Is my Sigma 100-600 C Lens Faulty

Orias wrote in post #18465080
...I also took off the filter from my EF 70-300L for this trip, just in case. That one didn't seem to make too much different from previous shots, but it was worth a try just in case. I just worry about scratching the glass or something on the more expensive lenses.

Cheers

If your worried about scratching the front element, use a hood or pop on the lens cap between shots.

gjl711 wrote in post #18465134
If your worried about scratching the front element, use a hood or pop on the lens cap between shots.

Also, if the tigers scratch the front element, it’s the lesser problem

You really aught to just do controlled tests of your lenses with filters if you tend to use them. Many/most lenses will be fine in normal light (i.e. sun or bright light not causing flare). But every so often a lens will just not take a filter, even a good quality one. The 70-300L might be just fine. Usually the greater the magnification, the more likely to be a problem. Also the larger the front element because the filter needs to be flat with parallel sides across more of the filter.

It clearly depends on the lens a bit too because the old 100-400 was notorious for IQ degradation with any filter.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18464813
Nice shots, but we need 100% crops to tell you whether there is something wrong.
To be honest, the tigers don’t look sharp even at web resolution.

Been a bit busy with work, but here's a quick shot + 100% crop to show some of the details I got at 600mm on some shots:

Works for me

Looks plenty sharp to me.

Yeah, I agree! It's a LOT less forgiving than the Canon, but with the right conditions, it works really well.
My general hit-rate with the Canon lens was a lot better, but once I get used to this one, and get some more practise in, I'm sure the keeper rate will also go up.

Cheers

With 1/250 on the giraffe you must be very happy @ 600 mm

Orias wrote in post #18466411
Yeah, I agree! It's a LOT less forgiving than the Canon, but with the right conditions, it works really well.
My general hit-rate with the Canon lens was a lot better, but once I get used to this one, and get some more practise in, I'm sure the keeper rate will also go up.

Cheers

In making your statement, if you are comparing this to the Canon 70-300L mentioned in your original post, the 100-600 being less forgiving would almost be expected, especially at the long end. But that would be true of any 100-600 being compared, just due to the optics involved.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18463898
As discussed in other threads, I am totally against the Sigma “have naive users spend more money for a dock product to fix lens production issues” mentality.
My money is perfectly working, so lenses must be perfectly working out of the box. Other users will disagree.

What do you think AF micro-adjust is? It's the same thing. The only difference is that Canon makes the bodies, so they can integrate the adjustment into the body firmware. The third parties can't do that to they need to sell a dock.

It's naive to think that Canon added AFMA as a "feature" to help pros optimize their lens performance. They did it so that they could reduce production costs by loosening tolerances, plain and simple. By adding AFMA, they shifted the burden to the lens buyer to make sure the AF system is properly aligned.

mcoren wrote in post #18467121
...It's naive to think that Canon added AFMA as a "feature" to help pros optimize their lens performance. They did it so that they could reduce production costs by loosening tolerances, plain and simple. By adding AFMA, they shifted the burden to the lens buyer to make sure the AF system is properly aligned.

I don't think Canon is loosening their tolerances any, lenses and cameras have always had some variance. MFA is just a tool photographers can use to fine tune the setup their gear for optimal performance. If I look at all my lenses, only one didn't require any MFA. All the others benefited from the feature. Most needed very little except for my 100-400 which needed a +10. Also, looking at my older lenses vs newer lenses, the variance is about the same so newer lenses do not seem to be more out of alignment than older ones.

mcoren wrote in post #18467121
It's naive to think that Canon added AFMA as a "feature" to help pros optimize their lens performance. They did it so that they could reduce production costs by loosening tolerances, plain and simple. By adding AFMA, they shifted the burden to the lens buyer to make sure the AF system is properly aligned.

It is a bit more complicated.

Originally, AFMA was intended to adjust sensor calibration issues with respect to the AF system. That was supposed to be a temporary workaround to use the lens until the body could be re-calibrated. Given the scope, one setting for AFMA was all you needed.

But then, users started using it to fix lens issues, which is improper usage because the AF system is a closed-loop and should always be able to converge to optimal focus (wide open).

So Canon expanded the AFMA functionality to have a per-lens adjustment, and now people are happy to use their defective lenses and bodies without sending them in for proper calibration.

Sigma followed suit with their dock, and some marketing BS convinced customers that paying extra money to “fix” defective lenses on your own is a super cool feature.
But wait, you actually have some features in the dock, such as limiting the focusing range... so when you see a bird far away - quick ! reprogram your lens firmware - so it will focus faster on it.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18467229
But wait, you actually have some features in the dock, such as limiting the focusing range... so when you see a bird far away - quick ! reprogram your lens firmware - so it will focus faster on it.

or just flick the switch on the side of the lens...

DreDaze wrote in post #18467230
or just flick the switch on the side of the lens...

... if you have one.

EDIT: You will. Setting is only available if your lens has the “Custom Switch”.

Orias wrote in post #18466411
Yeah, I agree! It's a LOT less forgiving than the Canon, but with the right conditions, it works really well.
My general hit-rate with the Canon lens was a lot better, but once I get used to this one, and get some more practise in, I'm sure the keeper rate will also go up.

Cheers

I just stumbled across this thread, but I had the exact same problem on my 70D. No matter how high I cranked up the shutter speed - as fast as 1/2000 at times - I had trouble getting a good keeper rate on this lens on the 70D, like it was getting motion blur or IS was trying to override even at high shutter speeds.
Interestingly, I started using it exclusively on my 6D and I've had zero of those same issues. Sure ya lose that "reach" on the full frame, but it works for my needs.

My keeper rate with a Canon 100-400L v2 was much better as well, but I consider that lens the benchmark for the class. Plus, at current street prices, I'd have to spend more than 2x what I paid for my Sigma and I cannot justify that right now.