# Sigma 150-600 Garbage



## jcdeboever

I am so irritated right now, doesn't help desktop web site won't work for download. Roughly 50 yards away. Not sure if it's lens, me, camera, or both. Not sharp at all in my opinion. #1 shot on tripod, OS off. #2 hand held and OS1 and 2 tried no difference. Dont here any noise from OS. Not in custom setting. Hooked up lens in dock, no firmware update.

#1











#2











Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky

Autofocus? Try manual focus.  Maybe it's front- or back-focusing.


----------



## jcdeboever

#1 cropped


 

#2 cropped


----------



## jcdeboever

480sparky said:


> Autofocus? Try manual focus.  Maybe it's front- or back-focusing.



I can but if this is what I get with auto focus, I don't want it. What's the point if I may ask respectfully?

Do you see the lines in the bokeh on the cropped images? not digging that either.

well, I guess the lines are the siding on the house after closer inspection.


----------



## pixmedic

jcdeboever said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Autofocus? Try manual focus.  Maybe it's front- or back-focusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can but if this is what I get with auto focus, I don't want it. What's the point if I may ask respectfully?
> 
> Do you see the lines in the bokeh on the cropped images? not digging that either.
Click to expand...


it will tell you if the lens _*can*_ achieve focus.
maybe the difference between a glass issue and an AF issue. 
it might not make any difference to you at all, but it may help expedite the return process by narrowing down the issue a little for the techies.


----------



## Designer

The jittery OOF doesn't look like a lens artifact, but could be a vibration in the entire setup.  Shutter, mirror, wind, or ?.


----------



## jcdeboever

Manual is even worse if that means anything. Do you guys see what I am seeing as far as quality?


----------



## jcdeboever

Designer said:


> The jittery OOF doesn't look like a lens artifact, but could be a vibration in the entire setup.  Shutter, mirror, wind, or ?.



It does it on tripod as well. I have no way to tell if OS is working or not... Shooting from inside with slider door open. It is windy out. Is there a way. The focus point is dead on according to the Nikon windows software.


----------



## 480sparky

jcdeboever said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Autofocus? Try manual focus.  Maybe it's front- or back-focusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can but if this is what I get with auto focus, I don't want it. What's the point if I may ask respectfully?
> .......
Click to expand...


It's a by-product of mass-production.  If the lens is front- or back-focusing, that can be corrected with many Nikon cameras in-body.


----------



## jcdeboever

480sparky said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Autofocus? Try manual focus.  Maybe it's front- or back-focusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can but if this is what I get with auto focus, I don't want it. What's the point if I may ask respectfully?
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a by-product of mass-production.  If the lens is front- or back-focusing, that can be corrected with many Nikon cameras in-body.
Click to expand...


Well, the manual was worse but overall similar. I don't think my D3300 can correct this, am I correct?


----------



## jaomul

Try live view with all other settings same on your camera. This will tell you if its the focus or not most likely. I'd be surprised if you could manually focus well at 550mm unless bolted to the ground. By any chance were you on a tripod with OS switched on?


----------



## 480sparky

jcdeboever said:


> Well, the manual was worse but overall similar. I don't think my D3300 can correct this, am I correct?



If my failing memory serves, I don't think the 3300 has that ability.

Where did you buy it from?  Perhaps contact the seller and request a replacement.


----------



## jaomul

The d3300 does not have af fine tune, but this is one of the reasons the new sigmas can be adj with a dock system


----------



## Gary A.

Sometimes you just get a bad lens. I know a few photogs who send lenses back three+ times until they're happy.  I have acquired a ton of lenses over the course of my lifetime and I've never sent one back.  I don't think the IQ is acceptable. I don't shoot Nikon.  But if this was a Canon, I'd take it down the street to the Canon repair facility in Irvine and in a few days it would be fixed.

If you shot mirrorless, you'd haven't any front/back focus issues.

PS- How do you golf in the snow? (I'd think those little white balls you chase would easily blend into the ground cover.)


----------



## jcdeboever

jaomul said:


> Try live view with all other settings same on your camera. This will tell you if its the focus or not most likely. I'd be surprised if you could manually focus well at 550mm unless bolted to the ground. By any chance were you on a tripod with OS switched on?



No, you can see it in the settings that OS was off when on a tripod. I tried live view, no difference.


