Sigma 70-300 Apo macro II. Is this one a dud?

[ron chappel]

I finally got around to buying one of these lenses last week and have now used it for several shoots.One thing i notice is that it is pretty bad at 300mm

I'm wondering -is it normal for this model to go SO soft @ 300mm?:( .This one is softer at 300mm than the canon 75-300 IS.
Here are some test pics taken at 200mm wide open (f5) and 300mm wide open (f5.6). Both are downsized images with a 100% crop inset

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3329906
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3329907

I also tested it against a bunch of other telezooms i happen to have here right now.None of them degrade quite so much towards the long end as the sigma APO.
One thing that may effect all this is that the sigma is trully excellent at 200mm so has further to fall so to speak;)

Could everybody that has one of these offer an opinion (even if you think yours is a dud)? I am interested to see how much they vary as well

[tim]

Those look a little soft, not too bad, here's one I took with mine before I returned it. 300mm, F5.6, ISO 200, 300D, while I was still a complete beginner.

[Cadwell]

The photozone lens performance database rates that lens as "poor" (1/5) for long performance wide open so that would appear to be consistent.

[condyk]

The 200mm image is pretty good I think. It is fuzzy at the longer end for sure and not an acceptable standard to me. However, the light seems very different across the two images, so hard to judge how much that had an impact on performance. It's not a lens for dim situations as I found out myself the first time I tried to use it handheld in woodland :lol: forget it! So, for some birding, for example, I guess it could be a frustrating lens to have ... but so could the others at the same level.

To be honest, I also sold my Canon 70-200mm F4 because of the lower light performance. The small bit of woodland not far from where I live is a great place to test :) I never took one shot that I'd keep there with the Sigma or the Canon. When I got the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 I felt much more confident about performance. Tho' never got chance to test it in the woods, it did do pretty well in similar dim situations!

My Bigma struggles a bit in low light, but I got it for Africa primarily and I know it will work fine there.

Maybe try one in optimal light conditions, on a tripod or firm supportive surface, at 300mm ... I guess you have done that already. If not, then at least it'll give an idea of potential; it's about adapting to it's strengths and weaknesses. I suspect it is Ok rather than a dud. I still think it's the best all around value for general use. They all have compromises as you well know.

It's really useful to see this kind of shot, and any future experiments you may do (unless you throw it at the wall!!) as the 'cheaper zoom question' pops up pretty much every week here. It gives people a more realistic appreciation of what the lens can and can't do well.

[Wazza]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69995

As we both mentioned on that other topic, this lens is indeed soft at 200-300mm. But for 1/5th the price of the lens I want (100-400L), it does do maybe a 3/4 quality job in comparison. You just have to pay so much extra to squeeze that little bit out of the lens.

I generally just try to my best of ability to get what I can with the limited lens that I do have. I would have to walk around with L telephotos everyday, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. I guess all we can do is keep shooting only 70-200mm, where the results aren't too bad.

My Sigma shots are found on the link above, and a few more on http://wazz*****scity.com/recent.htm
The wideangle scenics are 17-40, so just ignore those.

Did you expect it to be as good or better quality than Canon 75-300IS?
I think it's actually closer to the basic 75-300 / 90-300 Canons, but have the closer macro focus ability. Also comes with the lens hood, and that's why I chose the Sigma, over the slightly cheaper Canon non IS

[nitsch]

Hey Ron, I think there may be a problem with your lens. I have found mine to be acceptably sharp at 300mm (in fact I have been surprised at how good it is when you think how cheap it is). Have you checked to see if your lens is front or back focusing at 300mm which may account for the softness. I will try and do a similar test with my copy of the lens tonight to see how they compare.

