Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 22 Nov 2013 (Friday) 12:00
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sigma 100-300 f4 just awful

 
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Nov 23, 2013 22:22 |  #31

Then done deal, but don't title a thread sigma 100-300 just awful because you got a broken lens(at this point I would guess this is more likely than bad copy) and then dump comps of said broken lens to a dirt cheap alternative. I understand our satisfaction helps you zero, but it does portray truth.


Everything is relative.
Gear: 6D, Unholy Trinity:twisted: (24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.
Fuji X-e2, Rokinon 8 2.8 Fisheye II, Fuji 14 2.8, Fuji 18-55, Fuji 23 1.4
FlikR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Fernando
Goldmember
Avatar
1,628 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Round Rock, TX
     
Nov 24, 2013 11:16 |  #32

Limbwalker wrote in post #16473273 (external link)
The image above is without the TC. I actually was pretty impressed with the TC, and really couldn't tell any difference between the lens with or without it when I shrunk the 420 5.6 down to match the image size of the 300 4 native lens. So the TC was definitely not the problem

Glad some folks like their copy. Wish I could have said the same!

Fernando, if it was motion blur, then I'm not sure how. I had it on my 3221 Bogen tripod with large ball head and 2 sec. shutter delay. I wasn't even touching the camera when the shutter fired - an already very unlikely scenario putting the odds in the favor of the Sigma. But even hand-held the 55-250 canon was keeping pace, if not flat-out outperforming it.

That's why I said my scenario made no sense. Getting rid of it made sense in your scenario.


Fuji convert - Ping me if you have any Fuji gear or legacy glass you're moving.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
Goldmember
2,327 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Nov 24, 2013 11:58 |  #33

Limbwalker wrote in post #16475417 (external link)
Showing images of your great copy does nothing more than convince me how bad the one I had actually was, and make me even more glad I returned it.

EXACTLY - the point is your lens was not representative. I've had 2 Sigma 100-300's and both were VERY SHARP wide open. Both had slight AF issues and needed micro adjusting but the bodies I had didn't have MA. They also didn't focus as quickly or accurately as the Canon lenses but they were very sharp!


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gabebalazs
Bird Whisperer
Avatar
7,640 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 1055
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Toledo, OH
     
Nov 24, 2013 12:36 |  #34

Whenever I buy and/or test lenses, I don't give a cr*p what name brand it is. I test how it performs. If it's subpar I won't buy it, or return it or send it in for repair, etc.

I've had about 30 lenses during the last 5 years, 4 different brands, but mostly Canon and Sigma. I had good Canons and bad Canons, as well as good Sigmas and bad Sigmas, Tamrons too. While the percentage of duds may be higher in certain brands, all brands have good and bad lenses. Just look at Roger Cicala's (Lensrentals) tests. He's got dozens of copies of the same lens at his business. He tested a bunch of Canon 24-70 2.8 (Mark I) lenses and the copy variation was pretty shocking.

Once I had A Tamron 200-500 tele zoom that I purchased for around $400, since it was a good deal and I'm into wildlife photography. I also had a Sigma 150-500 OS at that time.
The Tamron was a disappointment first; very soft, even with controlled, manual focus tests. Fortunately it was under warranty (thank god for 6 years), so I sent it in for realignment of the groups/elements. Came back the same. I sent it back again, came back MUCH sharper, at that time it had better IQ than my Sigma. So softness is fixable and is not necessarily a representative of a particular lens model.
Then I traded it for a Canon 17-40L.


SONY A7RIII | SONY A7III | SONY RX10 IV | SONY RX100 | 24-70 2.8 GM | 70-200 2.8 GM | 16-35 F/4 | PZ 18-105 F/4 | FE 85 1.8 | FE 28-70 | SIGMA 35 1.4 ART | SIGMA 150-600 C | ROKINON 14 2.8
Gabe Balazs Photo (external link)
Nature Shots Portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pekka
El General Moderator
Avatar
17,734 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 1503
Joined Mar 2001
Location: Hellsinki, Finland
     
Nov 24, 2013 17:21 |  #35

Deleted some posts. Please leave personal fights to pm. Civilized discussion is rated highly among unbanned members.


The Forum Boss, El General Moderator
AMASS 2.1 Changelog (installed here now)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Limbwalker
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
536 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 173
Joined Nov 2013
Location: SE Texas
     
Nov 24, 2013 17:55 |  #36

Thank you.

Whenever I buy and/or test lenses, I don't give a cr*p what name brand it is. I test how it performs. If it's subpar I won't buy it, or return it or send it in for repair, etc.

Gabe, I feel exactly the same way.


Shoot first and ask questions later.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,977 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sigma 100-300 f4 just awful
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is championlover1
797 guests, 274 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.