Sigma 170-500 APO - poor quality lens or is it me? (1 Viewer)

JCLynn · Apr 2, 2011

Hi everyone.
My good old Tamron 200-500 died! Un repairable. I can't afford to buy a new one, so I've opted, on my budget, for a 2nd hand sigma 170-500 APO, just to get me out birding again.
The lens is fine, does what it should etc etc. BUT! So far, my results (image quality ) have been absolute rubbish! In short, even at ISO 200 this lens is giving results similar to using ISO 1600!
I'm using my 'bog standard' Tamron settings (the ones I'm used to) ie AV mode, f 7.1 or 8, spot focus and partial metering. Camera processing settings are all set to zero ( never need to adjust WB,exposure etc etc with the Tamron.
Question is, do I have to live with this because the sigma 170-500 APO 'just aint up to it' or have other users of this lens found that other settings are necessary, ie WB and/or exposure adjustment. What I have found out, whilst using the sigma, is that it is very very prone to camera shake. Resting the lens on the hide windows beats it everytime, whereas the Tamron was fine and crisp when used like this. Me thinks it needs a bean bag?
Anyway, to stop rambling, Any thoughts guys?
Thanks in advance

Shaggy2070 · Apr 2, 2011

I can't coment on settings as I've never used a Sigma lens but I've seen some very good shots taken with that lens. So it's possible you may need to adjust your technique and practice to get the hang of it. When I got my 400mm I was all over the place shot wise until I got the hang of it.

JCLynn · Apr 2, 2011

Thanks for the reply Shaggy. I'll probably work out it's foibles sooner or later.

To show what I mean about image quality. This is a 'test wader' a took the other day. Cloudy,windy, @500mm zoom, f8, 1/500 shutter speed, ISO 400.
Pic is 'as is' no post processing.

alanrharris53 · Apr 2, 2011

Can't comment on the lens specifically but I changed from the Tamron to the Sigma 150-500 OS recently and don't see much difference in IQ.

The shot above seems to be underexposed. Are you shooting RAW? If so adjusting contrast/brightness and sharpness will give better results than procvessign jpegs. You don't say what type of camera body you are using, if it has microfocusing it might be worth trying - I haven't done it yet with mine but intend to as some stage. 1/500 seems slow to me for a lens with no IS/OS. Even withte Tamron I always got better results at faster than 1/1000, even wehn restign on a window ledge.

Aegea · Apr 2, 2011

It's difficult to tell, but it looks to me as if you may have a bit of a front focus in that shot. Also, 1/500 is a rather slow for hand-held, particularly if you are using a crop-sensor camera. That said, however, the edges look much softer than the center, which may indicate a bad copy. IMHO, Sigma's quality control is erratic - I tried (and returned) two copies of the 150-500 both of which had unacceptable focusing issues. The bits that were in focus were quite sharp at f/8, though

Keith Reeder · Apr 2, 2011

We need full Exif for that image please, cheersm8.

dave123 · Apr 2, 2011

i have used this lens with nikon d50 and d90, and had some good results but i always use a tripod

JCLynn · Apr 3, 2011

Thank you for the input so far, and appologies for my late response. Camera is a 350d.
This new upload of image should have all of the EXIF data. The photo was taken with the camera/lens supported on the hide window ledge. ignoring any 'camera shake' in the photo, it just seems to me that this old sigma just aint picking up the colours ( all washed out ). Maybe, because the sigma is a much small diamater lens than my Tamron, I just need more sun!
Also attached a 'post process' image which is the best I could make out of this poor shot.

Thanks,
Joe

ChrisKten · Apr 3, 2011

cheersm8 said:
Thank you for the input so far, and appologies for my late response. Camera is a 350d.
This new upload of image should have all of the EXIF data. The photo was taken with the camera/lens supported on the hide window ledge. ignoring any 'camera shake' in the photo, it just seems to me that this old sigma just aint picking up the colours ( all washed out ). Maybe, because the sigma is a much small diamater lens than my Tamron, I just need more sun!
Also attached a 'post process' image which is the best I could make out of this poor shot.

Thanks,
Joe

No idea about lenses, Joe, but I just had a quick play with your unprocessed image. Obviously you'd get better results with the full res image, but I think the colour and detail is probably there.

I just adjusted the exposure - resized and sharpened - increased saturation.

JCLynn · Apr 3, 2011

Thanks for that Chris, I've found it very useful. Seeing the image processed by another person (thus removing my own ingrained processing habits) tells me that my 'disapointment' is down to movement (camera shake and/or shutter vibration)
Obviously, this lens needs more support than resting on a window ledge.

Joe

dave123 · Apr 3, 2011

cheersm8 said:
Thanks for that Chris, I've found it very useful. Seeing the image processed by another person (thus removing my own ingrained processing habits) tells me that my 'disapointment' is down to movement (camera shake and/or shutter vibration)
Obviously, this lens needs more support than resting on a window ledge.

