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

 
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,491 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 1527
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Nov 22, 2013 21:40 |  #16

Bummer, man. I'd try a couple of copies, if that's an option; it definitely looks like you just got a bum one.

Although, now that I think about it; how new is your 7D and have you seen this result with any other lenses? I had to send one of my 7Ds in for a checkup because it was getting results like that part of time. After that adjustment I've been able to use any lens I've wanted without getting that...smeared look.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Limbwalker
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
539 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 174
Joined Nov 2013
Location: SE Texas
     
Nov 22, 2013 22:18 |  #17

I have a 50D body, and it seems to be working fine. It's pretty darn sharp with my other lenses, so I don't think that's the problem.

I've decided I'm just going to stick with Canon lenses from now on. Life is too short and I don't really need one more project to work on. ha ,ha.


Shoot first and ask questions later.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrbdmb
Goldmember
Avatar
1,291 posts
Likes: 12
Joined May 2011
     
Nov 22, 2013 23:06 |  #18

Limbwalker wrote in post #16472150 (external link)
lbsimon, I was aware of the focus microadjustment, and wanting to remove that from the equation, I manually focused the 100-300 and turned off the AF. The images got progressively sharper from f4 to f11, so that tells me it wasn't a focus issue. The images at f11 were as sharp as my canon lens at f8 (still lacked the same contrast though). But yea, I thought of that. I was hoping that's all it was because I wanted to keep this lens.

1. Since the depth of field increases with smaller aperture, it would make sense that a focusing issue would be less obvious as you stop the lens down. It's unfortunate that you didn't try to actually AFMA the lens to see if that helped - you can do the "dot-tune" method in just a few minutes.

2. What shutter speed were you using? If shooting at 300mm on a crop camera, handheld you need a shutter speed of 1/500 or so. Of course a good tripod will help this, but I'd still test out a fast shutter speed before writing off the lens.

3. And of course it could be a dog of a lens, but (despite what some on here will tell you) people have gotten dogs with "Canon" written on the side as well. In particular, there have been quite a few posters here unhappy with their copy of the 100-400L.

That said, unless you always shoot in great light, I think you will prefer the 100-400L (or even a 70-300L) with IS. I've thought about the Sigma 100-300 but decided I will wait until they release an updated version with OS.


Tools: 70D, 10-22, Tamron 24-70 VC, 70-300L, 135 f2L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,165 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2495
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Nov 23, 2013 00:24 |  #19

maybe you're not very good at manual focusing....


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CORPY
Member
Avatar
94 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 38
Joined May 2007
Location: UK
     
Nov 23, 2013 00:50 as a reply to  @ post 16473273 |  #20

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.[/QUOTE]


I would also use mirror lock just to rule that one out as well ! even on a tripod mirror slap can cause blurring .




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Nov 23, 2013 02:59 |  #21

Sucks dude.

Mine is sharp as crap at 5.6 and pretty nice wide open, and I use it with the TC all the time with awesome results. I guess I would be one of those guys with a copy that those reviews you read we're talking about. I also came from 55-250 my 100-300 destroys it. I would have to say from what you posted (and the large assumption that you did not incur shake or bad MF) that something is seriously wrong, like it was dropped wrong. That looks more than MA or focus issue, that looks like an element moved a little or something

That focus stuff and sigma lottery is POTN propagated BS from comments like what Ed said on this thread. I shot fast moving surfers last week with this lens handheld and with TC slowing up AF and had very few misses. I am not saying some lenses are not bad, not even saying sigmas are not more likely, but that I bet the real world Percentages of problematic goods are the same as any electronics or cars or whatever.


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
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Nov 23, 2013 06:11 |  #22

For anyone reading this thread thinking about this lens, this has been my experience.


IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8055/8091711630_1d52989346_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/stonemaster/8​091711630/  (external link)
On the low end

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7405/10890587776_725f48f792_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/stonemaster/10​890587776/  (external link)
on high end with 1.4TC

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
Limbwalker
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
539 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 174
Joined Nov 2013
Location: SE Texas
     
Nov 23, 2013 06:19 |  #23

Interesting replies. I thought I was pretty clear about how I compared the lenses. ha, ha.

I'm probably not any good at manual focusing though. I only did it for 15 years with a Nikon FE and Bronica SQA... :rolleyes: So I'm sure that must be it.

Look, I have no doubt there are good, if not great, copies of this lens out there. Why else would I have bought it? The examples, like those posted above (even though they are examples with lots of light and I question whether they were shot wide open ? ) are what steered me toward this lens.

At f8, the lens was arguably as good as my 55-250 wide open at 5.6 - which is very good. At f11, the lens was tack sharp.

But I don't know who would buy a 100-300 f4 lens (a pretty heavy lens) knowing they'd have to use it at f8 or f11. Not me.

For those that say it was something I was doing wrong, let me ask you something...

