Getting the Most out of my files to impress clients

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
image

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 :slight_smile:

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:

image

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:

image

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 :man_shrugging:

I added another file # 6925.nef It is something less likely to move in the wind like a plant.

Thanks guys.

Your last two images are somewhat soft, and the satellite dish white LNB covers and silver screws in the mount have a tiny bit of flare and some chromatic aberration.

You shouldn’t really expect a zoom lens with 21 elements and a wide range of focal lengths to compare favorably with a 6 element fixed focal length lens. The zoom is a compromise to some degree at all focal lengths in exchange for versatility and convenience. The fixed focal length lens has a huge design advantage. That’s simply optical physics. You could have gotten a poor sample of the Sigma, but even an optimal sample won’t give you the same image as a good fixed focal length lens at a given focal length.

The prices should tell you something. If your $1000 zoom lens performed as well as the $5500 fixed focal length lens, Nikon wouldn’t be able to sell enough to be worthwhile.

To be fair, I opened the conversation saying that I never expected to get the same results. With that being said, do not be confused with the contemporary version of the lens. My lens is the Pro Level Sport Version. I wish it was 1000. Now with that being said, by every rating agency regarding this lens stated that this is the Best super zoom lens on the market. It is the sharpest, lens with the most contrast of any on the market. It is also completely weather sealed which the 1000 dollar contemps are not. I did my final tests today at the air show and i will look at them later tonight into tomorrow. I would hope that this was just a bad copy that could be remedied with a visit to sigma or a replacement. Given all the hype from the pro reviewers, I am almost convinced that is the case. Will know more by the end of today. I have not had a problem with My other two sigma lenses (Especially my 50-100 1.8 Art lens) That mother does rival my Nikon 35 1.8 Prime lens as well as my 50mm Nikon Prime.