Sigma APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM - Bigmos

DDCSD wrote in post #7437006
If you're going to pixel-peep, this may not be your lens. I find it to be a very good lens, but I don't think it is optically in the same league as the 400 f/5.6. I suspect it to be close to the 300 with a 1.4tc though.

I find it to be a little less sharp than the 100-400 that I rented a year ago, but not by much.

It is a great lens for being fairly inexpensive with a good amount of range and native 500mm, with a very effective OS system. A tremendous value.

I agree with Derek. This is not a pixel peeper's lens. For web use and most prints though, it should work well. If you can fill the viewfinder with your subject you will be happy with the results.

What exactly is the ideal of pixel-peeping? I understand the concept, but in reality are you really going to be nitpicking the detail at the pixel level? And I disagree with it not being a pixel-peeper. I have plenty of shots that look incredible when blown up.


Here's an example that I think proves the lens can perform even when looking for pixel-depth detail...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Is that a 100% crop, katodog?

katodog wrote in post #7437399
What exactly is the ideal of pixel-peeping? I understand the concept, but in reality are you really going to be nitpicking the detail at the pixel level? And I disagree with it not being a pixel-peeper. I have plenty of shots that look incredible when blown up.

By pixel peeping, I mean if you look at every one of your shots at 100% the moment you it gets uploaded to the computer. I find the photos to look fabulous when viewed full screen, but when viewed at 100%, or if very heavily cropped, you can find weaknesses.

Great shot!

Yup. I cropped the original photo, and then uploaded it to my Photobucket account, first with the 17" screen size, and then with the 5 megabyte size so it would blow up bigger. But, like an idiot, I didn't write down with picture I used for the crop. I'll take one from the series, since they all look pretty much the same.

I think this is the shot I used, again click for larger version...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

artyman wrote in post #7394386
A couple of shots from my Sigma 150-500. The Wood Pigeon head is a 100% crop.

I forgot, Artyman... Could you please tell us what are the exifs of both of your pictures ? Thanks a lot.

Nice shots, katodog. IMO, it's quite good. As good as I wish, at least. Thanks !

katodog wrote in post #7438345
<pic>

Looks pretty sharp to me !

I know it's not your fault, you can't do anything about it - but I find the bokeh to be very disturbing. Maybe a little gaussian/lens blur in PS?

katodog wrote in post #7437399
What exactly is the ideal of pixel-peeping? I understand the concept, but in reality are you really going to be nitpicking the detail at the pixel level? And I disagree with it not being a pixel-peeper. I have plenty of shots that look incredible when blown up.

In fact, if I manage to shoot great pictures of (neighboorhood) wildlife, I plan to make 30'x20' large posters. I don't think photos without printing (but I totally understand people who see their pics only on screen). So, great definition at 100% is very important with such a size.

bricecom:

I see what you are saying....but, does not the phrase "pixel peeping" refer to examination at more than a 100% crop? I ask because, well, I too am not sure. I do understand the importance of a 100% crop to see how true the detail level for any given image might be...yet, I still do not understand how to benefit from looking beyond that level. I suspect that might be what katodog is asking too?

katodog wrote in post #7437399
What exactly is the ideal of pixel-peeping? I understand the concept, but in reality are you really going to be nitpicking the detail at the pixel level? And I disagree with it not being a pixel-peeper. I have plenty of shots that look incredible when blown up.

Some do. Some choose to load the images and look at them at the pixel level to determine sharpness. If it is not up to their standards it gets tossed. If there is someone interested in this lens that does that, they will be disappointed. Why do I say that? Well I own one. It doesn't produce the same sharpness as other lenses (that is a fact!). My 85 1.8 and 70-200 f/4 are much sharper than the 150-500. Does that bother me? Sometimes. Mostly when I have to crop. While I am not a pixel peeper I do like detail.

Here's an example that I think proves the lens can perform even when looking for pixel-depth detail...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

This was shot in JPG, and nothing has been done to it except for whatever goes on in-camera. Click the image for a larger view. Quite frankly, I could be mistaken about my ideas of pixel-peeping, but I think if you can't see detail loss at these image sizes, it shows the potential of the lens. If I'm mistaken, please let me know. I'm not the brightest penny in the roll, but I'd like to at least stay in the roll. I can only learn from others.

First of all, nice shot!

Now, being totally honest, if I were a pixel peeper (as described above), I might overlook this shot. There is some softness. No way around it. Being that you shot it as a jpeg and it already had some sharpening done makes that point for me even more.