----------



## jcdeboever

480sparky said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the manual was worse but overall similar. I don't think my D3300 can correct this, am I correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If my failing memory serves, I don't think the 3300 has that ability.
> 
> Where did you buy it from?  Perhaps contact the seller and request a replacement.
Click to expand...


That thought comes to my mind. Do you think there is something wrong with it based on the info I provided?


----------



## jaomul

If live view doesn't give clear shots when focused and conventional and manual it Would point at a faulty unit


----------



## jcdeboever

Gary A. said:


> Sometimes you just get a bad lens. I know a few photogs who send lenses back three+ times until they're happy.  I have acquired a ton of lenses over the course of my lifetime and I've never sent one back.  I don't think the IQ is acceptable. I don't shoot Nikon.  But if this was a Canon, I'd take it down the street to the Canon repair facility in Irvine and in a few days it would be fixed.
> 
> If you shot mirrorless, you'd haven't any front/back focus issues.
> 
> PS- How do you golf in the snow? (I'd think those little white balls you chase would easily blend into the ground cover.)



orange or black balls...


----------



## 480sparky

jcdeboever said:


> That thought comes to my mind. Do you think there is something wrong with it based on the info I provided?



It's possible it's just a bad copy.  But I'd work with it more to make sure it's actually the lens before I would return it.

Is there someone you know that can try it on their camera? Hopefully someone with a body that can adjust for front- or back-focusing.


----------



## jcdeboever

480sparky said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> That thought comes to my mind. Do you think there is something wrong with it based on the info I provided?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible it's just a bad copy.  But I'd work with it more to make sure it's actually the lens before I would return it.
> 
> Is there someone you know that can try it on their camera? Hopefully someone with a body that can adjust for front- or back-focusing.
Click to expand...


Maybe I can get with @astroNikon but man, this is bad timing.


----------



## astroNikon

Wish I knew about this earlier.  I did absolutely NOTHING all day.  I would have gone to AA and met you and tested it out.

But redo those tests at f/8 and see if they are sharper.  Also try higher shutter speeds.  That flag in the wind is really moving fast as the wind gusts were from 30 to 45 mph today.  Even constantly it was easily above 20mph.  Those flags shafts will bend and move and then the flag is probably flapping like crazy in an open field/golf course.

My Tamron was noted in the past as it is sharpest at f/8.  I essentially use it at f/8 ALL THE TIME.
The earlier Sigma 150-500 had the same issue.  I don't know about the current Sigma 150-600s.


----------



## jcdeboever

astroNikon said:


> Wish I knew about this earlier.  I did absolutely NOTHING all day.  I would have gone to AA and met you and tested it out.
> 
> But redo those tests at f/8 and see if they are sharper.  Also try higher shutter speeds.  That flag in the wind is really moving fast as the wind gusts were from 30 to 45 mph today.  Even constantly it was easily above 20mph.  Those flags shafts will bend and move and then the flag is probably flapping like crazy in an open field/golf course.
> 
> My Tamron was noted in the past as it is sharpest at f/8.  I essentially use it at f/8 ALL THE TIME.
> The earlier Sigma 150-500 had the same issue.  I don't know about the current Sigma 150-600s.



Ok. Will try it when I get time. Yes they were whipping but the heron which I didn't post were even worse. I couldn't have met you today anyway. After I finished 9 loads of laundry I ran up and seen grandma at hospice. Still there but leaving shortly. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## DarkShadow

Just some observation your In AF-S on what looks like the flag is blowing around so it looks to be OOF more then a sharpness issue to me. I found Also almost all consumer lenses I had or have do better stopped down.For example f/6.3 stopped down to f/8  should be noticeably sharper.Here is some recents with my sigma 150-600 @ 600mm stopped down to f/8 . These are Large Jpegs  from the D7200 In Camera sharpening +7 No PP  Sharpening.


----------



## DarkShadow

Just thought I mention that I returned my first copy to B&H for a faulty OS that was not working correctly.The second copy I have now is perfect.  I also bought the Dock for calibration and firmware updates.After downloading the software from the sigma website,straight away a firmware update was found and I updated it . Also with the dock and software allows a user to change the default OS from standard mode to dynamic mode for maximum effectiveness on stabilization for hand holding stored in one of the two custom modes 1 or 2 then you just set your switch to the one you selected. You Can also change the AF speed from normal to its fastest setting which I did that to and So far so good. Oh yes I almost forgot, its just as sharp on my D3300 as well.