[ron chappel]

I probably should have mentioned that those examples were taken under very controlled conditions-tripod,multiple shots (including some manual focus attempts) to eliminate focus errors,fixed lighting,etc.I did use aperture priority so the camera probably should have chosen a slightly slower shutter speed for the 300mm shot...it's darker because of a freak of metering and the fact that the image quality is abit 'muddy' at 300mm which makes it look dimmer still.
This really is the best this lens is going to get at 300mm :(

Some very interesting commnets so far.I did indeed expect this model to better the canon 75-300 (especially at the long end).
Most have said it should be -and this gallery 'proves' it should-but of course this example may have been with a dud 75-300..one never knows unless one has multiple examples to test with.
http://www.pbase.com/argylemonkey/lens_comp

Also many have compared the sigma APO favourably with the canon 100-300 usm-which i have definitely proven to be better that the long end than the canon 75-300 (i have used five 75-300's and two 100-300's)
Here the example test i did -the 300mm pics start this page-
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_8.html


The sigma is indeed nice in the way they include a hood and case plus i like the way it feels (that surprised me) .And of course that 1:2 macro is an *excellent* feature.
If my sigma is a slight dud ...(and if they are usually abit better than this)......then i would definitely recommend one over a 75-300 canon.



" ..But for 1/5th the price of the lens I want (100-400L), it does do maybe a 3/4 quality job in comparison. You just have to pay so much extra to squeeze that little bit out of the lens"
Absolutally! I have an EF100-300/5.6L here for testing.It is better than all of the cheaper zooms, but only *just*. It's more a case of being consistant across all focal length ranges and apertures.
In fact the very lens i'm complaining about in this thread gives a slightly better looking image than the L lens @ 200mm !



"the 'cheaper zoom question' pops up pretty much every week here"

I must admit it's abit of a favorite subject for me. Maybe it shows my tight*ss nature:lol: :lol: :lol:
I also naturally like telephoto lenses and the challenge of getting awsome shots with a cheapo crap lens can't be beat;)


I have now used and tested alot of the potential candidates for canon EOS.
Frankly all of them work pretty well up to about 200mm (and some are just plain excellent).
The really tough bit is making them so that the image quality is *good enough* at the long end,most are average or even worse:rolleyes:

So far the canon 100-300 usm is the definite winner

I'm planning on doing a rather big test soon with lots of lenses
Currently i have the canon 75-300 IS and 100-300/5.6L ,tamron 70-300 LD(1:2) ,Sigma 100-300 DL (a cheap crappy lens...but one example i have here is unbelievably good,LOL) and Sigma 70-300 APO II (presuming it is indeed fit for use a a representative example) .
Soon i hope to buy/borrow a 100-300 usm and (with a big bit of luck) find someone that will lend me a 70-200/4L + 1.4TC and i'll be set!:D

What i want to find out is:
Which one(s) are actually sharp enough for enthusiast use @ 300mm.As i said above ,i don't think most cut it.
Where the 100-300/5.6L fits in-is it closer to the 70-200/4L in sharpness or closer to the better consumer zooms?
I should also do a focus speed test while i have them as well!:)


I hope my comments here make sense, i was thinking about several slightly different aspects of the is subject and quite likely some of it may sound abit disjointed:) (and it's late at night...:( after a big day)

[cfcRebel]

Hi Ron, just want to let you know I really appreciate your effort and comment. I currently own a EF100-300 USM non-IS. And another exact same lens is on its way to my door. I know it sounds silly, but i just want to find out which one is a dud :o . Both are used BTW.
I will keep following this thread tightly.

[condyk]

I'm planning on doing a rather big test soon with lots of lenses
Currently i have the canon 75-300 IS and 100-300/5.6L ,tamron 70-300 LD(1:2) ,Sigma 100-300 DL (a cheap crappy lens...but one example i have here is unbelievably good,LOL) and Sigma 70-300 APO II (presuming it is indeed fit for use a a representative example) .
Soon i hope to buy/borrow a 100-300 usm and (with a big bit of luck) find someone that will lend me a 70-200/4L + 1.4TC and i'll be set!:D


WOW! What a contribution that would be ... one click and the 'cheap zoom' quesion is answered. Server traffic here would reduce by 50% overnight :lol: :lol:

I'd get another APO though if you're not sure it's Ok. I assume you got it new ... tho' I noted the 'tightwad' comment!