Joe

sunny days help also,and i found plenty of practice. it took me time to get it right, but when i started using a tripod my shots improved

dave123 · Apr 3, 2011

i took this shot whilst leaning on hide window. d50 +170-500

JCLynn · Apr 3, 2011

Thanks for the input Dave. I can see that a bit o' sun helps!
Forecast is sunny tomorrow, so I'm off to have a second bash at a blackwit. watch this space. lol

JCLynn · Apr 5, 2011

Well, another day of experimentation and I seem to be getting to grips with this lenses likes and dislikes. Exposure - has to be set on 'evaluative' any other choices and the colours are all washed out. Even 'dark bird against light sky' flight shots need 'evaluative' setting. Tried my usual of upping exposure a notch for this situation and it's pants!
Aperture - minimum of 2 stops above wide open seems to be the sweet spot (so, yes Dave, it needs sun! )
Still very very prone to camera shake though, even the release of the shutter can cause evident 'camera shake'

GYRob · Apr 5, 2011

i had one but could not get to grips with it ,i think you need lots of light to get the best out of it also be close to your subject.
Rob.
brightness and contrast added plus sat and a little USM.

Musoman · Apr 5, 2011

As already stated, the Sigma has had erratic QC , noted by some owners.

The 150-500 loves light, light and more light. Also, when zoomed right in at 500, back off slightly to what you think maybe 480 ish. ( On the subject of FL, the Siggy is not a true 500mm - it was tested to be around 475/480 if i remember correctly - not gospel on that, but it aint 500mm )

f8 has better IQ - it dont like f6.3 that much. You can hand hold but tripod is better, obviously. Your cam appears to be noisy at ISO 400, which doesnt help, but the light you shot that bird in is not to the Siggys liking, and as you know, under exposed too

I had a decent copy ( lucky me ) so it CAN take some good pics, if you consider mine good... here's some examples. The swan was hand held

DOC · Apr 6, 2011

I have had the 170-500 in the past, and I now have the Tamron 200-500 .
In my hands - the Tamron is far better at all parameters than the 170-500 . There is nothing to compare between the two . I can understand your frustration .
In order to get a good sharp photo with the 170-500 - you need a tripod , good sunshine ( a lot of light ) , and close proximity to the subject . Flight shots are out of the question .
The Sigma 150-500, or the 50-500 are way better than the 170-500 .
Here are a few samples from my experience with the 170-500:

Musoman · Apr 7, 2011

You say flight shots are out of the question with a 170-500 Sigma ????, ...yet you've managed a beauty ! :t:

jfmgb777 · Apr 7, 2011

If you are on a very tight budget, I would suggest a copy of the discontinued Sigma 300 mm f/4 APO (the one with the log rubberized focusing ring and the 77 mm filter ring - NOT the older 72 mm ones), or, if funds permit, its bigger brother the 400 mm f/5.6 APO - again the one with the 77 mm filter ring.

The 400 mm will only work at full aperture on a 350D, but I have seen nice sharp photos with it.

I have the 300 mm f/4 mated to my 350D. Mine may have a problem with front- or back-focusing, as I can only get the subject in focus at apertures of f/8 or smaller (i.e. f/8, f/11, ...).

I also have a Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4 converter, but the combination is only any good when the target is quite close and at effective apertures of f/11 and smaller.

Best results have been with the bare lens, especially if your target is a long way away. Have a look at some shots by Arsenal2010 (my younger son) of buzzards and the like.

You will have to improve your fieldcraft (posh word for sneaking up unobserved), but you should have no problem with sharpness.

JCLynn · Apr 9, 2011

Thanks again everyone, both for the constructive and informative replies, as wel as the interest.
Having used the siggy for a while now (a couple of weeks), I am getting some very acceptable photo's. My findings are it needs damn good light, it's rubbish when at 'wide open', the closer the bird the better, distance shots and cropping is a waste of time, flight shots are difficult and, again, need tons of light and a close flying bird, photo's are better quality at 450 zoom rather than maxed out at 500. The lens can't handle high ISO's and 200 seems ok whereas the tammy was happy at 400.
My broken, non-functional tammy 200-500 sold for nearly as much as I paid for this sigma - says it all really dunnit?
ps jfmgb777 - I've used the old sigma 400mm's that only work wide open, and, I agree, they get results and are good value. I've never kept one very long cos there has been a re-sell profit to be made, but in retrospect, I should have forgotten about making a penny or two and kept one as a 'standby'.

On a positive note, I've cured the wishy washy colour retention via photoshop post processing with blending using a soft light overlay, (this needs to be done on every photo)

Sigma 170-500 APO - poor quality lens or is it me? (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Watch the birdie...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

It's true, I quite like Pigeons

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

PETE - Nikon/Sony Shooter

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

PETE - Nikon/Sony Shooter

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread