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

[tom kern155840]

amen

 

[Daniella68313]

Get your glasses fixed, Daniella.

First of all, I said the 600mm, not the 400mm. Prices vary but are
typically above $7000:

http://www.epinions.com/Canon_EF_600mm_f_4L_IS_USM__Lens_2534a002

Second, the 400mm Canon prime is not "around $1000" by any stretch
of the imagination. More like $4000 and up:

that is for the F2.8 version but they also make a F5.6 version which is 1000$

that or the 100-400mm L 1300$ is what I would get If I could.

http://www.epinions.com/elec-Photo-Lenses-All-Canon_EF_400mm_f_2_8L_IS_USM

You are probably referring to the telephoto zoom 100-400mm L, which
is just OVER $1000, not under:

http://shopping.yahoo.com/p_canon-ef-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6l-is-usm_camera-lenses_1990813195

no I was refering to the 400mm F5.6 L which is very near 1000$ in price and it is a prime, very sharp. This is what Polyoly use.

So, compared to those prices, I'll stick with my nice "soft"
50-500mm (thanks for your "permission" to do so [sic]) which gets
me the range I want with acceptable clarity for now, until I feel
I'm ready to spend that $7000+ on the 600mm L.

Besides, in all the sample shots I've seen, the 100-400mm L is
shorter and isn't that much better than the Bigma, that I'm willing
to spend another $1000+ just for a couple more stops of light and a
minor degree more sharpness. I'm adept enough to post-process a
little more than I would have to if I had that 100-400mm L, and
I've got an extra 100mm on the tele end to boot.

the Canon 400mm L is around 1000$, hardly a multi thousand dollar
lens...same for the 300mm F4

If you like your images on the soft side than you're surely happy
with your lens then. I prefer the cartoon look.

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

--
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

 

[Daniella68313]

sorry grob but the subject of the thread was to convince people who do not beleive that the lens is sharp. It is meant to call argument and that is good.

If I am wrong, then prove me wrong. that's fine with me. If the Bigma is so sharp, then that is the one that I will be getting, but can you garantee me 100% that it will be has sharp as L lenses?

wanna bet?

Your photos are good, your comments in this Lens thread seem a bit
odd to me. Maybe you should stick to what you do best (photos) and
care less about the other stuff since forum visitors tend to listen
to the people with the good photos it might not be the best advice
to spread your fiction about Sigma Lens(es) in such an agressive
way (=replying to everyone who says that they are good).

--
"All your L-Glas are belong to us"
"Somebody set us up the EX"

http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10

--
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

 

[Daniella68313]

I have the chitty 70-300 APO and at distance the 100-300 F4 was hardly any better. Both were fuzzy at distance and lacked detail in birds. Especialy the edge of the birds were fuzzy, egde around the eye as well. It was not a big difference probably to some people, but for me it was anoying enough so that I did not wanted to pay 600$ more than my Sigma APO to get something that was too similar at distance.

Some people say there was nothign wrong with my lens..some say it was a bad lens and needed to be calibrated so that it would be as sharp at distance than at close range... who's right? I will never know because I returned it...it was brand new so no way I was going to pay that much for something I did not like.

Than I ordered the bigma from Adorama and never received it because they sold it to someone else...I think I have back luck with used lenses

I tried the 100-300 F4 and I wish,
I also have a Sigma 70-300 APO
I tried a Canon 300mm F4 L not

obviously isnt it? prime vs zoom?

i had the same shitty 70-300APO, switched to 70-200L. but i wouldnt
even compare that.
if i have to judge, i would use a sigma 70-200 HSM vs my current
70-200L.
if a 300mm prime is sharper than my L ? yes it is, would that
indicate that every L-zoom is cr*p?

--
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

 

[BirdsAndMore]

I have the chitty 70-300 APO and at distance the 100-300 F4 was
hardly any better. Both were fuzzy at distance and lacked detail
in birds. Especialy the edge of the birds were fuzzy, egde around
the eye as well. It was not a big difference probably to some
people, but for me it was anoying enough so that I did not wanted
to pay 600$ more than my Sigma APO to get something that was too
similar at distance.

Do you think this is the lens itself, or the camera sensor? I mean if a subject is only covering a small number of pixels, it's not going to be very sharp.

--
Have fun!

