Sigma 28-300

[Reef Pets]

Well, my family and I went to Red River Gorge over the Christmas Holiday. Of course I took the camera just in case we found something worth taking pictures of. We cam across an amazing waterfall. I brought with me a Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG Macro lens and shot with a Canon Xti. I took MANY photos of the waterfall and am not happy with 99.9 percent of them that I took. Has anyone used this lens before? Is it junk? From what I have found by using it the clarity is terrible. I know that I am not a photographer but my wifes Blackberry took more clear photos than this lens. As you can see almost everything is a blur.... Just looking for feedback on the lens.
The photos could have been amazing but the one below is about as good as it gets.

 

[gparr]

It looks like your shutter speed was 0.2 sec. at f/10 and ISO 100. It's generally not possible to hand-hold any shot at that shutter speed and get a tack sharp image. You also should have been able to shoot at f/5.6 or so and at least ISO 200, even ISO 400, both of which would have given you a faster shutter speed. I'm a big fan of always using a tripod, but I realize that isn't always practical on family outings. If you want your water to have that silky look, you'll almost always have to use a tripod.

As for the lens, if it isn't part of the Sigma EX line, it's likely going to be substandard in terms of sharpness, color, and contrast. The zoom range, while tempting, is also much too long for virtually any lens to be sharp, particularly at either end of that range. It is a rare third-party consumer-level lens that will deliver top-quality images. If you're going to use consumer-level lenses, buy Canon's lenses. They will deliver much better images.

Of course, if you can afford them, the professional-level lenses are the way to go. That would be Canon's L level lenses and for Sigma, the EX series. In comparison, you will suffer sticker shock, but lenses are the thing you will keep long term and camera bodies will come and go.

I say that fully understanding that owning professional-level lenses is not practical for many who just want a good DSLR that will deliver quality images in most situations. If you're one of those people, get rid of the Sigma lens and get a couple of Canon lenses that will cover that same zoom range.

Also, your best investment in terms of getting good images on a consistent basis is a quality tripod. An image from a camera on a tripod will almost always beat a hand-held image.

gary

 

[gparr]

As I study your image, there does appear to be camera movement. Also note that these types of scenes can be a little tricky. You're dealing with the extremes of sky and bright water at the top and dark rock/deep shadows near the bottom. I don't know when you shot this, but my guess would be sometime in the middle of the day. Earlier or later would have likely given you a better image and given you a better chance of keeping the water from blowing out at the top. Regardless, a higher ISO setting, wider aperture, and faster shutter speed would have given you a sharper image.

Below is a similar shot, but made very early in the day to get even lighting in the canyon. Shutter speed was 8 sec. @ f/25 at ISO 100 and, obviously, on a tripod. You can see that I blew out a small portion of the water at the top. It's almost unavoidable.

Gary

 

[Reef Pets]

Hey Gary - The scary part is that I used a tripod for the photos. I have an Enduro Tripod which I have found and heard to be decent. I believe the ISO was at 200, the shutter speed at 13 or 14 and using no zoom. This is why I was extremely surprised at how bad the photos looked. I wanted to take a photo that I could print and hang in the den but none of them are of that quality.

I have a Canon 100mm f/2.8 and it is awesome but not a great all around lens. I have used the Sigma lens 3-4 times. So, I think I will sell it and put that money toward a better lens.
I dont want to spend a small furtune on a lens but it is extremely irritating to get photo quality like this. I purchased the camera well over a year ago when they were selling for over 1000.00, purchased a 230.00 tripod and then a 520.00 macro lens. So, I guess to finish it off I need a good wide range lens, a good version of PhotoShop and more practice.
I feel that I was getting the correct angels for a good photo and the setting on the camera was right but I was lacking in the lens department.

With you thinking that the photo was shot being hand held I know it looks bad!! Again, I was just really surprised at how terrible the clarity was.

Anyone want to purchase a crappy Sigma lens? Its brand new and only kicked twice.

 

[Reef Pets]

Thats an amazing Photo! You are correct, it was shot arounf noon. The fog had settled in over night therefore I could not take the photos until it cleared. The sun finally cleared it around 11:45-12:00. I tried setting the shutter speed to f/20 and f/22 and the photos where even more blurred. The water looked much nicer but the rock looked really bad.
I also tried some shots with a fast shutter speed of about f/8 and the rocks looked a litte better but the water looked terrible. This is when I figured I had better ask the professionals about the lens.

 

[gparr]

I was just going by the EXIF data embedded in the photo for your camera settings. Any chance you were shooting in an automatic mode and it set things for you without you realizing it? Maybe your autofocus was searching because it couldn't lock onto anything? Even on a tripod, with slow shutter speeds, you can get movement, particularly if you have a heavy lens and the tripod is mounted to the camera body. Movement/vibration can also occur when the mirror raises to allow light to get to the sensor and, more often, movement can occur when you press the shutter button. For slow shutter speeds I always use mirror lockup and a remote release to prevent any movement.

It looks like there is movement and/or poor focus in the image, but I'm also confident that that lens is not giving you a very good image.

