Sigma 150-600 Garbage

[Peeb]

I'm seriously bummed for you, bro!

 

[jcdeboever]

View attachment 118184

I have a feeling that it is front focusing by a half a foot maybe. See how FAST the farther bird in frame 1199 drops to way OUT of focus? I think the actual focus point if in front of the feeder tube. Also...the image quality in 1199 looks watercolor-ish...looked at large, it has low image quality, what was commonly called "the watercolor effect". I mean the image's structure, the pixels, have a low-quality look, like they have been hit with a huge degree of noise-reduction, or something very odd, like a HUGE degree of image compression, and then a really coarse form of sharpening.

I did a crop...there's more than just a "lens" issue going on here. The base of the image, the pixels, look bad. Was this from an in-camera .NEF file?

I cannot read the full EXIF information from this processed JPEG image. One thing I have noticed after having seen a lot of your D3200 shots is that the image quality is just not that good. ISO 1600 looks substandard on many smaller sensors, but this looks like it has had the Noise Reduction set to High...it's just got bad base image quality, core image quality....utter watercolor effect. Your focus is off only slightly, but again, the "core image quality" is what's missing here.

There is a serious image quality problem with 1199...not just a lens issue, but the core image is intrinsically very poor, at the pixel and color levels. I'm trying to explain this fully; this is not just a lens problem, there is something else that's very seriously wrong. It looks like, due to absence of digital noise, that there is a major, major noise reduction and or compression/sharpening problem in the workflow that led to a 1 megabyte 3,922 pixel image looking this watercolor-y, not considering the focus.

I can send you the original

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[jcdeboever]

I am not saying you can't shoot further away or in a little less then ideal light but within reason and thats with any lens.Shooting 4 inch birds at 50 yards away and expecting great results on focus accuracy sharpness is not impossible but unlikely and asking for miracles from any lens no matter what price tag is on it. Shoot a much larger subject I bet its focused and sharp if the lens is working correctly.

The image is 20ft away, max.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[jcdeboever]

I'm seriously bummed for you, bro!

Yeah, I am pretty much over with this photography experiment. I am just going to go back to painting.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[DarkShadow]

I really do feel for you seriously,frustration is a killer.3 years ago starting out with birds i was ready to smash all my stuff but i stuck with it and got better over time with a lot of help from some members on TPF.My biggest thing in the beginning was shooting to far away and then killing it with excessive cropping.

Hopefully you keep a camera around,It would be nice to see your paintings. I cant draw or paint to safe my life but do enjoy looking at other peoples talents other then photography.

 

[jcdeboever]

I really do feel for you seriously,frustration is a killer.3 years ago starting out with birds i was ready to smash all my stuff but i stuck with it and got better over time with a lot of help from some members on TPF.My biggest thing in the beginning was shooting to far away and then killing it with excessive cropping.

Hopefully you keep a camera around,It would be nice to see your paintings. I cant draw or paint to safe my life but do enjoy looking at other peoples talents other then photography.

Thanks. It really is a technical thing with me. I am not stupid and can gravitate quickly to concepts, execution, and clarity. I have little patience for stupid on a manufacturer level. I pay ex amount, I expect ex amount. Seen your results with the d3300 and thought I may compete on a style level, with bullduram. Not quality per say but thump him a little with a new look. I am never going to sniff his ball sack with this lens, I give up before I start. F**k I am.so frustrated.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[jcdeboever]

View attachment 118184

I have a feeling that it is front focusing by a half a foot maybe. See how FAST the farther bird in frame 1199 drops to way OUT of focus? I think the actual focus point if in front of the feeder tube. Also...the image quality in 1199 looks watercolor-ish...looked at large, it has low image quality, what was commonly called "the watercolor effect". I mean the image's structure, the pixels, have a low-quality look, like they have been hit with a huge degree of noise-reduction, or something very odd, like a HUGE degree of image compression, and then a really coarse form of sharpening.

I did a crop...there's more than just a "lens" issue going on here. The base of the image, the pixels, look bad. Was this from an in-camera .NEF file?

I cannot read the full EXIF information from this processed JPEG image. One thing I have noticed after having seen a lot of your D3200 shots is that the image quality is just not that good. ISO 1600 looks substandard on many smaller sensors, but this looks like it has had the Noise Reduction set to High...it's just got bad base image quality, core image quality....utter watercolor effect. Your focus is off only slightly, but again, the "core image quality" is what's missing here.

