Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 15, 2010, 8:23 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default Sigma 135-400mm shooting raw

Decided to take out and try the Sigma 135-400mm lens again. It's been in the closet for some time now. But a few comments posted about 'breaking the bank' with a 50-200mm/EC-20 telecon combo prompted me to have a look see at the output of this lens. It's generally available on the used market for under 400dollars.

These two images were shot this morning using an E-30/sigma 135-400mm lens mounted on a #3001 Manfrotto tripod.

The 1st was shot Aperture mode, ISO800 focal length 330mm 7.1, 1/200sec.
The 2nd was shot at Aperture mode, ISO500, focal length 400mm, 9.0, 1/80sec.

What you're looking at are 2 raw files pp in Adobe Camera RAW 5.6 with no cropping, The only changes made were to correct white balance. I added a little clarity and vibrance. No sharpening OR noise reduction was done.

If interested, you can see the original files here:http://zig123.smugmug.com/Other/Phot...88899015_ayEUr
Attached Images
  

Last edited by zig-123; Feb 15, 2010 at 8:27 AM.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 15, 2010, 8:37 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
boBBrennan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, Texas USA
Posts: 3,554
Default

....well, thosearereallynicepictures ! Your birds are so pretty, I just was outside and saw only a couple 'black birds', the ugly ones.

That lens with the E-30 does well and I suspect if you did not have other than it, you would be quite pleased.
boBBrennan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2010, 10:15 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boBBrennan View Post
....well, thosearereallynicepictures !

That lens with the E-30 does well and I suspect if you did not have other than it, you would be quite pleased.
Hi Bob,

The lens does indeed do pretty well and if I didn't have the 50-200mm with the EC-14, the Sigma would serve me just fine. I bought it for the added reach this lens has and frankly, the price was appealing. I did read a fair bit of information about this particular lens so, I knew I was getting a lens reported to be fairly soft beyond 250mm. But, I think the copy I own is sharp to begin with and with ACR 5.6, you can sharpen up the files, further still. As much as I'd love to own the Oly 300mm ZD prime, this will have to do for now.

Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2010, 11:22 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
gjtoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 6,931
Default

Excellent images, Zig. If you ever tire of that Sigma , I know a person in Kentucky that would be more than happy with it heheheh
__________________
Gary ---- "The best camera is the one you have with you."
<><~~~~~~~~~~~
Pentax K-70 ~ Panasonic FZ1000
My Gallery

--
Hebrews 13:3
gjtoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2010, 12:15 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Thanks Gary.

I've been following some of your posts in the wildlife forum. You've got some really great images of a Northern Flicker.


Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2010, 1:36 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default a couple of more shots

A couple of additional shots:

The 1st is a Goldfinch again shot at 400mm focal, ISO500, f9.0 1/125sec.
no cropping, sharpening, or noise reduction. just adjusted the exp & WB
the 2nd shot is a 100% crop of the first no sharpening or NR.
Attached Images
  
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2010, 6:29 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

There seems quite a bit of difference between these and the ones posted in the earlier thread. Is that due to the ec-14 being on in the previous ones, or just because those were handheld and these shot on a tripod. For the money these look quite good. Might be worth it to have it just so I don't have to throw away 75% of my pics because the focus was off.
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2010, 7:25 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelow1966 View Post
There seems quite a bit of difference between these and the ones posted in the earlier thread. Is that due to the ec-14 being on in the previous ones, or just because those were handheld and these shot on a tripod. For the money these look quite good. Might be worth it to have it just so I don't have to throw away 75% of my pics because the focus was off.
Hi John,

I do believe there is a difference. Part of the answer lies in the fact that I know a bit more about this lens- i.e. An EC-14 telecon , IMHO, should not be used with it as I believe it does add a bit to the degradation. Also, for me, a tripod is a must. Some one with a steadier hand can probably get away without using a tripod but, I sure can't. Also, in these shots, I set the camera to aperture mode and set the aperture to settings I thought would work best at 250mm, 300mm, and 400mm. I started with the at ISO 800 worked my way up to 2000 and back down to 500 depending on the light. I started shooting at 7am this morning and stopped around 9:30am. I also applied some exp comp that ranged between -.03 to -.07 when the lighting got particularly bright and I didn't want to stop and adjust ISO because of the activity. Lastly, some of my shutter speeds ended up around 1/125sec. due to the lack of light, without the tripod, the results would have been nowhere near as clean.

Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2010, 7:27 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Zig, your E30 obviously works great with that lens. Nice bird shots. Lots of detail and nice & sharp. You couldn't ask for better.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2010, 10:20 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zig-123 View Post
Hi John,

I do believe there is a difference. Part of the answer lies in the fact that I know a bit more about this lens- i.e. An EC-14 telecon , IMHO, should not be used with it as I believe it does add a bit to the degradation. Also, for me, a tripod is a must. Some one with a steadier hand can probably get away without using a tripod but, I sure can't. Also, in these shots, I set the camera to aperture mode and set the aperture to settings I thought would work best at 250mm, 300mm, and 400mm. I started with the at ISO 800 worked my way up to 2000 and back down to 500 depending on the light. I started shooting at 7am this morning and stopped around 9:30am. I also applied some exp comp that ranged between -.03 to -.07 when the lighting got particularly bright and I didn't want to stop and adjust ISO because of the activity. Lastly, some of my shutter speeds ended up around 1/125sec. due to the lack of light, without the tripod, the results would have been nowhere near as clean.

Zig
Thanks for the info.
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:45 PM.