Sigma 150-500

Sasquatch41 wrote in post #5809079
Brides mother? Mother in law? Dang, I woke up with her after an all nighter once.

Yeah, we know that already dude ... word gets around pretty quick

photografy101 wrote in post #5809368
It's old photography phrase. It only means that the better the quality of the initial photo taken usually results in a better final product or at least gives you more time in the field and less time on the computer.

I know what it means. Doesnt take long to process photos if you already have a workflow you follow

photografy101 wrote in post #5809471
Here is a comparison you asked for. The Sigma may be just a wee tad sharper, although it could be because it looks a little underexposed or maybe the canon is a little over exposed. Anyway I consider them comparable. You be the judge. I merely wanted to give people a comparison between a longer telephoto lens and what a good cropped shorter lens can do.

doesnt this follow your saying about spending to much time at the PC..going in and having to crop every image to give the field of view of 500mm. Sounds like you contradict yourself here.

Most amusing reading. And for the record, I am a Sigma fan - bang for buck most of the time they are hard to beat. But to Condyk's point, there is a heck of a lot more to photography than sharpness. To the positive, I think the Sigma is doing a tab better in the shadows... though not much. To the negative, and this is a constant problem, the sigma has the tea-stain color cast to it. Yes you can PP it. But why should you have to, or want to. It is the one issue I really wish Sigma would fix. It is pervasive across the line of lenses and it looks like this one carries on the trend. Otherwise, for a smaller lighter flexible lens for a day out at the track, this looks very usable to me. I don't think I would use if for any high level sports though. Birding/Hiking... looks like a solid lens.

Anyway - good to see some things are very consistent - the hardware forums here never let ya down. Always entertaining.

photografy101 wrote in post #5809713
SYMANTECS... ! MY canon at equivalent focul lengths is sharper than MY Sigma! I gave you an example of a 70-200mm lens with 1.4 TC cropped to be close to a 500mm lens and you ignore the images and try to turn this into an argument. Is this a Sigma fan boy forum?

Taking single sentences from previous posts... real classy!!

You know as well as I do it was in reply to your fervent sigma superiority post.

No mate ... I think you just got found out. Your own samples undermine all your earlier talk. BTW, I also own the 70-200mm IS L 4.0 and I didn't make a fervent Sigma superiority post. I simply pointed out the error of your thinking when it comes to comparing two totally different lenses. How does a 280mm possibly compare to a 500mm lens in real world usage? You think you're gonna head out shooting with 280mm and come back with comparable results as someone who has got 500mm? Not symantics ... it's just laughable.

I don't know what you're talking about: what sort of comparisons? You really think I spend my time shooting the Canon with a TCon on and blowing up the images so they are the same size as my 150-500mm or 400mm can achieve? You are barking mate! I use the tool for the job. And if you search you'll see I have posted images many times from the L and several times from the 150-500mm.

If I was shooting around the 70-200mm range I would use the L because it is a better lens, but I am perfectly happy to shift to the Sigma or something else to cover the ranges the L doesn't. All decent lenses are pretty close IQ wise and I sure ain't gonna wet my panties if one or the other is a tad 'sharper' or 'softer' than another.

Easy there, newcomer. You mess with Davey, you mess with me...got it?! [However, if you're about 6'6" and over, say, 250 lbs, and you know Brazilian Jujitsu or have a nick name "Rampage" or last name Gracie...then please continue to rail the old man.]

photografy101 wrote in post #5810032
You are a joke Some of us buy from a retailer with a good return policy and then run it through a few tests so we can decide if it performs as expected. There are lots of lens choices along with teleconverters or extension tubes etc. or maybe we find the lens too big or heavy for our liking or the auto focus is too slow or not accurate. Don't mock testing a lens. Don't you read tests and opinions on the web regarding lenses???
Also are you old enough to remember when PHOTOGRAPHERS used loupes to examine how sharp there lens/photos were???

photografy101 wrote in post #5810032
Don't mock testing a lens. Don't you read tests and opinions on the web regarding lenses???

I read your opinion ... I found it to be inaccurate and unhelpful based on my own experience. I judge according to my own standards. Pretty much anyone else's are irrelevant if my findings are different. But I respect the right of anyone to test as they see fit and buy what they like and to like stuff I don't like. There's more to shooting than shooting your mouth off

photografy101 wrote in post #5809855
Save me some time and give me a few links to your 70-200 f4 L IS and your Sigma 150-500 images. Didn't you just get the sigma about a week ago? I didn't see any picture posts only a lot of rhetoric.

Sure ... I'll blow yer nose for ya as well.

LightRules wrote in post #5810035
Easy there, newcomer. You mess with Davey, you mess with me...got it?! [However, if you're about 6'6" and over, say, 250 lbs, and you know Brazilian Jujitsu or have a nick name "Rampage" or last name Gracie...then please continue to rail the old man.]

I am thinking first name Gracie more likely

So, 101, what do you really want to know? All I can tell you is there is no cheaper way to get to 500mm and not be disappointed in the results. Is the 70-200mm better? Of course. Is it better at 500mm? No. End of story.

I'd like to see some comparisons with the 70-200 + 1.4 + 2x TC....that would be fairer....cos software interpolation is soo sharp....

photografy101 wrote in post #5810626
I'm not sure what this guy is all about but take a look at condyk! Over 18,000 posts in 3 years. Here is a link to what equipment he says he has owned, scroll down a bit. He doesn't seem to post many photos to back up his opinion either! Either way you are better off trusting your own eyes and not what a stranger tells you.

https://photography-on-the.net …t=524189&highli​ght=condyk

We all know Dave. I/We don't need to look at his gear list. 18,000 posts is a lot of time around here. Give him some props. His a solid contributor. As for you, you sure know how to come on a forum with such bravado at 18 posts. But try not to take it personally.

photografy101 wrote in post #5810626
He doesn't seem to post many photos to back up his opinion ...

It's confirmed. The guy is indeed blind.

Both points are actually correct.

For pure sharpness; they can be equal or the Canon f/4 might win (even blown up to match a 500mm). I have an amazingly sharp f/4 and have done this. Shoot at 280mm and crop, instead of using a longer lens.

But....

The 280mm can't replace a 500mm. If you shoot with 280mm and crop, yes it will be sharp but you'll have way too much DOF. I've tried shooting sports this way and you can't isolate the player from the background on those cropped shots. In this case you'll get a better shot with the 500mm, even if it is not as sharp.

My $.02

George

No, I can't explain Davey's ways. He is brilliant, and certainly far too intelligent for me to fathom. So I don't even try. Consider him like a mod, just w/o the powers of one

photografy101 wrote in post #5810689
Can you explain why 6 days ago he listed his equipment but never mentioned the sigma 150-500 and then 7 days ago in this forum he was complaining about the auto focus of his 150-500? What am I missing or screwing up?

6 days ago https://photography-on-the.net …t=524189&highli​ght=condyk

7 days ago
https://photography-on-the.net …ght=sigma+150-500&page=13

photografy101 wrote in post #5810689
Can you explain why 6 days ago he listed his equipment but never mentioned the sigma 150-500 and then 7 days ago in this forum he was complaining about the auto focus of his 150-500? What am I missing or screwing up?

Yeah, you are missing something that's for sure.

First, the thread you initially pointed to I listed a few relevant lenses. I didn't list the other 35+ or so that I have owned over the last several years. the thread was abouit TCon use. I wouldn't use a TCon on a 150-500mm so why would I mention it?

Second, I haven't complained about the AF performance of the 150-500mm. In fact I have said it is perfectly acceptable for its intended use.

I think you need to actually read what I say.