I bought a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 a good while back and tbh never really been happy with the results I get with it.
My GF is into photography and got this shot with a Canon EOS 400D and a Canon 55-250 IS EF-S lens:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7156/6813406255_8b5f4497d0_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/_jenward/6813406255/)
IMG_6199 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/_jenward/6813406255/) by _jenward (http://www.flickr.com/people/_jenward/), on Flickr
When I compare this to mine I'm just not happy, can never seem to get really sharp shots with good definition, here one of the better I have taken with it:
Canon EOS 50D with Sigma 70-200 F2.8:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7030/6813980963_d79197c1cc_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6813980963/)
IMG_3586 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6813980963/) by Adam Woodford (http://www.flickr.com/people/12512629@N07/), on Flickr
Im not sure what it is, technique/talent or lack of any stabilisation, or maybe the lens just isn't great...
What do people think?
Toying with the idea of changing it for a Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS II USM lens but at £1600 that's a fair wedge if it doesnt really help...
Yeah it does look a little soft, don't think its front or back focusing as there isn't anything obvious that's really, might still be worth testing it though. This is the one I used a while ago, proved that my 18-200 doesn't focus too well on my D7000 http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf
Another thing to try is to stick it on a tripod and focus on something random and see at what point it becomes sharp, if ever.
From the Exif
GF
Exposure 0.004 sec (1/250)
Aperture f/8.0
Focal Length 250 mm
ISO Speed 800
Exposure Bias -1/3 EV
You
Exposure 0.004 sec (1/250)
Aperture f/4.5
Focal Length 200 mm
ISO Speed 1600
Exposure Bias 0 EV
To me it looks like your GF shot hers on a day or time when it was much sunnier, and you shot either darker overcast, which resulted in your GF being able to use f8, which from what I have always been told is most lenses "sweet spot". Plus the lighting would help with contrast etc, and she has a better background to contrast against the bird.
As Russell says, compare using a tripod. Ideally same conditions and settings for both?
Do you really want the 70-200 f2.8L? Why not something like the 24-105L F4. It may be a bit slower, but it's cheaper, and on the plus side it eliminates overlap with your bigma?
The times I need to do low-light indoor stuff I use my F2.8 Tamron 17-55, as you never really need more zoom than that indoors, that or my 100mm f2.8 macro if its a gig maybe.
Besides, this is all irrelevant...the main thing to discuss here is...GF?
Actually, if you've got the wonga to splash out on the 70-200...why not sell the bigma, and with combined money you could get the 24-105 L and 100-400L...?
Quote from: zpyder on February 04, 2012, 07:13:54 AM
Besides, this is all irrelevant...the main thing to discuss here is...GF?
Nice to see your getting to crux of the problem there zypder ;D
Quote from: zpyder on February 04, 2012, 07:13:54 AM
Besides, this is all irrelevant...the main thing to discuss here is...GF?
LOL thought I had mentioned this to you but clearly not.. been together since August.
If you are looking at a 70 - 200, I have the F4L Canon, and for the price you can pick them up they are an amazing lens, I got mine third hand and it takes some of the crispest shots even when there isn't a lot of light round!
Im tempted to sell off both the Sigma's I run and just get the canon 100-400:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7025/6817016159_1c03b5fe9f_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6817016159/)
lenses1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6817016159/) by Adam Woodford (http://www.flickr.com/people/12512629@N07/), on Flickr
But.. iv never used the push pull zoom, I dont know how much I would miss the extra 100mm but im pretty sure the IQ would be better? also dont know how much i'll miss the F2.8, but it would be a shed load cheaper....
Opinions?
Im not sure how the EF 28-135 stands in terms of IQ but I tend to try and use it rather than the sigma when I can.. thats probably enough to tell you im no fan of the sigma..
Quote from: Binary Shadow on February 04, 2012, 14:39:34 PM
Im tempted to sell off both the Sigma's I run and just get the canon 100-400:
You're welcome to borrow mine if you want to give it a try. I doubt you'd miss the extra 100mm, I'd imagine if you're not close enough at 400mm you won't be at 500mm either, and the extra IQ from the L glass would probably mean less cropping needed etc?
Quote from: Binary Shadow on February 03, 2012, 22:48:34 PM
When I compare this to mine I'm just not happy, can never seem to get really sharp shots with good definition, here one of the better I have taken with it:
Canon EOS 50D with Sigma 70-200 F2.8:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7030/6813980963_d79197c1cc_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6813980963/)
IMG_3586 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6813980963/) by Adam Woodford (http://www.flickr.com/people/12512629@N07/), on Flickr
Im not sure what it is, technique/talent or lack of any stabilisation, or maybe the lens just isn't great...
What do people think?
Feathers nearest the camera look to be in focus while the rest of the bird isn't. The focus on the thing the bird is standing on seems to confirm this, the closest point is actually in much better focus than the furthest. It therefore looks like the camera/lens is focusing short. When taking pics like this you need a high shutter speed but it also affects depth of focus. In order to put the background out of focus you need a Wide aperature but not too wide, try max 5.6 or 8.
One option is to stretch a measuring tape along the line of sight so you can check where the focus is happening.
In the end you might find it's the camera and not the lens that's getting it wrong.
Quote from: XEntity on February 04, 2012, 14:10:18 PM
If you are looking at a 70 - 200, I have the F4L Canon, and for the price you can pick them up they are an amazing lens, I got mine third hand and it takes some of the crispest shots even when there isn't a lot of light round!
