Would you say this lens is a sharp copy? Sigma 150-500mm OS (Pictures included)

I need to decide whether to buy it or not.

500mm

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Looks horrible.
Send it to me.

Mantaray wrote in post #14371818
Looks horrible.
Send it to me.

:p

Not sharp at all. Send it to me and I will calibrate it for you.

kin2son wrote in post #14371827
:p

Not sharp at all. Send it to me and I will calibrate it for you.

^

I will pay for postage and 'calibrate it' for you for free.

Note: Calibration may take 1-never years, you will probably not get it back.

Needless to say, it looks fine. What's your concern?

Those images are too small to tell, I need you to send me the lens (postage paid) and I will do an intensive testing on this lens.... may take up to 4 years.

gjl711 wrote in post #14371855
Needless to say, it looks fine. What's your concern?

My camera is a 60D which does not have MA. I am trying to make sure that the lens would work with my camera as it is without requiring the need for re-calibration for my camera.

Focus looks spot on. I do not see that you have anything to worry about. Enjoy the lens!

Hard to tell, since the second image is definitely not a 100% crop. Or if it is, it is from a low res DSLR or a small(er) jpeg. I presume the first image is the full frame.

EDIT: I took the liberty and saved the two images. Then I resized the physical size of the wood in the full image to match the size of the wood in the crop. Then checked the image size and it came out to about 1700x1137 pixels. We all know that that is a tiny (by today's standards) image size, from which any lens can produce a good 100% crop.

I am not trying to put you off or anything, I myself owned the 150-500 OS in the past and liked it a lot. I'm just telling you that it is hard to judge sharpness from these two images. If pic #2 was a true 100% crop (which I usually personally ask for when I'm buying a lens), the magnification would be much higher compared to pic #1.

Judging a lens sharpness based on a 640 x 420 jpeg is like auditioning stereo speakers over the phone.

You want to at least shoot a high contrast target with detail.

The 150-500 doesn't seem to suffer the same issues that haunt the 30mm and 50mm. If this is a used lens be aware that there was a recall on a particular serial range of the lens, having to do with the focus jack-hammering.

Thank you all - Including those with the cheeky responses

Like others have said, it is difficult for me to determine sharpness from the examples provided. The cropped image does not look super sharp, but that may be due to the subject itself. A great way to determine sharpness is to shoot a bird, then look at the eye ring. If the eye ring itself is sharp, and the individual sections of the eye ring are sharp and distinct, then you have an acceptably sharp lens. If not, send it back.

I bought a Sigma 150-500 when they first came out, and expected much more than what I got in terms of sharpness, resolved detail, contrast, and color cast. So, I sent mine back and have stuck with long Canon primes ever since, and have had no regrets.

It doesn't look that bad considering the size of the photo. I have one of these lenses and when I compared it extensively with my Canon 100-400 IS L I found the Sigma to be the better lens overall. The OS/IS system of the Sigma is easily better, the AF speed between the two was near enough the same, but the Sigma focussed better in failing light even though it is f6.3 at 500mm. The IQ I found to be comparable between the two also, and even wide open the Sigma is sharp and gets better when stopped down. I have to say I'm very pleased with this lens and can't wait to get out to the airshows this year, which this lens was primarily bought for. I was so impressed I bought its smaller brother, the Sigma 120-400 OS for the wife, and that is very sharp too.

I got this with a Canon 5DMkIII and Sigma 150-500 OS while it was having a rest. Taken at 1/800, ISO 1000 wide open at f6.3 @ 500mm. It's a Jpeg SOOC taken on a rare sunny day in April and just cropped.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/67765667@N08/7​132819465/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/67765667@N08/6​986734786/

looks sharp enough to me. 150-500 is the best bang for the buck for a lens in the 500mm range. it is not fair to compare it with 500mm f/4 IS II which costs 10 times more!

Tom Reichner wrote in post #14377756
Like others have said, it is difficult for me to determine sharpness from the examples provided. The cropped image does not look super sharp, but that may be due to the subject itself. A great way to determine sharpness is to shoot a bird, then look at the eye ring. If the eye ring itself is sharp, and the individual sections of the eye ring are sharp and distinct, then you have an acceptably sharp lens. If not, send it back.

I bought a Sigma 150-500 when they first came out, and expected much more than what I got in terms of sharpness, resolved detail, contrast, and color cast. So, I sent mine back and have stuck with long Canon primes ever since, and have had no regrets.

Thanks for the tip on checking sharpness.