How do you explain the lens got progressively sharper from f4 to 5.6 to 8 and then to 11 ??? If you want to claim focusing errors, then how do you explain that nothing in the field of view, ahead or behind the front edge of the bird house, was in focus?

It was razor sharp at f11, so the lens was capable of producing a sharp image. Just not below f8 where I need it.


Shoot first and ask questions later.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Nov 23, 2013 08:35 |  #24

That is why I suggested that it had an internal issue of some kind. I have never used my lens past f8, and I believe the one of the guy is wide open and I can tell you the surfer is not 5.6(wide open with TC) but probably 7.1 with considering the TC as I stop down a little if I can for IQ offset on TC.

This lens is really sharp at 5.6 and very fine at 4, or at the very least it is no comparison to the 55-250 which is why I posted quick pics for example. If your copy is bad, that sucks and it is what it is, but i don't understand the constant comparing to the 55-250?? Like is the lens a bad copy, or you you think you can take better pics with 55-250? If you had a good copy and wanted to compare I guess. Could understand, but you are claiming a bad copy and comparing, I don't get it? I can beat a broken down Porsche on my skateboard, would information from that race be of any use to anyone?


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
ESMcBlurM3
Senior Member
502 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 169
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Providence, RI
     
Nov 23, 2013 08:45 |  #25

Here are a few w/ my 100-300 on a 40D

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8105/8525379238_053b118e99_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29633048@N02/8​525379238/  (external link)
IMG_0806.jpg (external link) by emcbane (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8391/8524267111_322ab2607b_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29633048@N02/8​524267111/  (external link)
IMG_0839.jpg (external link) by emcbane (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8372/8525385604_09b19316b1_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29633048@N02/8​525385604/  (external link)
IMG_0857.jpg (external link) by emcbane (external link), on Flickr

I'm very happy w/ my upgrade from the 55-250. I assume you bought yours privately and are SOL??

Canon 50D, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 17-50, Sigma 30, Canon 100L Macro, Sigma 100-300
My Flickr! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gabebalazs
Bird Whisperer
Avatar
7,640 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 1060
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Toledo, OH
     
Nov 23, 2013 12:15 |  #26

ed rader wrote in post #16472669 (external link)
there are many tales of woe among sigma owners. it's like playing Russian roulette with half the chambers loaded.

:rolleyes: Yeah, we all were so missing your valuable input ;)

Too bad I had 2 (!) Canon 17-55 IS lenses that were defective one way or another (first one was sharp but IS broke and had focus problem with my 7D, a body that focused perfectly with 5 other lenses. The second one was just subpar, half my lenses were considerably sharper).
And at that time they cost close to 1 grand. So I have none now.
How about that?


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
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Nov 23, 2013 12:36 |  #27

Gabe, forget it. I won't be able to convince canon guys that my sigma 17-50 is as sharp as the cannon and you won't be able to convince them that Sigma makes great lenses with problems only surfacing on Internet forums. We will just have to keep taking great pics with Sigma lenses at a 30% discount and enjoy them....


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
gabebalazs
Bird Whisperer
Avatar
7,640 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 1060
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Toledo, OH
     
Nov 23, 2013 13:50 |  #28

Nick3434 wrote in post #16474450 (external link)
Gabe, forget it. I won't be able to convince canon guys that my sigma 17-50 is as sharp as the cannon and you won't be able to convince them that Sigma makes great lenses with problems only surfacing on Internet forums. We will just have to keep taking great pics with Sigma lenses at a 30% discount and enjoy them....

You're right.


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
Mike-P
Member
Avatar
157 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Likes: 239
Joined Oct 2009
Location: New Milton Hampshire UK
     
Nov 23, 2013 14:24 as a reply to  @ gabebalazs's post |  #29

I actually have both the Sigma 100-300mm f4 and Canon 100-400mm and have to say the Sigma more than gives the Canon a run for it's money.

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8521/8645909660_2e1a987c24_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/25848431@N02/8​645909660/  (external link)

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7436/9649967516_1d2503e45f_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/25848431@N02/9​649967516/  (external link)

Canon 7D, Canon M5, Pentax K-1, Pentax K-3II, Panasonic LX5.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Limbwalker
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
539 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 174
Joined Nov 2013
Location: SE Texas
     
Nov 23, 2013 21:31 |  #30

I guess the brand wars are even worse here than they are on the archery forums I typically frequent...

Guys, guys, guys...

Let me be clear. I HAVE NO BRAND LOYALTY here. I had a pretty sucky copy of the Sigma 100-300 f4 lens. Could it have been repaired/tweaked/etc.? Maybe. But if it needed that, then IMO it was a sucky copy, period. I shouldn't have to pay that kind of money for a used lens, and STILL have to send it off for repair.

I'm comparing it to my 55-250, only because that's what I have. What else am I supposed to compare it to?

And frankly the examples of great images from other's 100-300'd don't help me at all. I'm THRILLED that you all got a good copy. I didn't. 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.


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)

6,252 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 ChazMaz
938 guests, 292 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.