----------



## shefjr

Something maybe to consider would be to send in the camera body with the lens. I did that with my D7000 and the Sigma 150-500. I only had to pay for it to be shipped to them. They "married" the lens to the camera at the factory and I think had it back to me in a few days. I am much happier with the results after having sent in the lens. Additionally, if there was then a problem with the lens they could repair or replace for you.


----------



## jcdeboever

DarkShadow said:


> Just thought I mention that I returned my first copy to B&H for a faulty OS that was not working correctly.The second copy I have now is perfect.  I also bought the Dock for calibration and firmware updates.After downloading the software from the sigma website,straight away a firmware update was found and I updated it . Also with the dock and software allows a user to change the default OS from standard mode to dynamic mode for maximum effectiveness on stabilization for hand holding stored in one of the two custom modes 1 or 2 then you just set your switch to the one you selected. You Can also change the AF speed from normal to its fastest setting which I did that to and So far so good. Oh yes I almost forgot, its just as sharp on my D3300 as well.


I did download the software and hooked it to the dock. Yuck, Windows, I hate Windows. I checked for firmware but it had the latest already. I had no idea how to do what you did but didn't try real hard to figure it out. The software doesn't appear intuitive at first glance but gonna give it another go. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Didereaux

I have to disagree.  There IS a difference between 1 & 2.  Look carefully at first the doorway/windows vertical supports above the bushes.  You will see motion shake in # 1, but far less if any in #2  So there is IS and it is working.  Secondly look at the flag it is WIND blurred!  But even under those conditions #2 is sharper.  Again IS.  1/800th will not stop that much motion.  It sounds like for some reason or another you want to toss the lens.   But your evidence doesn't support your reasons!


----------



## jcdeboever

Didereaux said:


> I have to disagree.  There IS a difference between 1 & 2.  Look carefully at first the doorway/windows vertical supports above the bushes.  You will see motion shake in # 1, but far less if any in #2  So there is IS and it is working.  Secondly look at the flag it is WIND blurred!  But even under those conditions #2 is sharper.  Again IS.  1/800th will not stop that much motion.  It sounds like for some reason or another you want to toss the lens.   But your evidence doesn't support your reasons!


No, I don't want to toss or send back the lens. I was frustrated because the first pics I took of cranes were very blurred. I need to further test it. I am somewhat new at all this. The lens is heavy and hard to steady, not used to that either. I will keep on testing when I get a chance. I jumped the frustrated gun, I just want it to work. 


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky

Set it up on a sturdy tripod and aim it at something it can easily acquire AF on.  Then turn off the AF.

Manually turn the focus ring one way or the other, but not much.  Now start taking a series of photos, moving the focus ring back in the opposite direction you originally turned it.  Keep shooting until you go well past where the camera AF'd at.

In other words, let's say the lens focused at precisely 100'.  Turn off the AF and manually move the lens so it will be focused on, say, 110 feet.  Then start shooting, moving the focus ring to 109, 108, 107 feet.  Keep going until you get down to 90 feet.

Now pixel-peep the results.  Is there ANY image(s) in focus?


----------



## Derrel

This lens is known to be "not that great" when it is wide-open at f/6.3. Additionally, I agree with Didereaux's comments above--shot 1 looks like it has some motion blurring, but #2 has less--look at the white cap on the flag shaft, see the ghost outline. The camera settings of ISO 125, 550mm, and 1/800 second are really not very good settings. First off, every single report from every user has stated that this lens is **not** that good at the long end at f/6.3...it's just...not. Your ISO level is too low because it left you at 1/800 second with a 550mm focal length, and multiplied by 550mm is 841.5mm...the 1/over focal length guideline is not quite met....but the real world guideline I go by is TWICE the _effective focal length_ on lens lengths over 200mm...plus, additionally, that flag is whipping in the wind. SHot 1 looks to me like motion blurring, but also, combined with that thin layer of veiling glare over the image...that subtle, gentle hazy look called veiling glare (that term must be 100 years old).

