Oh I agree with you on every aspect talked about. This was just an example of a tight crop where I just could not extrapolate the amount of detail I was hoping I would be able to see from this lens. You are correct, I am shooting for the parents. Still in testing mode with this lens for the most part and just trying to take my game to another level.
Oh, judging from the example, the lens is fine. It has very good local contrast and is extremely sharp. I suspect that you will see only a fractional improvement due to any lens replacement.
If you are shooting for parents then being technically ultra correct is irrelevant. As long as you get their child in good focus with likeable pose, they will be mightily impressed. Trust me. I am a parent too 
Looking at the “Cut4 Photography” link I think it was lowered the saturation from the backgrounds and raised in the subjects.
And in gimp I’ve lowered the saturation in the background
1 Like
Mr. McCap, you are very right. The cut4 photographer is very meticulous and well thought out. He puts himself in the best possible scenario to get the images he wants to create. You rarely see him at night events and if he is, the lighting is so good that he does not have to dial up the ISO nearly as much as I would at my football games. He usually shoots championship high school games at night in college stadiums or community stadiums where the lighting is 2 times brighter then me shooting at 6400 ISO at f2.8 in mine.
1 Like
There is much detail in the raw image. I think one should take care to make the face bright enough and to darken the background a bit.
1 Like
Hi @254AllStar.com, and welcome!
When I see that kind of photo, I always think of
elsamuko’s National Geographic Script for The Gimp.
I believe that it will give your image much more oompf.
https://sites.google.com/site/elsamuko/gimp/ng
Have fun!
Claes in Lund, Sweden
1 Like
I also love Nikon, and shoot them with Sigma primes, which are very sharp as expected. I use Fuji for everyday carry around, but would not give up my Nikons for pro work. The Nikon in camera tuning is relatively useful for primes, but when it comes to zooms, not so much. You can get it bang on at one focal distance and the rest it could be out. Additionally the Sigma dock is available for a reason, both for firmware updates, and the ability to tune exactly to your particular camera is essential.
Is your behemoth a contemporary or sports lens? Does it have OS? I’m guessing it does, so I would probably disable that and test again, especially when shooting such high shutter speeds. I would also maybe test the lens at f8, and no longer than 400mm, and see how the performance is there.
Was it a really hot day?
My opinion is that these images are not very sharp, and that the lens needs to be calibrated. Getting prime like sharpness is not going to happen, but I feel that there is maybe a focusing error here, going by the badge on the front of the boys helmet. It probably just needs a tune. I’ve done a version here and sharpened the image more than I would’ve normally in RT.
The d7500 has no anti-aliasing filter so it should be very sharp. Do you have an image from your 70-200 2.8 Sigma you are happy with we could look at?
And finally, your processing was a little heavy handed with the first image you shared, but I really liked the second one though, although it still feels a little soft to me.
DSC_6032.jpg.out.pp3 (11.9 KB)
2 Likes
Thank you Mr Nick.
Regarding my 70-200 f2.8 and 50-100 f1.8 art lens (which some claim to be the sharpest “Zoom” lens ever made to date), there is nothing good to compare it too because I shot in Jpg a few weeks ago.
Prior to that most of my shots were on a Football Field or Gym at 4000-6500 ISO because of Fall and Winter Sports.
I shot outdoor sports with this new lens so it is the sport version. I would not feel good with not having weather sealing. My 50-100 art lens is not weather sealed, but that is for gym use to get me an extra stop or so of light in poorly lit gyms.
I definitely agree on the slight soft look.
I know the in camera lens calibration is only good for one focal length. Where as the dock pretty much will allow you to calibrate the entire lens if I understand correctly. Or at least multiple different points with a great deal of precision and accuracy between the points (linearity).
I am on my way to shoot an indoor sports banquet now so I will be out the rest of the night.
Thank you for your time.
1 Like
And if you run the National Geographic filter on Thomas’ image (above),
you will end up with something like this:
Have fun!
