the 80-400 because of VR).
I'd have to see more to be convinced (including more practice with the lens on your part, some tripod shots sans OS, and some 100% crops of images that are technically better than the ones I see here).
Gerald
YOu are right here. MOre practice: shooting and PP. I have this lens for just a week and already I think I have "improved"/leaning quite a bit. How much more I can improve on it, I don't know yet. In the next few weeks/ months we will see.
bob
chemprof wrote:
The first one of your last series looks much better. I actually very much like that shot. The second one is pretty soft.
Please keep the shots coming as you work your technique. I am VERY interested in the ultimate image quality of this lens.
Gerald
Gerald,
As I said above, I have learned a lot in the last one week (even with visitors keeping me busy). I hope I can "improve" lots more on this lens. But so far I think I will keep this lens intead of getting another monster 500/4 IS or VR. The weight and size are that important for me. Of course as long as I can get decent pix.
The day Nikon/even Sigma issue a PRIME 400/5.6 or even better a 500/6.3., I would be the first one to jump for it.
bob
The only reason I ask for 100% crops is that it's kind of a standard to judge by. I can compare your sigma with another similar lens shot at the same focal length and see if there's any diff. Can't do that consistently with smaller images.
For example, I can take a soft, crappy photo and with the right sharpening techniques make it look fairly good at 800px wide. In fact, that soft print can look as good as one taken with my 500mm Nikkor.
Also, when printing, you wouldn't print a 11x14 with an 800 pixel wide image 957 dpi), so, as far as printing goes, it really doesn't matter if it's sharp small. Anyway, that's why I was asking.
I know when going through my own photos, if it's not sharp at 100%, it's deleted without a second thought.
Anyway, it must be a LOT of fun to have those humming birds around. I tried a feeder, didn't attract any, oh well...
i would say that 95% of my prints are at greater than 100% of 300ppi from my D3. the bokek in #1 and #4 of the original posts are why i won't use Sigma lenses.
Herb...
nugeny wrote:
I intentionally didn't do 100% crop. In the real world, would you print a 100% crop? No! but I would print what you see here.
Bokeh? the faster the lense, the more likely would have better bokek wide open. At f6.3 the background will have to be very far to get good bokeh as other pix show. So one will have to be more choosy shooting.In wildlife, this isn't always the case. Would you want to open the f2.8 all the time? Well at 30 lbs and maybe $30000.00 you may get it. Sigma get one. I some one give me that lens, I would sell it without looking at it.
HerbChong wrote:
i would say that 95% of my prints are at greater than 100% of 300ppi from my D3. the bokek in #1 and #4 of the original posts are why i won't use Sigma lenses.
nugeny wrote:
Bokeh? the faster the lense, the more likely would have better bokek wide open. At f6.3 the background will have to be very far to get good bokeh as other pix show. So one will have to be more choosy shooting.In wildlife, this isn't always the case. Would you want to open the f2.8 all the time? Well at 30 lbs and maybe $30000.00 you may get it. Sigma get one. I some one give me that lens, I would sell it without looking at it.
Agreed. That was a bit nonsensical. In this case the "bokeh" we're looking at has more to do with the not so open aperture of the Siggy. The real capability of the lens in terms of bokeh can be seen in some of the other images (like the first one in the second series. Plenty creamy for me.
Steve,
I used to live in the middle of a big city and never had a dream of seeing hummers until I saw a friend who lived in a tiny appartment. She has them comming year around, even in a freezing weather. So I started to lure them. Sure enough, the good free nectar kept them coming, not by a dozen and more like now in addition to deer, coyote...., but one or two came and made my back yard their home. One thing with wildlife: one has to be reliable and "responsible", the word I learned reading "Birds and bloom."
bob
Steve Perry wrote:
Bob -
The only reason I ask for 100% crops is that it's kind of a standard to judge by. I can compare your sigma with another similar lens shot at the same focal length and see if there's any diff. Can't do that consistently with smaller images.
For example, I can take a soft, crappy photo and with the right sharpening techniques make it look fairly good at 800px wide. In fact, that soft print can look as good as one taken with my 500mm Nikkor.
Also, when printing, you wouldn't print a 11x14 with an 800 pixel wide image 957 dpi), so, as far as printing goes, it really doesn't matter if it's sharp small. Anyway, that's why I was asking.
I know when going through my own photos, if it's not sharp at 100%, it's deleted without a second thought.
Anyway, it must be a LOT of fun to have those humming birds around. I tried a feeder, didn't attract any, oh well...
at the relative separations of the subject and backgrounds, #1 and #4 should have had excellent bokeh, even at f6.3. i have had only one Sigma lens that i thought had good bokeh and that was the 800/5.6.
Herb...
nugeny wrote:
Bokeh? the faster the lense, the more likely would have better bokek wide open. At f6.3 the background will have to be very far to get good bokeh as other pix show.
I hate to get off topic with the hummers, but what do you put in the feeder? Is it actual nectar? I think I used sugar water - maybe that's why it didn't work.
I hate to get off topic with the hummers, but what do you put in the feeder? Is it actual nectar? I think I used sugar water - maybe that's why it didn't work.
Thanks
Steve
Sugar water does work - but the concentration has to be right in order to not harm the birds. The commercial hummingbird food also has a red dye which attracts the hummers in the first place. After the hummers are accustomed to the feeder location you can do away with the red dye.
I'll give it a try again.