Anyway, good to see some feverish activity going on in sleepy Noosa :p

[Myke]

I've had this lens for several months now and so far, happy the word for it. My only gripe about it is the slow and hunting AF especially at low light shots. I love it during daylight though, quite nice at f8. On the long range, even in bright light, you really need a tripod, or probably my hands are just too shakey? The settings was 1/200 shutter speed. I'd recommend it to the bird watchers and begginers that's going to use it for practice until they have enough moolah for a f2.8

Cheers!

[ron chappel]

Hi Ron, just want to let you know I really appreciate your effort and comment. I currently own a EF100-300 USM non-IS. And another exact same lens is on its way to my door. I know it sounds silly, but i just want to find out which one is a dud :o . Both are used BTW.
I will keep following this thread tightly.

I have had very good luck with secondhand EF100-300usm's.Both examples i had were bought that way and both usually(*see below) gave excellent results.
2nd hand 75-300's i've had haven't been so good,varying somewhat.The current 75-300 IS lens i have is the best example i've had so far (just) i'm glad to say


* On the other hand the 100-300 usm does seem to give odd off results sometimes.One time i noticed it had a thumbprint on the rear element so tested it-it turned out a little less sharp than the 75-300. Before i cleaned it off i tried the same smudge on the 75-300 -which had no effect at all !
Once both were cleaned the 100-300 was once again the sharpest.
Another time i went to clean some specs of dust from under the front element of the 100-300 and noticed that the front element calibration lock screws weren't in their right (factory set) place.No wonder i had been abt dissapointed with it leading up to that!
Once reset it was once again working great.

So what i'm trying to get around to saying:rolleyes: is that the 100-300 usm seems to be a slightly sensitive optical design.
Or perhaps i should say that it is a reliable optical design unless misstreated;) (i'm sure that misscalibration was all my fault..i just cant remember exactly but i probably did a hasty,clumsy dust clean sometime prior to that )

Besides all this talk of sharpness,the 100-300 does have a strange habit of oversaturating certain colours.I hate the way it makes green grass look...and it's something i haven't found a solution to in photoshop as yet (it's not a simple case of desaturating the green channel)

So while i'm allways praising the sharpness of the 100-300 usm i must admit it's not ideal in every way for all people

[cfcRebel]

...Another time i went to clean some specs of dust from under the front element of the 100-300 and noticed that the front element calibration lock screws weren't in their right (factory set) place. Once reset it was once again working great.

Ron, mine has dust from under the front element too. I saw three screws but i was afraid to open it and clean the dust. Are those calibration lock screws? And when you said "right place(factory set)", how can i tell if my screws are in the right place?
Let me know if i should take this question offline.
Thank you in advance.

cfc

[ron chappel]

The three screws around the front are simply there to hold the front screwthread/hood holder part on so they can be safely taken out

*note- they may be those odd pull out 'screws' like the 75-300 models have- i can't remember now-If they don't unscrew then try gently pulling on one with needle nose pliers.

Once the front section is out of the way you should see the three lock screws which hold the front element assembly .This whole assembly has built in 'ramps' on it's mounting tabs so that as it is rotated it moves the lens glass forward or back so giving a calibration ability.
When canon set this at the factory they put a small amount of glue on the screws which gives a handy mark as to where the screws were.
i.e when you take those screws out there is an obvious screw head mark in the glue blobs- so you can safely take them out knowing exactly where to put them back.

All the best!:)

[cfcRebel]

THanks Ron! I'll give it a try if necessary. My 2nd EF 100-300mm just arrived. I tested a few shots before losing natural light here (sunset). So far the results seem to be sharper than the ones from my 1st 100-300. I try not to celebrate just yet because i need a few more conclusive results. But i can't help it. :D ****whispering***** Bad... copies... do....... exist.

[Simon Spiers]

Is that the red banded one?
I have just bought one and it seems many times sharper than my old 75-300 Canon non IS lens.

[cfcRebel]

Is that the red banded one?
I have just bought one and it seems many times sharper than my old 75-300 Canon non IS lens.
I don't know about others' but both mine don't have a red band. They have a golden strip though.

Here http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12059&is=USA