Testing a new lens in a snow storm

[coastalconn]

I've wanted to find a good second lens for when light is really bad. I came across a Sigma 100-300 F4 EX that has the ol "paint chipping" syndrome and got it for a pretty decent price. it showed up yesterday and I got to play with it this morning in a snow storm. Talk about a test for bad light, lol. Seems to be pretty sharp. The Af is a little funky and seems to "chatter" in AF-C.. Here was what I managed to get while I was trying to get it fine tuned.. Thanks for looking and comments welcome

Started in the back yard..
1
Testing 3 Sigma 100-300 F4 in Snow storm by krisinct- Thanks for 4 Million views!, on Flickr

2
Testing 2 Sigma 100-300 F4 in Snow storm by krisinct- Thanks for 4 Million views!, on Flickr

Seemd to get it fine tuned OK and hit the trails. My favorite Red Tail was hunting a wabbit..
3
Testing 4 Sigma 100-300 F4 in Snow storm by krisinct- Thanks for 4 Million views!, on Flickr

4
Testing 1 Sigma 100-300 F4 in Snow storm by krisinct- Thanks for 4 Million views!, on Flickr

5
Testing 6 Sigma 100-300 F4 in Snow storm by krisinct- Thanks for 4 Million views!, on Flickr

6
Testing 5 Sigma 100-300 F4 in Snow storm by krisinct- Thanks for 4 Million views!, on Flickr

 

[Light Guru]

Holy BIG water mark Batman. It is extremely distracting to the photos.

 

[WesternGuy]

Kris, looks like you have yourself a winner with this lens. These images look nice and sharp. Different topic: I agree with Light Guru, the water mark is a bit distracting. It occupies about 1/8th or more of each image and is particularly noticeable against the white background of the last four images. Maybe if you shrunk it down by about half - don't know. I am curious why you have decided that you need to watermark your images.

WesternGuy

 

[Granddad]

Watermark aside, these are nice shots and you probably got your money's worth.
My favourite is #4. # 5, did he get some rabbit fur stuck between his teeth?

 

[Hunter58]

Looks like the lens is working quite well. Love #4, great shot.

 

[coastalconn]

Holy BIG water mark Batman. It is extremely distracting to the photos.

Kris, looks like you have yourself a winner with this lens. These images look nice and sharp. Different topic: I agree with Light Guru, the water mark is a bit distracting. It occupies about 1/8th or more of each image and is particularly noticeable against the white background of the last four images. Maybe if you shrunk it down by about half - don't know. I am curious why you have decided that you need to watermark your images.

WesternGuy

I changed it up for 2015 because I had several images stolen last year. I also had some go viral with my name cropped off. people constantly use my images as their profile picture and wallpaper on their computers. If people don't want to be distracted they can purchase them.. At least it can't just be cropped off an leave a usable resolution anymore. This last set of images was already shared over 350 times on FB with 40k views.. It is what it is...

Watermark aside, these are nice shots and you probably got your money's worth.
My favourite is #4. # 5, did he get some rabbit fur stuck between his teeth?

I was really hoping the hawk got the rabbit, but somehow it was the rabbits lucky day and he made it to a thick bramble patch where the hawk couldn't get him..

Looks like the lens is working quite well. Love #4, great shot.

thank you Hunter

 

[dxqcanada]

I had that one as my primary lens for many years ... it is a great performer even wide open.

 

[baturn]

Excellent! Lens and or weather conditions don't seem to matter much where you're concerned. I particularly like #4.

 

[Granddad]

I changed it up for 2015 because I had several images stolen last year. I also had some go viral with my name cropped off. people constantly use my images as their profile picture and wallpaper on their computers. If people don't want to be distracted they can purchase them.. At least it can't just be cropped off an leave a usable resolution anymore. This last set of images was already shared over 350 times on FB with 40k views.. It is what it is...

Sounds like a fair enough reason to me. If your images are going to go viral you might as well get some advertising out of it.

 

[Michael Robinson]

Well...damn...I give up... But, really, great images! Did you have a teleconverter on? Do you usually hold up in a blind?

 

[FITBMX]

I changed it up for 2015 because I had several images stolen last year. I also had some go viral with my name cropped off. people constantly use my images as their profile picture and wallpaper on their computers. If people don't want to be distracted they can purchase them.. At least it can't just be cropped off an leave a usable resolution anymore. This last set of images was already shared over 350 times on FB with 40k views.. It is what it is...

I would stick the freaking watermark over the whole thing! Like you said, if they don't like it they can buy them from you!!!

As for the photos. It looks like another great set!!!

 

[WesternGuy]

Kris, it is going to be interesting to see if the watermark stops any pirating. For the "average, run of the mill" pirater, it probably will, but for someone who wants your image badly, it probably will not stop them. Content aware fill is the image stealer's dream. I often copyright mine, but I also make the images so small so that the best that someone is going to be able to do is maybe (?) get a 3x5 print. Anything larger will be fairly well pixelated and pretty useless. Image theft is also one of the reasons I do not care to post images on the web, except under special circumstances. I do post on Flickr, but again, they are small jpgs that are difficult to reproduce except at a very small size. Having your images stolen is just one of the risks you take when you post on the web.

Have you tried going to webmaster for the site you know has some of your stolen images posted? A good webmaster will remove the images once he/she is informed of the theft. Alternatively, you could threaten legal action. Sometimes just the threat is enough. If it isn't, get yourself a good lawyer and see what they can do and, of course, what they charge - it is a business expense. There may be other remedies as well, but, regardless, they do all take time.

WesternGuy

 

[Light Guru]

Kris, it is going to be interesting to see if the watermark stops any pirating. For the "average, run of the mill" pirater, it probably will, but for someone who wants your image badly, it probably will not stop them. Content aware fill is the image stealer's dream.

Yea all it would take is a couple of minutes to remove it with photoshop.

I just don't understand why you would want to put something on your photo what would distract the viewer.