Should I be pleased with my Sigma 70-200/2.8?

I've had this Sigma 70-200 just a few days now and has not been able to give a good test for it yet. What can you say about this very first try (with a very common object )? The picture is 100%, first only with auto levels and colors, second also with commonly suggested usm 300/0.3. (Exif 1/250s, f/5.6, ISO 400) Any comments?

- olli

looks very good, but i think the 2.8 canon is sharper...

I really want a 70-200 right now.. im going to settle foe the f/4 version because of weight, and i shoot with flash or outdoors most of the time...

take some more pictures! Id love to see what the sigma can do. Id take it over the canon only because its 2.8.... Show me the sharpness!

Try taking a few more shots just to compare. The DOF is going to make the focus/sharpness harder to guage. There are parts of the top shot that look pretty sharp. Overall, the second shot looks GREAT.

The Sigma's a fine lens. I waffled between it and the Canon, and ended up with the Canon. I found that the Canon gave me consistantly sharper images.

Doesn't appear to be a whole lot wrong with that Sigma you've got, though!

Steve

I think i prefer the unsharpend one better.

I think you have a great lens. Sharpenning is easy to do poorly, difficult to do well yet essential to make a great product. Its a real struggle for me but the learning process is fun!

Seems fine to me. Take time to learn the lens and you'll be delighted ... I was very happy with mine but sold it in the end as I don't really use that length enough. Much better option than the Canon f4 at similar price, unless you want lighter weight and have lots of nice light to play with.

Thanks all for good comments.

[StealthLude:] I was considering Canon f/4 (2.8 was over the budget), but I really liked to get 2.8, that's why Sigma. (I'm going to get also TC but don't know yet if I go for 1.4 or 2, or should that be Sigma, Kenko or something else. This was one more reason for 2.8.)

[troutbreath, malla1962:] It's interesting to see how sharpening divides opinions, that's seems to be a matter of taste, when the overall sharpness is ok.

[Sugarzebra, condyk:] Learning to use lens is really something we don't consider enough. I believe that many of the critical comments we give are because of our lack of understanding of the capabilities and limitations of our gear.

I'll try to post soon some more examples.

- olli

The shot looks fantastic if that's 100% crop.. Very nice,..

You would get better results with two things..

One: because fo the extreme variation in light,. the bird to me could use a bit more exposure,. but that would have most likely blown out more white snow.Fill flash may have solved it.

Two: Sharpening; looks a little overdone to me,. but a 100% crop should get a lot less than 300%
The settings mentioned above work well for full res images that are destined to be printed IMHO.. but not for web sized images. Also,. try using either a selective sharopening technique,. or layers/ or history brush to sharpen only what should be sharpened. No need to get all that snow twinkling.. or draw more attention to the noise in the dark parts of the tree branches.. it's the subject you want to shine.

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
The shot looks fantastic if that's 100% crop.. Very nice,..

You would get better results with two things..

One: because fo the extreme variation in light,. the bird to me could use a bit more exposure,. but that would have most likely blown out more white snow.Fill flash may have solved it.

Two: Sharpening; looks a little overdone to me,. but a 100% crop should get a lot less than 300%
The settings mentioned above work well for full res images that are destined to be printed IMHO.. but not for web sized images. Also,. try using either a selective sharopening technique,. or layers/ or history brush to sharpen only what should be sharpened. No need to get all that snow twinkling.. or draw more attention to the noise in the dark parts of the tree branches.. it's the subject you want to shine.

CDS, yes 100% crop. Fill flash is really something missing, and with this shooting distance of about 3 meters (10 ft) could help.

Your advice regarding sharpening is a piece of gold to me - thanks! Is there a sticky regarding this?

-olli

Check the Tutorials Sticky in the Post processing forum.

The easy way (but hands on time consuming) is to apply the sharpening to everything and then use the history brush to remove it from what you don't want...

Using layers you can do the same thing by applying the sharpening to a duplicat layer,. then erasing the effects from the parts you don't want sharpened..

In both cases you can mod the opacity of the brush to alter the effects of your erasure.. 100%,. 50% or whatever.

But check Scottes noise reduction tutorial for the more advanced methods...

I have this Sigma Lens and it's tack sharp. I like f/8 it seems to be the sweet spot for this lens. It's also sharp out to f/16 and then degrades from there.

f/2.8-7.1 is OK but looks a bit soft to me.