• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Lens Softness or Sub-optimal Settings/Photographer? (1 Viewer)

A

abritinquint

Member
Hi There,

https://flic.kr/p/Aw3vub

Looking for some extra reach, I recently picked up a Sigma DG 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 (APO HSM to be specific). When I compare my images to those of the Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 (ED VR) that I've been using with my Nikon D5300 for some time now, I find the Sigma produces a much softer/cloudier image at full range (400mm). Some of my images look almost like they're in the style of a water colour painting. Now I know the light isn't great at this time of year (even at midday), but I'm still somewhat surprised by the effect. Of course, the that much ISO could just be too much for my lens/camera combo to cope with.

If anybody has experience of using this lens, I'd welcome a second opinion or any tips on usage. I typically use OS setting 1 when hand-holding or have OS switched off when using a monopod. This specific shot was taken using a monopod. Cheers...
 
Last edited:
A few thoughts after checking your sparrow picture.

Looking at the EXIF it says f6.3. In my opinion, cheaper lenses like this older Sigma need to be stepped down to get sharp results. I wouldn't use this lens any wider than f8. Cheaper end lenses like this one tend not to be sharpest at the long end of the zoom either. Also the EXIF shows focal length at 403.2mm.............you didn't have a teleconverter on?

1/320 S/S handheld is pushing it a bit and ISO 2000 is never good for bird pics on the more 'entry level' models as it introduces a lot of noise. Actually my first thought when looking at your sparrow was that perhaps noise reduction had been done a little aggressively..............
 
HokkaidoStu said:
A few thoughts after checking your sparrow picture.

Looking at the EXIF it says f6.3. In my opinion, cheaper lenses like this older Sigma need to be stepped down to get sharp results. I wouldn't use this lens any wider than f8. Cheaper end lenses like this one tend not to be sharpest at the long end of the zoom either. Also the EXIF shows focal length at 403.2mm.............you didn't have a teleconverter on?

1/320 S/S handheld is pushing it a bit and ISO 2000 is never good for bird pics on the more 'entry level' models as it introduces a lot of noise. Actually my first thought when looking at your sparrow was that perhaps noise reduction had been done a little aggressively..............
Click to expand...

That's fantastic feedback HokkaidoStu - exactly what I was looking for. I'll take those tips on board. I must admit, every time I pick this lens of the shelf, I look back at my Nikon 70-300mm and consider returning to the better quality with less reach. RE the focal length, I've been wondering if that's simply a peculiarity with my camera, as I've also seen instances of my 300mm showing as 302/303. I never use a teleconverter. I wonder if that could be some sort of defect in itself. I'll check it out.

Finally, would you recommend any 400mm zoom alternatives that don't double the price? I always knew i'd be comprimising quality for quantity, but didn't expect such a significant impact.

Once again, thanks a bunch for the feedback - it's really really helpful.
 
abritinquint said:
Finally, would you recommend any 400mm zoom alternatives that don't double the price? I always knew i'd be comprimising quality for quantity, but didn't expect such a significant impact.
Click to expand...

I'm a Canon user so don't know so much about options for Nikon cameras................they do have an 80-400 which is supposed to be good but it is pretty expensive.

The 120-400 and 150-500 Sigmas were discontinued a few years ago.Sigma have 2 newer (and most would say far better) options, both 150-600 zooms. One ('sport') is about double the price of the other ('contemporary) but the cheaper option seems to be producing reasonable results. Tamron have a 150-600 at a similar price/performance point as the cheaper Sigma. Both the Tamron/Sigma contemporary seem to be priced at around $1000.

There are some discussions about all those lenses in this part of the forum.
 
...and after some research, I'm now hovering over the Buy button for the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary. I think this is what I've been looking for. Cheers.
 
As you know the more expensive option is the Sports version. It is supposed to be that bit better but is it worth the extra money. Have you thought about looking at the photos taken with the lenses you are considering on Flickr? You might find it helpful.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Andy Hall
Sony FE 300mm f2.8 OSS G Master Lens
Replies
10
Views
2K
dakuan
dakuan
dak
Image quality of a prime long lens worth it?
Replies
13
Views
951
dak
dak
W
Considering a Partial Camera Upgrade - D500 w/ 200-500mm lens
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
BriLee
B
Steve Heath
OM-1 with Olympus M.Zuiko 150 x 400mm TC Pro
Replies
12
Views
3K
DCC1976
D
J
Help pls Which phone/ compact camera?
Replies
0
Views
715
Jhanlon
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top