For all you Sigma critics, look at this...Bigma resolving...

MartinM2 · Apr 22, 2004

Can you show me a side by side 100% crop of the 100-400 @ 400mm and the Bigma at 400mm?

I havn't seen this, but I suspect all variables equal, it would be interesting.

I've posted full size before, and they are sharp as anything I've seen full size. Unless you give the lens a try, you'll never know what you're missing. And fortunately the the QC appears better with this lens, as I hear very very few people talking about returning it. I only own this one lens, so unless you post a comparison to another zoom in this range, it's really just another subjective evaluation.

Daniella said:
MartinM2 said:

I disagree that it's soft wide open at 500mm. I see very little
difference between 300mm and 500mm, and about the same small
difference between F5.6 and F8. The bigma does great wide open at
all length, and if you don't give it a try, you're missing out.

I've even heard a number of people who have owned both the 100-400
and the Bigma choose the latter. IS is the only real draw to the
100-400 that I've seen, but dependant on the user.

Here is one of mine, wide open at 500mm handheld at a distance.
The original included a portion of another goose, so I'd probably
guess this goose was at least 50' out there and on the move.

Looks okey dokey to me..

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Mark Marshall · Apr 22, 2004

Daniella said:
wierd but my sigma 70-300 APO is more contrasty than the Canon L
lenses that I tried.

That has to be one of the most subjective statements I have ever read. I am in awe of your patience and skill with your pheathered phriends, but sometimes the stuff you say and then attempt to passionately defend just cracks me up. OK - 100% crops, non-processed (of course!) APO vs at least 2 L lenses (since you've shot and sent back what, twice that many long Ls?). I too described my APO as "sharp and contrasty" (it was!) but I know when to pull my head out of the oven. ~ m²
--
Enjoy life - spend your clothing budget on lenses!
http://rhodeymark.instantlogic.com/PhotoGallery.ilx

Brett DiMichele · Apr 22, 2004

Mark,

The last time we had this wonderful discussion about EX vs. L glass there
were links posted to MTF Data (I think it was posted by Jason Stoller).

I am not "attatched" to a lens like Jase thinks. The results are out there
and they are cold hard proof of the lenses performance. The only people
I see as being attatched are those who pay twice for L glass and then
interject thier biased opinion into any post about Sigma lenses.

I have said it before.. Sigma has made some duds.. And Canon has made
their own share of duds. Both Sigma AND Canon also have their winners.

And for Sigma those just happen to be the 100/300F4, 120/300F2.8,
50/500BigMa, 70/200F2.8 and the 300/800EX

And of course all of the EX Primes are winners... (Pretty easy to make a
great prime.. Zooms are a little different beasts).

Mark Marshall said:
jase said:

You are now wittering on about tests done on your lens without
tests done on an equivalent lens because you would rather be right
than objective. Quality and sharpness are for most people
subjective. Lay down the criteria and measure equivalent lenses
and leave out the anecdotes. If you say there are facts that back
you up, provide them. Get the lab test results for the lens you
are attached and get the same for the lenses you are comparing them
with and let the facts speak rather than spouting anecdotes about
lenses you own and lenses you don't.

Mark Marshall said:

I do agree that many times that psychology plays a part on how someone
responds to negativity. But when you have data that proves something
is a quality product and people still make negative claims then you
do tend
to get preturbed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Enjoy life - spend your clothing budget on lenses!
http://rhodeymark.instantlogic.com/PhotoGallery.ilx

--

I am not a Professional but I did stay at Holiday Inn!
Please take a look at my gallery!

