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

harryv wrote in post #18847299
Great shots Martin.

Harry

Thank you Harry

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

couple of mine from today

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Posting on this forum after 7 years, thanks to this thread. Started using my 150 - 600 c this past week more consistently.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Cerulian Warbler.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/RPTb​et

a couple. of butterfly shots from yesterday . love how sharp this lens is ,all shots handheld

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Disclaimer: I am not a Sigma 150-600mm user, nor do I have a long lend. But I am a keen bird watcher and do enjoy seeing all the bird photography here. However, I do note that there are a significant proportion of not-quite-sharp images. Please excuse my temerity for being so blunt.

I have no means of knowing how often you focus calibrate and test your lens(es) for (e.g. using FoCal Pro) or whether you sharpen images with LR or Photoshop, however, I think I have found the ideal app for dealing with the not-quite-sharp (or rejected images. It is the recently released Topaz Sharpener AI; and incredibly easy to use and effective application. Let me walk you through what it looks like and what it can do.


1. The interface; note the 3 main processing mode buttons (N.B. This image is too large for POTN so please click on this Imagur link to see it.

2. One of my own images using my normal PP but without any sharpening.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Stiga wrote in post #18849059
However, I do note that there are a significant proportion of not-quite-sharp images.

Such as? Since there are a significant number, should be easy to quote examples of the perceived “problem” being cited. Clicking a link and dropping $79 based on an anecdotal statement feels like a Don Quixote approach.

That's a bit harsh when I was trying not to offend anyone

Stiga wrote in post #18849118
That's a bit harsh when I was trying not to offend anyone

Hi Stiga, there is a wide spectrum of know-how on this whole forum. I am grateful 10 yrs ago for those who encouraged me to shoot with manual settings, and a great many other tips along the way, including focus tips and using a shutter speed that removes motion blur and aperture that gets what we want in focus for depth of field. I was open to such mentoring comments because I wanted to master my craft. Others may not have a desire to invest time in mastering the craft. Others still can easily get their feathers ruffled

Cheers ~

Many thanks Will.

I think there are a lot of POTN shooters who are in love with their kit but don't take the trouble to get the best out of their images.

Cheers

Stiga wrote in post #18849059
Disclaimer: I am not a Sigma 150-600mm user, nor do I have a long lend. But I am a keen bird watcher and do enjoy seeing all the bird photography here. However, I do note that there are a significant proportion of not-quite-sharp images. Please excuse my temerity for being so blunt.

A couple of things. First, some photos may be suffering from the upload. My most recent photo doesn't look particularly sharp on POTN, but it is sharp in LR. Second, your sharpened photo is way over-sharpened to my eye. Topaz is a well known program, but even a good program can be over-used and that is what your photo looks like to me. Everyone has their own opinion as to what is the appropriate amount of sharpness in a photo.

Tim

I’m 100% with Tim on this , any and every form of processing via a computer will appear different on most screens . I.e on another forum a respected member pulled me up re.white balance and stated my shots were extremely enhanced but when I then viewed his shots I .found them to be pallid and insipid .
So until the day when every single monitor and computer are calibrated to exactly the same levels i’ll Defer judgement .
BTW I also find your examples badly oversharpend and have lost a fair bit of detail in the act .. I also hope that your not comparing a highly cropped bird image with a full frame landscape shot I.e a 24 mp full frame image will retain a lot of detail a bird image taken with the same camera will probably only utilise 6 to 8 mp once cropped in.
As you say your not either a long lens user or bird photographer so the old Yorkshire adage applies , if in doubt say nowt .

Orogeny wrote in post #18849611
A couple of things. First, some photos may be suffering from the upload. My most recent photo doesn't look particularly sharp on POTN, but it is sharp in LR. Second, your sharpened photo is way over-sharpened to my eye. Topaz is a well known program, but even a good program can be over-used and that is what your photo looks like to me. Everyone has their own opinion as to what is the appropriate amount of sharpness in a photo.

Tim

Tim, monitory calibration crops up frequently. I usually get my son (with young eyes) to do this for me.

Agreed, on looking at my images again, I concede that they are are over-sharpened. I also nore that some areas are sharpened more than others; this was mentioned in one of the software revies.

Thanks. Please see my reply to Tim

Stiga wrote in post #18849626
Tim, monitory calibration crops up frequently. I usually get my son (with young eyes) to do this for me.

Sometimes it is calibration issues but I think that more times than not the quality of the uploaded photo is less than the original. Sharpness is one of those things that suffers.

Tim