Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary

Some of you know from the photo images in my earlier posts here that I have a good copy of the lens. It has been a delight to use this lens so far. However, when I ran into a mommy bear and its two cubs in my just completed trip to the Rocky Mountain NP turned into a big, first disappointment with the lens. All the years that I had visited the park, this was the first time ever that I saw a bear and not just a bear but with its cubs in tow. I was really excited, but it quickly turned sour upon reviewing the results. Here is a sample photo with exif info:

Help me (us?) understand the nature of your concern.
I don't see any glaring issue with the samples provided. Focus in the bear image is clearly on the cub, which seems sharp. Is your concern a focus issue or IQ or ...?

I have been burt several times using a low SS for animals/birds...

SYS wrote in post #18624538
Some of you know from the photo images in my earlier posts here that I have a good copy of the lens. It has been a delight to use this lens so far. However, when I ran into a mommy bear and its two cubs in my just completed trip to the Rocky Mountain NP turned into a big, first disappointment with the lens. All the years that I had visited the park, this was the first time ever that I saw a bear and not just a bear but with its cubs in tow. I was really excited, but it quickly turned sour upon reviewing the results. Here is a sample photo with exif info:

Hosted photo: posted by SYS in
./showthread.php?p=186​24538&i=i49485987
forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive

1/250 sec
f/7.1
ISO 1600
@600mm

I always shoot RAW and my 5DIII allows me much confidence shooting in high ISO with great PP results, but this photo and all the rest of bear shots were really challenging in PP. Thinking that perhaps 1/250 sec was too slow (shot everything on my monopod) for the lens even for the stationary cub, I raised the SS to 1/500 sec by bumping the ISO. The results were the same. You can see how much I had to apply noise reduction here.

Here's then another image that I shot the other day. I was really excited to find this lone elk in the pond when it gave me the drama I needed when it started suddenly to charge at the ducks. It was shot from a distance but not enough to rely all that much cropping afterward.

Hosted photo: posted by SYS in
./showthread.php?p=186​24538&i=i15443131
forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive

1/800 sec
f/8.0
ISO 400
@600mm

With this photo, ISO had no impact on the IQ since it's low enough. I don't think SS was a factor, either, since, although charging, the speed of the elk was pretty slow.

I want to know whether it's the user error OR the lighting condition played a role, the first in the shadow, wooded area that forced me to shoot in high ISO and the second with too much mid-day light. Two great rare opportunities gone up in smoke. Very disappointing. Your thoughts on the cause? User error (remember, the bear shots were later raised to 1/500 sec on relatively stationary subjects) or the nature of the lens in certain lighting condition?

Immaculens wrote in post #18624549
Help me (us?) understand the nature of your concern.
I don't see any glaring issue with the samples provided. Focus in the bear image is clearly on the cub, which seems sharp. Is your concern a focus issue or IQ or ...?

I have been burt several times using a low SS for animals/birds...

I think what I'm starting to notice (I have now been using this lens for about two months) is that there's a stark difference in sharpness AND IQ not so much stemming from the focal length as the factors involving SUBJECT DISTANCE and/or the LIGHTING conditions. I get tack sharp and relatively good IQ images at 600mm as long as the subject isn't too far from me, but when the subject is far, as in the case of the bears, it seems the lens gets severely affected by the lighting conditions more than other zoom lens I've used, Canon 100-400L. Likewise with the lighting condition. The second image of the elk chasing a duck is a good example. The lighting condition was very bright and while the distance wasn't severe enough to force me to crop much from the original frame, the IQ was severely affected.

I can tell that the focus wasn't the issue nor the aperture, SS and ISO, as evidences seem to point to a relative sharpness of the subjects, but the subjects came out "unclear" (is probably the best way to describe the point) such that I had a difficult time in the post-processing to correct the flaws. I'm trying to ascertain whether the results were due to user error or that it's just the nature of the lens when given certain distance and the lighting conditions. I suspect that the long prime lenses would have produced a different set of results with the same exact camera/lens settings, the distance and the lighting conditions. Of course, it's an apple to orange comparison, so it's not fair. I'm really trying to get to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the Sigma lens so I know exactly when to use it and what to avoid. I'd hate to mess up another golden opportunities when given similar shooting situations.