Luckily, you were photographing indoors, thus sheltered from the wind, but the flag is whipping hard, and it appears to me to be recorded with a slight bit of wind-motion blurring. And I can see the image lacks a bit of contrast, due to the veiling. In this testing scenario there's only ONE, single plane of focus that the lens can resolve and show sharpness at, and that plane is the thickness of the flag fabric. To evaluate a front- or back focus issue, you would need a subject that has more than air, located in the immediate area of the focused distance; something like the side of a large, brick building, shot at an angle, would make a good target that would allow you to check focus.

I looked at 1 and 2--I think your focus is pretty close to dead-on: LOOK at the stitching thread--it is resolved fairly clearly as a line of stitching, but the lens is not pro-grade at f/6.3, it shows low contrast, and low resolving ability, and 1/800 in a stiff breeze is just not a good shutter speed on what is, likely, an oscillating flag. From the tests I've seen, and the actual pictures I have seen from your lens, it's NOT "that good" of a lens at the longer end. Long lenses, over 300mm, often show image quality issues caused by uncorrected chromatic aberration; it generally takes ED glass to get rid of that.

I'd look for a non-moving, solid target, and get the shutter speed at least 50% higher, to 1/1250 or so, and try f/8 at the long end: I think that veiling, that hard-to-describe look, will be reduced a good deal. F/8 is 2/3 of a stop down from wide-open, so I expect you'll be a lot happier at f/8 than you are f/6.3. But it WILL MANDATE that you step the ISO level UP from 125 during the winter.


----------



## DarkShadow

One thing I have herd that the Copy variations from one lens to another can be different but I think that can be said for many other lenses as well. It will never be a Nikon 500mm F/4 thats for sure but you really do have to spend some time with these type of lenses regardless and sometimes they are just not for everyone.Or Exchange it for a Nikon 200-500 or really pony up and get a Nikon 500/f4


----------



## astroNikon

Hand holding a heavy lens can be cumbersome.  Here's I thread from a few years ago when I asked about that very issue ==> Stability - making yourself a tripod versus using one

I practiced a lot on a 500mm Reflex lens.  That lens did not like movement at all, and it was manual focus.  But I learned how with proper breathing, holding, etc techniques to get good handheld pics from it.  I also tested my 18-105 VR lens a lot too, turn VR on shoot, turn it off .. shoot .. and repeat as I explored hand holding techniques.

The 150-600 is heavy. Even Sigma 150-500 are HEAVY.  You have to really learn to brace the lens to take good hand held shots.

nowadays, I mainly have VR turned off of the few VR lenses that I use, including my Tamron 150-600.


----------



## Didereaux

astroNikon said:


> Hand holding a heavy lens can be cumbersome.  Here's I thread from a few years ago when I asked about that very issue ==> Stability - making yourself a tripod versus using one
> 
> I practiced a lot on a 500mm Reflex lens.  That lens did not like movement at all, and it was manual focus.  But I learned how with proper breathing, holding, etc techniques to get good handheld pics from it.  I also tested my 18-105 VR lens a lot too, turn VR on shoot, turn it off .. shoot .. and repeat as I explored hand holding techniques.
> 
> The 150-600 is heavy. Even Sigma 150-500 are HEAVY.  You have to really learn to brace the lens to take good hand held shots.
> 
> nowadays, I mainly have VR turned off of the few VR lenses that I use, including my Tamron 150-600.




For the OP: AN has given good advice, very good advice.  To learn how to hold a large lens in a stable manner search out Shooting stance techniques.  Holding a rifle in the standing position stably is one of the more difficult things you can learn,  BUT there is a ton of well illustrated and explained articles on how to do it properly and why certain stances are so stable.   THe proper holding of a camera and a rifle are exact correlates...and I mean exact.  I used to shoot match rifles, so I know this is fact.  When you can shoot a 22 rifle at 50yds and achieve sub 1" groupings you are STABLE!  That's what it takes to win at the higher levels of competition.


----------



## JacaRanda

I hand hold the Tamron 150-600 and probably 95% of the time I'm shooting Manual, F8, 1/2000th.  Anything different than that means I am really close to the subject and will dabble with 6.3 or 7.1, or slower shutter speeds.  Otherwise those manual settings were changed by accident.


----------



## Didereaux

jcdeboever said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Autofocus? Try manual focus.  Maybe it's front- or back-focusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can but if this is what I get with auto focus, I don't want it. What's the point if I may ask respectfully?
> 
> Do you see the lines in the bokeh on the cropped images? not digging that either.
> 
> well, I guess the lines are the siding on the house after closer inspection.
Click to expand...