Gary

 

[Reef Pets]

Hey Gary - I did try some auto settings. I tried several different setting hoping to get something nice out of one photo. The tripod was setting on loose rock and that could have caused movement. I was also using a remote to take the shots.
With a decent camera, decent tripod, remote and several different settings I thought I would get a couple good photos. This is why I thought the lens is crap. I know that I cant take the best of pictures but I have taken very nice photos with the 100mm macro even shooting them from a distance. I only wish I would have taken that lens with me.
I purchased the lens a while back without asking any questions and before I started posting on this thread. Seems as if photography has something in common with reef keeping........ Do it right the first time and it will save you lots of money in the end.

 

[Reef Pets]

Knowing the information from a EXIF file is extremely helpful. I had no idea what it was until you stated that you gathered the information from it. This is a great way to figure out what the camera does at different settings and compare the settings. What a huge learning process photography is.

 

[macawmagic]

I'm just trying to learn...but what's wrong with the picture??? It looks AMAZING and i'm jealous of the fact that you found that. I miss my uncle and aunts house in the smokey mountains because there were waterfalls like that all around in the woods, just had to go find them.

Only thing I could see "bad" about the photo is the where the water is starting to fall its extremely white.

what else is "bad" with the photo?

again, i'm just trying to learn...I think the photo's gorgeous!

 

[Reef Pets]

It was an amazing find. The fall is about 60 feet high and you are able to walk all the way to the bottom of it.
The photo is missing clarity which destroys the details in the photo. If you compare the photo that I posted compared to the photo that Gary posted you will see the one that I posted has no detail in the rock work. None of the rocks show detail. I have a couple that are not so white at the top and blown out.
I took a ton of pictures of the waterfall and I will be going through of of them. I hope to find one with more detail but so far this has been the best.
I also took some photos of my son that were amazing but the clarity is also missing.

Learn from my mistakes! Go ahead and purchase the good equipment the first time. I should have done that with this lens.........

 

[cparka23]

...I tried setting the shutter speed to f/20 and f/22 and the photos where even more blurred....

Judging by this comment, it seems that there's some misunderstanding of the relationship between shutter speed and aperture (I apologize in advance if you know this already).

The designations of f/20 or f/22 are aperture settings. The higher the number, the smaller the aperture. So the aperture in f/22 is smaller than the aperture at f/20. Here is a quick (5-minute) tutorial that can explain all of this that I'm about to share.

In this case, you say that you set the aperture very small. In order to get a properly exposed photo, however, a small aperture means a long exposure time (i.e. slow shutter speed). The opposite is also true where a large aperture would need a short time for exposure (i.e. fast shutter speed). There's an inverse relationship between shutter speed and aperture in order to get a properly exposed photo. Simply put, when one is high, the other should be low... and vice versa.

So as you say the photos are more blurred at f/20 or f/22, that's to be expected. A tiny aperture means the camera will take a long time to get the proper exposure. So if the walkway is a little uneven and you're worried about the camera shifting in the middle of the exposure, the proper thing to do would be to shoot with the lens more open at f3.6 or f/4. This would shorten the time spent in exposing the photo (fast shutter speed) and increase your chance to get a better picture.

 

[gparr]

From what you've shared about your approach to this image, it looks like you have listened and learned well grasshopper. I can't think of anything else to offer in terms of technique and it appears that your equipment is the weak link in the chain. And yes, as in the reef hobby, if you want a top quality result but go cheap with the infrastructure, you'll be disappointed.

I feel your frustration. Photographically, there is nothing worse than having one chance to get a good shot of a nice subject, only to come up short and know you can't get it again. I hope that's not the case here.

If it's any comfort, good landscape photography requires several trips to an area to learn the lighting and see it in different seasons. Chances are that if you can go back and do it early or late in the day you'll end up with a better result.

When you head out to buy a better lens, stay away from zooms with an extended range such as the 28-300. They rarely deliver.

In the L line of lenses, the Canon 17-40L is used by many for landscape work. I love mine. A more all-around range is 24-70. Canon's 24-70L is superb. My shot above was done with the Sigma EX24-70. I once did an extensive comparison with another photographer who owns the Canon version and we couldn't find any notable differences and the Sigma is significantly less expensive. I once borrowed a friend's 24-105L and it appears to be an outstanding piece of glass. I only shot with it for a day, but the resulting images were definitely up to snuff. The king of zooms is the Canon 70-200L, either the f/4 or the f/28. You won't find a better zoom lens in that range and it's as good as the primary lenses in that range. They're all pricey, but when the image screams "look at me" they are worth it.

Gary

Hey Gary - I did try some auto settings. I tried several different setting hoping to get something nice out of one photo. The tripod was setting on loose rock and that could have caused movement. I was also using a remote to take the shots.
With a decent camera, decent tripod, remote and several different settings I thought I would get a couple good photos. This is why I thought the lens is crap. I know that I cant take the best of pictures but I have taken very nice photos with the 100mm macro even shooting them from a distance. I only wish I would have taken that lens with me.
I purchased the lens a while back without asking any questions and before I started posting on this thread. Seems as if photography has something in common with reef keeping........ Do it right the first time and it will save you lots of money in the end.