Now, since I am NOT a pixel peeper this would be in my gallery had I shot it! The bottom line is does the person whom took the photo like it? IT sounds like you are very happy with your lens, which means you should enjoy many more shots like the ones you have already posted. I can't wait to them!

bricecom wrote in post #7438896
In fact, if I manage to shoot great pictures of (neighboorhood) wildlife, I plan to make 30'x20' large posters. I don't think photos without printing (but I totally understand people who see their pics only on screen). So, great definition at 100% is very important with such a size.

Viewing images of this size typically means you view them from further away so you might not need as much detail as you think. But again, this is all a personal choice. What one finds acceptable, one may think is soft.

brecklundin wrote in post #7439187
bricecom:

I see what you are saying....but, does not the phrase "pixel peeping" refer to examination at more than a 100% crop? I ask because, well, I too am not sure. I do understand the importance of a 100% crop to see how true the detail level for any given image might be...yet, I still do not understand how to benefit from looking beyond that level. I suspect that might be what katodog is asking too?

A 100% crop, by definition, is having one pixel from your camera fill one pixel of your screen. Viewing anything at more than 100% is usually done for something other than determining detail. One might go beyond 100% when using Photoshop for something like cloning or removing something from an image, tracing around an object, etc.

btw, bricecom...about what you are seeing with the lens and some images not being pristine tack sharp and others being super sharp. There is your answer.

Some of us it is/was our first real long lens. So, it takes time to get a feel for every aspect of the lens. For me there is learning when and when not to use OS, remember to give the OS a chance to settle after a half-press of the shutter button, and to remember IT LIKES THE LIGHT so one needs to remember to adjust the camera settings accordingly. I can say after I read Understanding Exposure by Peterson my pictures with my Bigmos were 1000% better. I had your same doubts, yet I also knew I am still much the neophyte and need to give myself time with the lens.

I found for me the OS was about a 2-stop gain but I also needed to keep the shutter speed UP as my hands are somewhat unsteady at times. My solution was to setup the exposure then dial-up the shutter speed to what I knew would work in my hands then adjust the ISO & aperture to get a correct exposure. I started on hummingbirds which gave me FITS. But it was that practice which helped me learn the lens to the point I never gave slower moving or even stationary subjects a 2nd thought.

The thing I had the hardest time remembering was to use the right aperture to get the DOF I wanted/needed. Sometimes that meant using as high as a 1600 ISO combined with a 1/800-1/1600 shutter speed on overcast days. While those settings might go against conventional wisdom at times, they worked for me.

So, to answer your question about the lens...for my hobbyist needs the lens was PERFECT and I could get anywhere from a 40-70% keeper rate on my hummingbird shots after a month with the lens and the help of our camera hog hummies!

I would not worry much about the optics being inferior at all. Sure this is NOT an "L" or even an "EX" but it is a solid and well made lens for what it is intended. Many negative opinions were the result of some very good info passed along from a large lens rental service. Their issue with the lens was it did not hold up to both the rough treatment that rental lenses experience but also they had a fair number (by their needs for their business model) of out of the box lenses that did not test out up to their standards and needed service before they were even rented out. But there are two issues to consider from those numbers one is that their lenses were some of the first off the line and two, their business model has to have a lower tolerance for tested specs that we consumers may never bump up against...none-the-less, there were some valid durability concerns as a result of those numbers.

OTH, the 100-400 has the whole "dust pump" concern, which if let to get out of control, can result is just as much, if not more, time in the shop to be serviced. I never had any dust issues with my Bigmos...only sold it to buy two lenses I needed at the time over a recreational lens that the Bigmos was for me. I REALLY miss mine and later this year will be getting another one.

BTW, In2Photos is really right about this lens. For me a lot of the time my 55-250 is sharper at 200-250 than the Bigmos was @400-500...but at 200-250 they both were essentially the same, and my 55-250 is a great copy. Maybe that will give you another form of reference.

In2Photos wrote in post #7439226
....A 100% crop, by definition, is having one pixel from your camera fill one pixel of your screen. Viewing anything at more than 100% is usually done for something other than determining detail. One might go beyond 100% when using Photoshop for something like cloning or removing something from an image, tracing around an object, etc.

Ahhhh, OK...thanks for that clarification. So, I was sorta-kinda on the right track in my head, but honestly was not certain of the definition of "pixel peeping". It really was one of those things I almost understood, but I was actually guessing I knew what the heck it meant...hehehehe...so THANKS!

bricecom:

did you mean 30"x20" not 30'x20' (inches vs. feet)? Since you mentioned poster size I sort of assumed that you intended inches. Just checking though.