http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/brett_dimichele

Mark Marshall · Apr 22, 2004

Heh - I CANNOT WAIT to get my 100-300 f/4 out to the beach this summer. Surfing, sailing, kite flying and birds (of the human and fowl variety). I just laughed it off when I posted my 100% crops from this lens and a few folks clucked that it was soft and bricks were not a good subject etc. The freaking chimney was across the street and three stories up. Maybe I should have used a tripod instead of a monopod for the measurebaters (of which I think I just tore up my membership card... it does get ridiculous at times). I think highly enough of the lens that I paid more for the APO EX TC just because I didn't want to chance degrading the glass. That's another thing that cracks me up - the guy above who said "I'll post my L with cheapo Tamron TC" (like Daniella who also said "my L gets sharper with cheapo Tamron installed") WTHeck? Is it not the same principle as putting a UV filter on your lens, i.e., the picture is only as good as your worst piece of glass will allow? If that statement is not true than I ask for the scientific principle that disavows it. It may be a ringing endorsement for the Tamron indeed, but I saw a picture of a baseball pitcher where the Tamron introduced some pretty severe CA on his white uniform and that was enough to shy me away from it. Ah well - different topic. ~ m²

Brett DiMichele said:
The last time we had this wonderful discussion about EX vs. L glass
there
were links posted to MTF Data (I think it was posted by Jason
Stoller).

I am not "attatched" to a lens like Jase thinks. The results are
out there
and they are cold hard proof of the lenses performance. The only
people
I see as being attatched are those who pay twice for L glass and then
interject thier biased opinion into any post about Sigma lenses.

I have said it before.. Sigma has made some duds.. And Canon has made
their own share of duds. Both Sigma AND Canon also have their winners.

And for Sigma those just happen to be the 100/300F4, 120/300F2.8,
50/500BigMa, 70/200F2.8 and the 300/800EX

And of course all of the EX Primes are winners... (Pretty easy to
make a
great prime.. Zooms are a little different beasts).

Mark Marshall said:

jase said:

You are now wittering on about tests done on your lens without
tests done on an equivalent lens because you would rather be right
than objective. Quality and sharpness are for most people
subjective. Lay down the criteria and measure equivalent lenses
and leave out the anecdotes. If you say there are facts that back
you up, provide them. Get the lab test results for the lens you
are attached and get the same for the lenses you are comparing them
with and let the facts speak rather than spouting anecdotes about
lenses you own and lenses you don't.

Brett DiMichele said:

I do agree that many times that psychology plays a part on how someone
responds to negativity. But when you have data that proves something
is a quality product and people still make negative claims then you
do tend
to get preturbed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Enjoy life - spend your clothing budget on lenses!
http://rhodeymark.instantlogic.com/PhotoGallery.ilx

Click to expand...

--

I am not a Professional but I did stay at Holiday Inn!
Please take a look at my gallery!
http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/brett_dimichele

--
Enjoy life - spend your clothing budget on lenses!
http://rhodeymark.instantlogic.com/PhotoGallery.ilx

PaulyOly · Apr 22, 2004

Mark Marshall said:
Here's what I noticed about your "sharp close but unsharp far"
doctrine. You had good sharpness at distance with the 70-300 APO
(non Canon, so obviously non L), The 300 f/4L and now the 100-300
f/5.6L. Not so much with all the other bigger faster zooms. You do
not use a monopod in your bird photography correct? Why don't you
just admit that the other lenses are too heavy for your girlie girl
arms, and you are spent by the time you get them mounted and up to
your eye? Tee hee, just kidding. ~ m²

That was funny Mark. I was just about to reply before Daniella buys the bigma just to warn her that she will not be able to hold it long. my arm hurt after 20 minutes of steady handholding.

I'm not sure if this was 300 feet, but this is a large bird and i could fit him in this 100 percent crop.

I think this looks pretty good at the distance it was shot at, plus it was taken a long time ago before i new what i was doing(not that i know now, just know more)

Here are some closer to 100 feet, i will have to measure off 100 feet and shoot my mailbox to be sure of the distance though.

The cattle egret was probably closer to 50 feet, i'm fairly sure the pictures with the storks were around 100 feet. I will have my wife crouch down to stork height and shoot her from 100 feet to be sure, i guess i'll shoot her with the camera.

All these are 100 percent crops and non have been processed. All shot using the 400 f5.6L in parameter 2

Not sure what your looking for Daniella, but i think the lens you really want is the canon 500l or 600L, probably the later.

Daniella, you do realize that if the bird is flying towards you even slightly it is bound to be a little fuzzy due to shutter lag?

--
http://www.pbase.com/paulyoly/root

JohnnyYuma · Apr 22, 2004

All the lenses that are mentioned here are very sharp lenses, this is all nit picking to the extreme. Who enlarges a picture enough enough to see the difference in real life situations.

I have seen pictures from Daniella with the 70-300 cheapo that looked as good as the most recent ones Daniella has posted with her newest L lens. I think that technique is the more important to the apparent sharpness of the final picture. I wonder how many people buy $1200.00 lenses and end up using them to take pictures of the family dog catching a Frisbee? All I need is a dog now.
--
Thanks, Johnny.

HMetal · Apr 22, 2004

I have a Bigma, I'm 100% happy with it.

If you don't have or don't like, great! Use the tool you prefer.

But for heaven's sake, get over yourselves. Go out, shoot something and stop whining.

I think the majority of us are tired of it.

P.S. Check out my Chipmunk series for some quality Bigma photography. Yes, they're sharpened, yes they're curves and levels processed. No, they're not 100% crops. But who cares? Isn't that the point with SLR? In most cases, you have to post-process to get, what you prefer or perceived at the time of shooting as, the final result.

Here's a Chipmunk scene, handheld (with my elbow on a fence-post) at 500mm, F5.6

See the still incomplete series here: http://www.codemain.com/modules/Gallery/chipmunks

--
Ray A. Akey
http://gallery.codemain.com/hmetal

BigMike · Apr 22, 2004

Brett DiMichele said:
Mike,

Hi Brett. I was concerned somebody, not you, was on the edge of getting nasty about all this. I have seen Daniella get ganged up on before, and I get defensive about it. So excuse me if I misread all this, and I will bow out and let you all measure away.

BirdsAndMore · Apr 22, 2004

Daniella said:
have you even tried it? just try it

I don't understand what you're suggesting? What would you like me to try?

But as far as sharpness of telephoto lenses goes, please have a look at this thread I started, showing my test results: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=8471214

Daniella68313 said:
BirdsAndMore said:

Daniella said:

any lens is sharp at close up..at least all that I have tried were
sharp at close range and especialy if used at F7.1.

Click to expand...

Most photographic lenses are optimized for infinity focus.
--
Have fun!

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

--
Have fun!

BigMike · Apr 22, 2004

JohnnyYuma said:
All the lenses that are mentioned here are very sharp lenses, this
is all nit picking to the extreme. Who enlarges a picture enough
enough to see the difference in real life situations.
I have seen pictures from Daniella with the 70-300 cheapo that
looked as good as the most recent ones Daniella has posted with her
newest L lens. I think that technique is the more important to the
apparent sharpness of the final picture. I wonder how many people
buy $1200.00 lenses and end up using them to take pictures of the
family dog catching a Frisbee? All I need is a dog now.

And a Frisbee?

Daniella68313 · Apr 22, 2004

I was just suggesting that you try shooting a bird at some distance, more than 50 feet lets say, like a pigeon or something similar. but you tested L lenses and they retain their sharpness pretty well all the way. There are limits that the resolution of a lens cannot compensate when you magnify too much, but for 50 feet or so, I found the L lenses to be sharper than Sigma. Just my personal observation with the lenses that I have tried.

BirdsAndMore said:
Daniella said:

have you even tried it? just try it

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're suggesting? What would you like me
to try?

But as far as sharpness of telephoto lenses goes, please have a
look at this thread I started, showing my test results:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=8471214

BirdsAndMore said:

BirdsAndMore said:

Daniella said:

any lens is sharp at close up..at least all that I have tried were
sharp at close range and especialy if used at F7.1.

Click to expand...

Most photographic lenses are optimized for infinity focus.
--
Have fun!

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Click to expand...

--
Have fun!