soft end of sigma 70-200 f2.8

[PEACHMAN]

Took some shots at the grade school Halloween Hat Parade Friday...the lighting and distance as well as moving subjects gave me a perfect chance to try worse case conditions with the lens...these were all shot with f2.8 Av priority, and most of the speeds were 1/20-1/60 seconds..there were a few where I tried to bump up the speed to 1/100-1/200...disasterous light wise but huge gain in motion blur...CCis not what I'm after here as I know these are not the best,,but it and comments/suggestions/reworks are always welcome!

1st subject is my little guy, probably 40 feet away,,heavy crop, some USM..

2nd is a young lady that was at least 60 feet away, cropped very heavily..and shot at 1/125 seconds..this was extremely dark and broughy back to its grainy state with curves...

[PEACHMAN]

This second set isalso shot with the same settings,f2.8 and low speeds.

[PEACHMAN]

last group,last shot.things were going soft anyway so I want for a motion shot while my little monkey was dancing across the floor........Lights were a few florescents and some wall mounted incandesents..no good light on the faces so all quite flat...anybody can tell me how to improve that aspect, I would be a happy camper!

[PEACHMAN]

Oh moderator...If you feel this should be in "People" please feel free to change it without notice to me....my reason for it to be here is demonstration of this sig 70-200 lens.........

[ryno4youth]

I think that you did a fine job, and the lens kept up with you for what you were asking it to do. At 2.8 that lens can get a little soft, but you were working on the low end of the shutter speeds, so that makes it worse. Agian great job, and I will be in the same boat tonight.

[PEACHMAN]

I think that you did a fine job, and the lens kept up with you for what you were asking it to do. At 2.8 that lens can get a little soft, but you were working on the low end of the shutter speeds, so that makes it worse. Agian great job, and I will be in the same boat tonight.\
If you are shooting with your 70-200 please post a few here or on a new post so I can see what others are getting.....thanks ! By the way, what kind of shots are you getting with your Sig 28-105?? How do you like it?

[Headcase650]

You didnt mention your ISO setting. I have this lens, If the light was so bad that the fastest I was getting at f2,8 was 1/20th or 1/60th I wouldnt hesitate to bump up the ISO to what ever was required to get at least a 1/250th shutter even if it was ISO 1600 or 3200. I would rather have properly exposed shots with noise reduction, then underexposed and curves.

[PEACHMAN]

You didnt mention your ISO setting. I have this lens, If the light was so bad that the fastest I was getting at f2,8 was 1/20th or 1/60th I wouldnt hesitate to bump up the ISO to what ever was required to get at least a 1/250th shutter even if it was ISO 1600 or 3200. I would rather have properly exposed shots with noise reduction, then underexposed and curves.

Ya, thanks for reminding me, forgot to post the ISO...it was 400 for all shots, Ive had some good shots at these settings with 400 in the past and lousy ones at 800, but I will do a somewhat controled test...I will try some at higher settings under the same conditions at 800, 1600 and 3200 tonight and post the results...thanks HC..

[DavidEB]

were you using your monopod? I'm always amazed at how much that improves shots in crummy light.

[PEACHMAN]

were you using your monopod? I'm always amazed at how much that improves shots in crummy light.

There was no room for it in the crowd of parents and onlookers...I don't think they planned on so many spectators and there was hardly room to even get the lens up without some inadvertant shoving...I was hoping to set up the tripod..but no go..

[svfoto]

Peachman,
Are you sure we weren't at the same place. I had a strangely similar setting with the same setup and similar results.........it's de ja vu all over again! I would post some pics here but I don't want to flood this section with photos.

[PEACHMAN]

Peachman,
Are you sure we weren't at the same place. I had a strangely similar setting with the same setup and similar results.........it's de ja vu all over again! I would post some pics here but I don't want to flood this section with photos.
Hey, svfoto...drop them in here on this thread so we can see what this lens can do...Thats why I'm posting in Lens section...I asked earlier that the moderator move this if it's in the wrong section........Where ever you post them I'd love to see yoyr results!

[_Ash_]

Hi guys. I'll make this my first post on here ;)

Interesting reading. I have the same lens and have used it recently for both outdoors shooting and a party I was asked to shoot a couple of nights ago. I would have to say that it can be quite unforgiving at low shutter speeds and wider apertures without a flash. I ended up dumping most of the set I did with the family a week ago. However I have some excellent images I have taken with it when the light was good or I have used the flash. I'll try and dig some out to post here...