 

[Daniella68313]

Ok I am looking forward to see them.

here are other 100% crops from that Sigma 100-300 F4. It was so sharp at close range..tack sharp. but then look at the osprey...I could cry..those would have been great shots but they are too fuzzy, lack detail. None at distance were really sharp as it was at close range. Each time I was wondering if the lens was bad..some smart ass would reply that it is my error and that the lens is not defective blah blah blah...so if it is not defective...why did I get this? I had 95% of keepers with the 300mm F4L.

They can call me all the name in the world..but those photos are there to show...Now my question is...if that lens was defective..why was it so sharp at close range?

Is that fiction? I don't think I am dreaming either:

close range:

Focal Length 300 mm
Exposure Time 1/1600 sec
Aperture f/5.6
ISO Equivalent 400



dunno about you but I get very angry when I get something like that. And nobody will tell me that this is camera shake at 1/4000s! no there was nothing distracting to fool the focusing either...the bird was not flyging directly at me so not much problem with shutter lag either.

Focal Length 276 mm
Exposure Time 1/4000 sec
Aperture f/5.6
ISO Equivalent 400



not enough good shots missed? here is another one..I have plenty:

Focal Length 276 mm
Exposure Time 1/4000 sec
Aperture f/5.6
ISO Equivalent 400
Exposure Bias -1/3



these are all straight out of the camera, no post-processing except the crop, not resized.

I don't see this as fiction, and surely not very humoristic either to think that you captured great shots..only to return home and see this. ((( grrrr!

 

[Daniella68313]

I think it's the lens. I had quite sharp photos at distance with the Canon 300mm F4 L lens, even with the cheap Tamron 1.4x TC the photos were still sharp.

So maybe it was a bit unfair to compare it to a Canon prime L lens, but they are very similar in price range, 900$ to 1100$.

to my opinion...is it worth 600$ in price difference from the Sigma APO 70-300 to the 100-300 F4? nope...

is it worth the 200$ difference in price from the Sigma 100-300 F4 to the Canon 300mm F4 L? you bet!

but that's my opinion. Others can have their own

I have the chitty 70-300 APO and at distance the 100-300 F4 was
hardly any better. Both were fuzzy at distance and lacked detail
in birds. Especialy the edge of the birds were fuzzy, egde around
the eye as well. It was not a big difference probably to some
people, but for me it was anoying enough so that I did not wanted
to pay 600$ more than my Sigma APO to get something that was too
similar at distance.

Do you think this is the lens itself, or the camera sensor? I mean
if a subject is only covering a small number of pixels, it's not
going to be very sharp.

--
Have fun!

--
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

 

[Dominic Groß]

sorry grob but the subject of the thread was to convince people who
do not beleive that the lens is sharp. It is meant to call
argument and that is good.

By negative remarks about a Lens you have not even used and comapring primes to zooms?

If you want to compare to the 300mm F4 L there was a 300 F4 from Sigma but it is discontinued...

Just strange that the 50-500 has a reputation of being very sharp and I never saw a really soft image from it.

But on the other hand this was with a sharp Sensor behind it.
Which brings up this poing with a CFA/Bayer Sensor:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=8526981

If I am wrong, then prove me wrong.

Well I could also claim that you show some side by side samples taken under the same conditions, (shutterspeed, on the same tripod) first to prove your point.

--
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10

 

[Daniella68313]

I posted some more crops...some of the photos that I get a very sour feeling when I look at they because they are too fuzzy to be any good:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=8526694

yet the first one is sharp, pretty close to what the Canon prime produced. wierd huh?

I underestand that MF would not work well for distant subjects but
I wanted to say that since this discussion leans towards a
sharpness craze, it is worth noting that AF is a guess of the best
focusing site.

the problem is not the distance for using manual focus, but rather
that that birds are moving out of the focus area very quickly, even
if they are not close by. At F5.6, even at F8, the DOF is really
not that big.

it is also hard to judge the focus precisely and fast enough to be
able to take a shot of a flying target. sitting birds would be ok.

For static subjects the AF is not a problem anyway.

A problem it is not, but it is not the sharpest option you have
either. MF for a relatively near object is better even with the
drebel viewfinder, especially when used with 2.5x magnifiers are
very useful.

2.5x magnifiers? what's that?

--
Yiannis

Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness
that we deserve them. Aristotle

--
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

--
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

 

[Dominic Groß]

Even the el-cheapo 70-300 APO can match that without a problem:

http://www.pbase.com/image/25431546

--
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10