Sigma 150-600 Garbage

[weepete]

I feel for you mate, I really do....

 

[jcdeboever]

I take it the repair didn't work?
I assume you sent it back without your camera body - remember recalibration is still only to within tolerances; people had the very same problems with the earlier 100-400mm L lenses and it took time to get the calibration tolerances for that nailed down to be more reliable en-mass. And Canon was only producing it for their own bodies not a range of options on the market.



Now pause and BREATH - and steady - in and out - and BREATH and relax.

*helps with the language issues too *

Not with camera body...It worked in certain aspects but it still is a crap lens. It is not sharp at all. It focus's now in all modes but just looks like crap. I am expecting a razor sharp pic like dark shadow gets with his D3300. Mine looks like a point and shoot. Now Iam really mad. You posted before I finished my prayer

 

[JacaRanda]

Would love to see examples again, with exif.

 

[jcdeboever]

Would love to see examples again, with exif.

 

[jcdeboever]

Would love to see examples again, with exif.

Here we go... Believe it or not, I can actually visualize my shots before there taken. I am not always spot on but come on, I am not this far off in what I consider acceptable.

 

[Derrel]

Focus is not on. Do you have another body that's digital?

 

[Overread]

First shot f8 ISO 1600, 1/1600sec.

That does indeed look soft. I would suggest focus chart photos and CALMLY contacting the repair centre again to inform them that the repair has failed. You might consider sending your camera body to them if you decide to have it recalibrated again. Considering that the repair has clearly failed I would not expect you to be charged again - save for any postage costs.

 

[jcdeboever]

Focus is not on. Do you have another body that's digital?

No sir

 

[pixmedic]

is a refund a possibility?
'cause this is where I would strongly consider it as an option.

 

[jcdeboever]

Focus is not on. Do you have another body that's digital?

I tried all three, this, AFS was the best.

 

[JacaRanda]

Would love to know the process that the repair shop does. What camera(s) they use to test shots after repair.

 

[DarkShadow]

I would love to try his lens on my Nikon body's. This lens is very very thirsty for sun light and you still need to be 25-35 yards for maximum sharpness and detail. Also do check your focus point location after some test shots If you have not done this already.It still maybe a lemon just because sig had there hands on don't mean its 100 percent.

 

[Derrel]

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.

 

[jcdeboever]

I would love to try his lens on my Nikon body's. This lens is very very thirsty for sun light and you still need to be 25-35 yard for maximum sharpness and detail also do check you focus point location after some test shots If you have not have done this already.

Well if it is that specific I do not want it. I have enough trouble with focus interfering with my framing. I only wanted to spend money on a long lens to compete with bullduram. I was wrong in my analogy but shooting high standard with optics. It is clear that I made a financial mistake. I can not compete at dollar store level.

 

[DarkShadow]

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.