I was going to say this... I don't own the lens myself but it seems to be generally well regarded - also somewhat cheaper than your 2.8 sigma...
How often do you need to open it up that wide? - would F4 be usable - perhaps see if you can borrow/rent one and compare - at least you'd maybe establish if the lens itself is causing you issues.
Well i chucked the 2 Sigma's on ebay
Went out the weekend and tried out Zpyder's L series goodness... very nice!
100-400L:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7187/6862202929_db87b1db23_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6862202929/)
Oyster Catchers (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6862202929/) by Adam Woodford (http://www.flickr.com/people/12512629@N07/), on Flickr
24-105L:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7061/6862205063_0fa68e69cc_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6862205063/)
Robin (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6862205063/) by Adam Woodford (http://www.flickr.com/people/12512629@N07/), on Flickr
Looks like the camera works properly.. day was cold and hazy over the water so the shot at 400mm could have been better IMO
Camera & post-production comparison ;)
Annoyingly they were to the right of the frame so you can probably see the line where I've done a bit of cloning of the sky to shift the Oyster catchers more central/left...
Quote from: Binary Shadow on February 12, 2012, 12:43:27 PM
100-400L:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7187/6862202929_db87b1db23_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6862202929/)
Oyster Catchers (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6862202929/) by Adam Woodford (http://www.flickr.com/people/12512629@N07/), on Flickr
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7060/6861703433_9c1d511342.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/6861703433/)
Oyster catchers (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/6861703433/) by Chris_Moody (http://www.flickr.com/people/zpyder/), on Flickr
I saw that and wondered why it was soo much lighter, that shopping?
Can see the line, does the lens not have peripheral illumination correction?
Yeah, tweaked white balance and used camera raw to adjust brightness and contrast.
Don't know about peripheral illumination correction, didn't even know about it in camera! Remember there was a cheap polarising filter attached to the lens though...
Well success both lenses eventually sold on ebay...
Have ordered the 100-400 L, ebay.. from hong kong... oh dear.. lol I'm sure it'll be fine. :worried:
A couple of my lenses are, actually think 3 of them are, my 18-200, 70-300 and 50mm and they've all been fine so am sure they're nowt to worry about...
The only horror story I've had with the imports is my 17-50mm Tamron.
I originally decided to get it so that I had something low-light for doing Kathryns gigs with. Ordered it a month before Kathryns gig and the week before it still hadn't shown up. I ended up having to cancel the order etc through the company and getting a more expensive copy from a local shop.
The fun started then though, as the import actually arrived, a week after I asked to cancel. I then had to send it back, and it took 2 months for them to sort out a refund. Well, I say that, I actually had to contact my credit card company and explain the situation and they gave me my money back.
It all came out good in the end though, as the import company at some point a month or two later actually refunded me as well :thumbup:
TBH i have ordered a few lenses in the past from HK and never had an issue... never one this expensive tho!
MMMMMMMM TASTY!!!
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7186/6911332033_f75b028e40_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6911332033/)
IMG_0089 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6911332033/) by Adam Woodford (http://www.flickr.com/people/12512629@N07/), on Flickr
And it arrived quicker than i thought it would!!
Some size difference to!
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7180/6911398671_907c6a0a20_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6911398671/)
IMG_0091 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12512629@N07/6911398671/) by Adam Woodford (http://www.flickr.com/people/12512629@N07/), on Flickr
So does that mean more photo-walks coming up then?
That definetly didn't take long to come!
Got any plans on what to use it on first?
Quote from: zpyder on February 20, 2012, 21:12:58 PM
So does that mean more photo-walks coming up then?
Indeed, want to get a filter on it first though..
But will it be an expensive high quality filter? Otherwise you're going to end up lowering IQ with a cheap filter.
I've gone the route of if I want to protect my lens, I put the hood on properly. So far I've dropped my camera once, and I am 100% positive that the hood protected the lens where a filter would have shattered and not prevented damage to the glass, by digging into the mud and acting like a shock absorber.
Quote from: Russell on February 20, 2012, 21:20:22 PM
That definetly didn't take long to come!
Got any plans on what to use it on first?
No idea.. birds probably
Quote from: zpyder on February 20, 2012, 21:27:28 PM
But will it be an expensive high quality filter? Otherwise you're going to end up lowering IQ with a cheap filter.
I've gone the route of if I want to protect my lens, I put the hood on properly. So far I've dropped my camera once, and I am 100% positive that the hood protected the lens where a filter would have shattered and not prevented damage to the glass, by digging into the mud and acting like a shock absorber.
Went for a Hoya jobbie.. will try it with and without to see if its impacting IQ
There are those that argue that even a high-quality UV filter will affect IQ, especially on longer focal lengths. Might be worth borrowing one and doing some comparison shots first?
The main thing I have found with them is if you get a bit of light bouncing off of the filter it can screw up your shot, so be careful with light sources
some lenses seem to suffer with it worse than others, my Pentax 80-320 despises filters and goes into a right sulk if I fit one (contrast goes all to hell). Several of my other lenses don't seem to mind at all unless I'm pointing very close to a strong light source when I'll get some ghosting.
Quote from: zpyder on February 20, 2012, 21:12:58 PM
So does that mean more photo-walks coming up then?
I wish we were all living closer together, might encourage me to get out more.
There's plenty of peeps up north, Serious
Just screwed a Hoya HMC UV filter onto the front of it.. will see how it compares, this filter looks to be much better quality than the usual tat I have on the other lenses.