There is a serious image quality problem with 1199...not just a lens issue, but the core image is intrinsically very poor, at the pixel and color levels. I'm trying to explain this fully; this is not just a lens problem, there is something else that's very seriously wrong. It looks like, due to absence of digital noise, that there is a major, major noise reduction and or compression/sharpening problem in the workflow that led to a 1 megabyte 3,922 pixel image looking this watercolor-y, not considering the focus.

Well crap Derrel, what the **** am I going to do. I am a frikkin artist and don't need this crap. I can deal with learning the basics but I have no time to troubleshoot ****. Ok have a d3300 piece of **** , not a d3200 of piece of ****. OK, all my images suck, I get it... It s probably me because of know nothing about nothing. **** digital


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[astroNikon]

Isn't 20 feet close to the minimum focus distance for that lense ??

I feel a short road trip is in order with my Tamron 150-600 & d600

 

[jcdeboever]

Isn't 20 feet close to the minimum focus distance for that lense ??

I feel a short road trip is in order with my Tamron 150-600 & d600

Oh I would love that, then we could both MF this POS lens.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Didereaux]

Youu know I agree that you maybe got a bad lens. I am not totally convinced, but it seems a possibility. What I am going to jump on is implying that the Sigma 150-600 S lens is a POS! It is NOT. Here is a sample shot using that lens on a Canon 6D at 600mm. 1/2000 F7.1 ISO 1000 HANDHELD! ...and I am only one of many many people getting thee same results. So either you got a one-off lemon, or you or your camera aren't up to that lens. That may be harsh, but not any more so than calling this lens a POS.

 

[Derrel]

Not sure what's going on here, how you're shooting, how the camera is set up. You have shot a subject that is mis-focused by a few inches, at 600mm on a 1.5x camera, so you've missed focus by a SMALL AMOUNT...HAVE NOT SEEN anything to show what the lens ca do, only what you cannot do--and, at ISO 1600...from what? A NEF? an SOOC JPEG? Why is the noise reduction so danged hugh?

Long lens technique is not something you learn in one day. You just missed a 1,000-meter shot at a big buck deer: is the problem with the rifle's scope, the shooter's breath control, or the absurdity of taking a shot under such a crazy scenario?

What can the lens do over a DAY? How many frames did you shoot? Why do you expect to be able to shoot such an exotic lens like a pro on day one back from repairs. You CAMERA could easily be out of whack. Not every lens is calibrated for every camera, not ever camera is calibrated for every lens. The test shots...all two of them...you think the lens is the issue, but I can;t tell much from two frames shot and processed as seen here.

You are using a very specialized tool, and on a bargain-level camera with an awful viewfinder, and you have almost zero experience with it. There's a lot wrong with this scenario. The chances are 50-50 that there's nothing wrong with "the lens". I don't want to blame you, but there are unanswered questions, and you have how many hours' worth of experience shooting this thing? WHat do you expect the songbird focus keeper rate to be with a new lens? HOW MANY frames did the two mis-focused ones we saw come from? 100? 10? 40?

 

[Didereaux]

Youu know I agree that you maybe got a bad lens. I am not totally convinced, but it seems a possibility. What I am going to jump on is implying that the Sigma 150-600 S lens is a POS! It is NOT. Here is a sample shot using that lens on a Canon 6D at 600mm. 1/2000 F7.1 ISO 1000 HANDHELD! ...and I am only one of many many people getting thee same results. So either you got a one-off lemon, or you or your camera aren't up to that lens. That may be harsh, but not any more so than calling this lens a POS.

Here's another with that lens on my old 7D @600mm(900mm equiv) ISO 250 1/1000 F6.3 again HANDHELD (by an old man) Find fault with this.

 

[DarkShadow]

Hopefully astroNikon can meet up to help out but In the meantime.

 

[jcdeboever]

OK Folks. I will get with ASTRO.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[robbins.photo]

Getting my lens back tomorrow. They upgraded the OS, fixed the focus motor, calibrated, and updated firmware. So, I wasn't crazy after all.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Strange, I've got this jury sitting over here and the foreman is saying they are still deliberating on that one.. lol

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk