Just bought the Sigma 150-500mm. Took it to Dover for a test drive over the weekend. I have to say i was hoping for some sharper images, though of course it could be beginner' handling, camera not good enough or the fact that £650 is still only a drop in the ocean when it comes to lens money. I could never repeat that sentence to swmbo:rofl:

I must stop using Scuff's images as a benchmark:rofl:

The lens does have OS (optical stabilisation) but is a bit of a beast when handheld. It does weigh in at 4lbs. Maybe that's the root of my problem. I did try a couple of tripod shots & didn't think they were any better.

It's early days yet. Only had one day of shooting with it, i'm looking forward to some more practice.

Here are a few shots. I've had to sharpen them up with image software, hope I haven't gone overboard:D

Edited 22 September, 200817 yr by Chris.G

Looking good to me. I like the seagull

Must resist the urge to start buying lenses...

Just bought the Sigma 150-500mm. Took it to Dover for a test drive over the weekend. I have to say i was hoping for some sharper images, though of course it could be beginner' handling, camera not good enough or the fact that £650 is still only a drop in the ocean when it comes to lens money. I could never repeat that sentence to swmbo:rofl:

I must stop using Scuff's images as a benchmark:rofl:

The lens does have OS (optical stabilisation) but is a bit of a beast when handheld. It does weigh in at 4lbs. Maybe that's the root of my problem. I did try a couple of tripod shots & didn't think they were any better.

It's early days yet. Only had one day of shooting with it, i'm looking forward to some more practice.

Here are a few shots. I've had to sharpen them up with image software, hope I haven't gone overboard:D

Nice shots Chris.

Persevere and practice. I know that you are not one of them, but a lot of people think that slinging a long lens on the front guarantees good images. In truth, the opposite applies. Often people are disappointed with the shots and think the lens is soft. To use a long lens properly (even a 200mm) takes plenty of practice. It's good fun though:thumbup:

I feel that the image you have posted are over sharpened. When you are sharpening, try this..... View the image at 100%, watch carefully as you gradually tweak up the sharpening, when you start to see dark or light lines around the edges of objects, stop and back off a bit. There is more to it but that is a good starting point.

Keep up the good work, look forward to seeing some more.

Thanks for the advise i'll give that a go.

Using a long weighty lens is very tricky, the slightest movement results in bluring especialy in low light situations.

Waving it above your head to catch a Seagull in flight is a lot harder than I thought. I must have nigh on a hundred Seagull shots 80% of which are out of focus. Some of them only have one wing:rofl:

I will continue playing and learning:thumbup:

They look nice, apart from the Dover cliffs don't look too white for some reason in your photo.

What camera are you using?

It looks like a late evening shot, so the cliffs (and the white clouds) are taking on a tint from the sun going down.

Sometimes the auto white balance will kill the mood of a sunset/sunrise, so it is best to set the camera to 'daylight' white balance to keep the hues.

If shooting in raw, that can be set in post processing.......

Probably a really daft question but what is the point of white balance adjustment?

If it is generally best to keep it set at 'daylight' then what use are the other settings?

It is probably really obvious but surely you want to keep the hues correct at all times unless your going for some kind of arty shot perhaps?

Probably a really daft question but what is the point of white balance adjustment?

If it is generally best to keep it set at 'daylight' then what use are the other settings?

It is probably really obvious but surely you want to keep the hues correct at all times unless your going for some kind of arty shot perhaps?

It allows you to adjust for the ambient lighting. Your eyes are pretty good at making the adjustment, but a lot of cameras aren't. A picture taken under flourescent lighting will appear green, or tungsten lighting causes an orange tint if you don't correct it.

Phil

I was trying to think of an analogy and best I could come up with was, imagine a jpg is like being given a sheet of music. The tune and accompaniment is written down in a specific key. This may well be the correct key (as conceived by the composer) but, as with the advantage with RAW, if you could transpose the music to any key, it would be much more versatile. Offering you the option of not only having the music in the correct key but also arranging it in say a lower key to give it a more soulful sound. It’s a rough analogy (tempered scales are not dissimilar to colour spacing in many ways) but it sort of makes sense in my head.

They look nice, apart from the Dover cliffs don't look too white for some reason in your photo.

What camera are you using?

You're right. I didn't notice that. As mentioned I have played with the pictures a bit. I was so hung up on sharpness I didn't notice the gloomy white cliffs, maybe I lost some white when playing with colour temp.

I took that picture around 5pm iirc and i'm sure they were whiter than that, i'll check the original when I get home.

I'm using a Nikon D80.

If you think the lens is not as sharp as it should be, it may need calibrating.

Sigma do this as a free service for owners under warranty but usually, you will have to send your Camera body in also as they calibrate it to the body.