[PEACHMAN]

Hi guys. I'll make this my first post on here ;)

Interesting reading. I have the same lens and have used it recently for both outdoors shooting and a party I was asked to shoot a couple of nights ago. I would have to say that it can be quite unforgiving at low shutter speeds and wider apertures without a flash. I ended up dumping most of the set I did with the family a week ago. However I have some excellent images I have taken with it when the light was good or I have used the flash. I'll try and dig some out to post here...Welcome Ash, and I'm looking forward to seeing your first posting ofphotos, especially if it's with this lens!! Hope you are as happy on this forum as I am..........great people and great source of advise!

[svfoto]

Peachman,
I just got back and read your post. I will grab a couple of my shots and post them and we can compare and share.
Thanks

[chell]

I just got my Sigms on Friday and took it out to a church on Saturday, then a party afterwards.....THe Lens gets out more than my other half! Anywa I really enjoyed testing it out. The conditions were very similar to those you described. I ended up using ISO 800 to get my speed up a little but I was really happy with the detail in the shots. Hand held it at the party where there was only disco lights but used my on board flash. Wasn't great but Im sure wit a little more practice we'll be very happy together!Cant wait to see some of your guys examples!

[akacoach]

I just got my Sigma and took it to the Zoo (overcast day with some sun). Here is what I got:
(Still learning about how to post etc!)

[PEACHMAN]

Hey akacoach...thanks for letting us view those...nice captures , but still some softness that I experience about half the time...what settings were you using and with or without a tripod/monopod ??...It's quite a piece of equipment ,aye?

[PetKal]

Peachman m'lad, it is perhaps that you are shooting 1/20-1/60 without a pod that would render an image soft even at 70 mm end.

I think those sort of shutter speeds could only be used (hand-held) reasonably well with IS.

So your options for that sort of indoor photography seem to be rather straightforward:

* Crank up that ISO to get shutter speeds appropriate for your focal length (and hand tremor), and obviously, subject movement.
* Use a pod.
* Upgrade to EF 70-200 2.8 IS.(I know..$$$$$$$$:rolleyes: )

One can not easily judge sharpness of your lens wide open before those camera motion issues have been addressed first.

[PEACHMAN]

Pektal , old boy, all I can say is when I see your new avatar is that I am reminded of my expectations of up coming views when I approach a mirror, alas, this would surly be true if the inner matched the outer! (especially true when it is suggested that my new lens be replaced with a newer and more expensive one!!) I'm here contemplating which appandage my wife would possibly wish to cut as a sacerifice to the gods of reflected light ! :confused: (even though the words would have come from my mouth, me thinks she may not start with my tongue!!...perhaps I'll endevour to remember a tripod more often!!:rolleyes:

[PetKal]

:D :D :D
All I can say mirrors are for sissies, we the real men do not need them, we know we ain't a pretty sight.
Tripods are obviously for sissies too, however, I think I'm gonna git meself one of them monopods pretty soon, because these days everything I shoot ends up being all bokeh and nothing but.

[PEACHMAN]

:D :D :D
I think I'm gonna git meself one of them monopods pretty soon, because these days everything I shoot ends up being all bokeh and nothing but.

Well, with all the praise rained down on bokeh, thats what I thought everyone was after...you mean there should be portions of sharpness in each photo?? ...I gotta re-think my game plan!:p

[PetKal]

Peachman old son, your game is one of the best in town already, don't try to fix somethin' that ain't broke.

People pay a cartload of money for soft focus primes.....but the likes of you and I, we do it the old (fashioned) way.;)

[PEACHMAN]

Unfortunatly...........

[PEACHMAN]

OK..here we go again...low lights in the house,100 watt house lamp beside the chair with no light on the other side..got my model to sit still for about 30 shots by having him watch a movie...I used Av setting with different ISO's,small range of f's and let the speeds fall where the camera wanted them..these are 100% crops and these are the best I could do with a tripod and remote release...#1,1/60, f2.8 ISO 800 all 70-200@200......#2, 1/250, f2.8, ISO 1600, #3, 1/50, 2.8, ISO 400, #4, 1/40, f4.5, ISO 800...no PP of any type..

[PEACHMAN]

#3&4 The only difference I can see is #4........

[PEACHMAN]

now, should anybody say the "lens just sucks" I would have to disagree, and proof of that is the clarity and crispness of the included shots of Molly...1/1000, f8, ISO 400 200mm, late afternoon sun....get close to these eyes and you can see all the way to the brain !!may be soft at low light but dinomite at normal daylight!

[PetKal]

Peachman, one key difference between the kid and dog shots is the aperture: the first is f/2.8, the second f/8.
Obviously, a lens could be perfectly sharp at f/8 (and most lenses are) while softish wide open (and many lenses are).
Do not know.....

[PEACHMAN]

Peachman, one key difference between the kid and dog shots is the aperture: the first is f/2.8, the second f/8.
Obviously, a lens could be perfectly sharp at f/8 (and most lenses are) while softish wide open (and many lenses are).
Do not know.....

Ya thanks , quite aware...just wanted to point out to those listening to all this CC about the soft lens, that there are some very good features about this lens as well...I've got some shots I'm really happy with at f5.6-10 and 10X better than the shots taken with my ef70-300 at the same focal lengths..these two of molly lost a lot in the resolution change for the web..they would really make my point about this lens if seen in full res and size...

[_Ash_]

Peachman, here's a wedding image I took at f3.2 @ 1/800th. Pretty sharp I'd say. Any softness on this is probably down to the way I reduced the size of the TIFF :)

36536

With no USM I might add....

[BugEyes]

What Petkal said,
Not even you with your unusually steady hands can shoot sharp pics at 1/20 on 200 mm. I'm sure that with the camera on a tripod and a non moving target the pics would be fine.

[Jon]

Second difference is, you'll note that when the boy was leaning his head on the couch (photo 4) the picture looks sharper. This suggests that he might have been moving himself in the first 3.

[PetKal]

So Peachman, what is being said here is that the softness could be due to:
(1) Relative movement between your camera and the object, at very low shutter speeds. Plus wide open means shallow DOF, and that does not help either with focusing.
You seem to have taken measures to stabilize the camera. However, as Jon has pointed out, there is the subject...a person who might move just ever so slightly during your longish exposures.

That's why it is better to be shooting boxes of cereal and stacks of books when doing this sort of low light/wide open testing for resolving power of a lens.

(2) Lens is softer wide open than at f/8.

Could be either (1) or (2), or both factors at play here. Looks like you need to do a bit more work on it.

This sort of investigative work could be fun if one approaches it with some humour, as you seem to be doing it so well.;)

[PEACHMAN]

This sort of investigative work could be fun if one approaches it with some humour, as you seem to be doing it so well.;)

You are right there..I'm doing it for fun and to completely understand the limits of the camera and lens so I won't be cursing myself for missing shots I shouldn't be taking.........Besides, it's getting dark outside, I need to be taking care of Myles every night so it gives me something to shoot at and keeps an eye on him at the same time! It was funny , last night I was looking for something fixed and bright to take a number of controlled shots at with a good light applied...I ended up with a photo pinned up on my wall display of a colorful shot including a closeup of a cute little girl I'd taken in Costa Rica...man even that kept giving me soft blurry eyes in my controled shots...finally I went over to the photo on the board, and guess what...unfocused soft eyes !Ya, if I took this and myself seriously I'd be bonkers by now...(see your avatar for possible Peach;) :rolleyes: )

[PetKal]

Peachmon ;) , you are such a terrific sport. Furthermore, lookit....even in the hypothetical worst case scenario, i.e., if you decide to pass the lens along, you could always sell it to that good lad Condyk of Wessex who, if my memory serves me right, has guided you towards the acquisition of that particular lens.

Naturally, you should not be out of pocket nary a penny as a result of such transaction.

[PEACHMAN]

Peachmon ;) , you are such a terrific sport. Furthermore, lookit....even in the hypothetical worst case scenario, i.e., if you decide to pass the lens along, you could always sell it to that good lad Condyk of Wessex who, if my memory serves me right, has guided you towards the acquisition of that particular lens.

Naturally, you should not be out of pocket nary a penny as a result of such transaction.


Hahahahahaha,,,I'm very fond of a good, practical thinker!!

However even at the rediculous 2.8 no light soft stage it would be hard to part with for reasons of its magnificent mid range performance....I love what it did in the Buddy Walk under normal shooting of somewhat low light conditions ...Who am I fooling saying that I would normally shoot photos in the dark at my house !! But...I've stored that Condyke thought away for future fits regarding my termultulous relationship with soft shooting....Say...you and M/Condyke wouldn't be playing tag team with me in order to get cheap lenses from me , would you?!

[PetKal]

"Playing tag team with you".....:D :D :D :D ....now that's hysterical !

Listen, those "Buddy Walk"photos were simply superb, not only a credit to your fine eye and skill, but they did say something about the lens you used.

I know nothing about your Sigma zoom, but I have been a satisfied owner of two EF70-200's: f/4 and now f/2.8. Both of those zooms have very good to excellent resolving power and the colour output is the best I have had.

What I am trying to tell you is the following: If your lens gets you comparable results to Canon's 70-200's, and considering significant savings you have realized by going Sigma as opposed to Canon, I think you are winning big time. Plus your lens colour is more, shall we say, sober;)