This was what I just shot yesterday after the RMNP trip. The lighting condition was pretty harsh as it was shot in the mid-day, but given the short distance of the subject, shot at 600 focal length, the subject came out tack sharp. Under the same lighting condition, even a much larger subject, such as an elk, at greater distance from the lens, it'd quickly lose both the IQ and the sharpness.

Wilson's Warbler, taken in Rockville, Maryland.

I certainly try to avoid direct sun as you mention - too harsh and unflattering. I use center-weighted average for metering since we really do (typically) want the center subject to be exposed properly (please anyone correct my thinking here). I have lightroom 6 and have the De-haze presets (not the slider) and I find it can add some selective punch to certain images in certain conditions - espetially perhaps when at 600mm far away when there is a lot of atmospheric haze.

Shooting in harsh light, we certainly take our chances and while we hate missing the once in a lifetime shots, we still gain experience. Little comfort, I know.

In your second image perhaps consider lowering orange and yellow luminance to decrease the tree-bark - if you have Lr or the means. I love the HSL settings.

Cheers,
Will

SYS wrote in post #18624958
I think what I'm starting to notice (I have now been using this lens for about two months) is that there's a stark difference in sharpness AND IQ not so much stemming from the focal length as the factors involving SUBJECT DISTANCE and/or the LIGHTING conditions. I get tack sharp and relatively good IQ images at 600mm as long as the subject isn't too far from me, but when the subject is far, as in the case of the bears, it seems the lens gets severely affected by the lighting conditions more than other zoom lens I've used, Canon 100-400L. Likewise with the lighting condition. The second image of the elk chasing a duck is a good example. The lighting condition was very bright and while the distance wasn't severe enough to force me to crop much from the original frame, the IQ was severely affected.

I can tell that the focus wasn't the issue nor the aperture, SS and ISO, as evidences seem to point to a relative sharpness of the subjects, but the subjects came out "unclear" (is probably the best way to describe the point) such that I had a difficult time in the post-processing to correct the flaws. I'm trying to ascertain whether the results were due to user error or that it's just the nature of the lens when given certain distance and the lighting conditions. I suspect that the long prime lenses would have produced a different set of results with the same exact camera/lens settings, the distance and the lighting conditions. Of course, it's an apple to orange comparison, so it's not fair. I'm really trying to get to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the Sigma lens so I know exactly when to use it and what to avoid. I'd hate to mess up another golden opportunities when given similar shooting situations.

SYS wrote in post #18624960
This was what I just shot yesterday after the RMNP trip. The lighting condition was pretty harsh as it was shot in the mid-day, but given the short distance of the subject, shot at 600 focal length, the subject came out tack sharp. Under the same lighting condition, even a much larger subject, such as an elk, at greater distance from the lens, it'd quickly lose both the IQ and the sharpness.

Hosted photo: posted by SYS in
./showthread.php?p=186​24960&i=i57829053
forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive

Some with a 70D combination.

Owls really are awesome.
I’ve never had a chance to capture one on camera. Looking forward to the day I can.

Awesome pics.

I just got this, replacing my 150-500.
It's a bit heftier than I expected, I'm really looking forward to enjoying it.

First time using the lens for an air show, at the U.S. Air Force Academy graduation.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/24Hr​U2m

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/27t4​3b4

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/27t4​3Di

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/26ng​pxf

That's a great first start!
You've set yourself a high standard to followup!

SYS wrote in post #18632519
First time using the lens for an air show, at the U.S. Air Force Academy graduation.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/27t4​3b4

Fantastic!

Thank you, primeone and Perfectly Frank. Still trying to get to really know the lens, its strengths and weaknesses, in a variety of shooting circumstances.