Claes in Lund, Sweden
3 Likes
Wow phenomenal.
@254AllStar.com When inspecting your RAW there is a distinct softness in your shot:
or here
You’re shooting at your lowest aperture (f/6.3) on 600 mm, so that’s quite normal. Like @paperdigits said, stop down to f/8.0 or something and give it another go. You have some room to play with your shutter speed and maybe crank up the ISO to 3200 to still get good exposure.
With RT 5.6 I can make your shot look like this:
DSC_6032.jpg.out.pp3 (11.7 KB)
One of the other things I thought about is that helmet is so old and beat up, it may very well be showing wear on the lettering. I thought about that a about two days or so ago. Thank you for your input.
1 Like
Focus is on the near shoulder. Look at the stitching and fabric in the vest.
That’s flare on the helmet logo and Rawlings name on the side, not just being out of focus. If you’re using a protective filter, try without it. You may need a higher quality filter. Some can induce flare like that. Check the filter and lens to see if either needs cleaning. It looks like whatever is causing the flare is also causing a little general unsharpness.
I’m not familiar with either the camera or the lens, so I can’t speak except in generalities. However, I’ve been shooting since 1968, sometimes professionally, and with many brands and formats, so I’ve seen enough to know what flare looks like.
Stopping down is good advice, but at the cost of less blur softening the background. Test to see if there’s a good compromise between sharpness and depth of field.
Yeah, no filter on the lens. It is 105mm thread so that is a pricey investment for high end filters. So if it is flare? Would a serious amount of Contrast be able to sharpen it just as an experiment?
Adding contrast won’t solve the flare issue. The ‘blooming’ of the white over the black that @Thanatomanic points out is something that contrast adjustment won’t cure, at least not without something really radical that would completely ruin the rest of the photo. Even radical local contrast adjustments would probably look unnatural. Nothing lost in trying it, though, and you could learn something in the process.
Check the lens to see if it’s clean. Look for streaks or smears, which can cause this kind of flare. Check the internals of the lens as well. I have a Canonet GIII that had the same characteristic flare when it reached 40 years old. Disassembly and cleaning of the internal lens surfaces fixed it. That was probably aperture oil that had evaporated and deposited on the internal lens surfaces.
I’ve seen lenses that seem to flare like this consistently, but have no idea if your model is one of them.
Sorry it took so long to get back. The lens is brand new and clean.
If it is brand new and clean, there’s always a remote chance of a manufacturing mistake.
However, my guess on the fuzzyness is still simply the limitations of the lens at the maximum focal length and shooting wide open. Could you try the following: take a shot at 600mm of anything with plenty of detail going on in the entire frame. A tree or a house in full view should do fine. Try that at f/6.3, f/8 and f/13 and upload the results here. I am curious to see the results 
Here is a general shot in front of my house at 600mm f8.0 1000 shutter Full sun (on the subject)
https://filebin.net/083zqqgxs3lumovb
It is file number 6922.NEF
The PP3 associated with this file number was the general opening of the file in Raw Therapy. I did not do anything to it.
By the way this was handheld. This setup is between 8-10 pounds. Normally do not hand hold this.
That means it’s not sharpened in post and therefore it looks a bit fuzzy.
Here’s a comparison (left is unsharpened, right is sharpened).
1 Like
Thanks for sharing!
Now, I’m by no means an expert in testing lenses and I have no experience with your particular lens or other long range zoom lenses for comparison, so take this with a grain of salt.
That being said, I would not be satisfied with my purchase if I saw this in my pictures just a little above the center of the frame where the optics should be the best:
There is a distinct halo/blur/whatever you call it, that doesn’t look like motion blur. In this shot I would expect motion blur to be visible throughout the image, and that’s not the case.
Going more to the lower left corner things get better:
Just below the center things a quite soft already, and not in a way that sharpening really helps.
So… what to conclude from this? Maybe it’s just the way it’s supposed to be. But also maybe have your lens checked? And maybe even contact Sigma? I don’t know 