First off I do not like this guy.  In fact if the opportunity presented itself I would probably slap him up side of the head with Manfrotto's heaviest tripod,  BUT occasionally he comes across with some usable information...this is a case in point.   Watch the video completely, the last 1/3 shows the files in LR and has some useful comments, as well as giving the shutter speeds etc.   After the vid you can DL 5 of the RAW files to view yourself at the second link.






RAW files
Sigma 150-600 Contemporary “Real World Review”: The BEST Wildlife / Sports lens for under $1,000?


----------



## Derrel

Here's a guy whose on-line reviews are VERY much real-world oriented actual tests of how a lens actually performs, along with very,very good and insightful comments. This review is a must-read for the 150-500 Sigma Contemporary lens buyer: 

As Bryan wrote: "_Don't underestimate the shutter speed required to stop motion at 600mm. An in-action subject that was photographed at 300mm will need a significantly faster (figure 2x) exposure duration when photographed at the same distance (same subject framing) at 600mm due to the subject crossing twice as many pixels in the same time period. _"
Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens Review

One thing it taught me is that the Sigma dock allows the user to custom-tailor the lens-based Optical Stabilization system for different uses; Bryan wrote:
_
"As is common for stabilized telephoto lenses, the Sigma 150-600 features mode 1 (normal) and mode 2 (panning) options. Using the *Sigma Dock*, this lens' OS can be further configured to one of three settings described by Sigma as:

*Dynamic View Mode* – This mode offers a recognizable OS effect to the image in the viewfinder. This helps to ensure the composition of images quickly.
*Standard* – This is the default setting. The OS effect is well-balanced and suitable for various scenes.
*Moderate View Mode* – This mode offers an excellent compensation of camera shake, and achieves very smooth transition of the image in the viewfinder. The composition of the image remains natural even when the angle of view keeps changing.

The lens comes with "Standard" selected by default. I primarily used Standard mode for my testing (and off while shooting sports), but I prefer Dynamic View Mode for subjects that are not moving quickly."_


----------



## Didereaux

Derrel said:


> Here's a guy whose on-line reviews are VERY much real-world oriented actual tests of how a lens actually performs, along with very,very good and insightful comments. This review is a must-read for the 150-500 Sigma Contemporary lens buyer:
> 
> As Bryan wrote: "_Don't underestimate the shutter speed required to stop motion at 600mm. An in-action subject that was photographed at 300mm will need a significantly faster (figure 2x) exposure duration when photographed at the same distance (same subject framing) at 600mm due to the subject crossing twice as many pixels in the same time period. _"
> Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens Review
> 
> One thing it taught me is that the Sigma dock allows the user to custom-tailor the lens-based Optical Stabilization system for different uses; Bryan wrote:
> _
> "As is common for stabilized telephoto lenses, the Sigma 150-600 features mode 1 (normal) and mode 2 (panning) options. Using the *Sigma Dock*, this lens' OS can be further configured to one of three settings described by Sigma as:
> 
> *Dynamic View Mode* – This mode offers a recognizable OS effect to the image in the viewfinder. This helps to ensure the composition of images quickly.
> *Standard* – This is the default setting. The OS effect is well-balanced and suitable for various scenes.
> *Moderate View Mode* – This mode offers an excellent compensation of camera shake, and achieves very smooth transition of the image in the viewfinder. The composition of the image remains natural even when the angle of view keeps changing.
> 
> The lens comes with "Standard" selected by default. I primarily used Standard mode for my testing (and off while shooting sports), but I prefer Dynamic View Mode for subjects that are not moving quickly."_




Had not seen this review before.  EXCELLENT!    Thorough, but understandable...what a rare event that is!


----------



## jcdeboever

Good stuff men. I need to check those links out when I get home. I will also follow up with pics at f/8 with faster shutter speed when I get a chance in the next few days. After reading all the responses, I suspect the lens is fine, it's the guy behind the viewfinder that may be defective. [emoji6] 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Didereaux

jcdeboever said:


> Good stuff men. I need to check those links out when I get home. I will also follow up with pics at f/8 with faster shutter speed when I get a chance in the next few days. After reading all the responses, I suspect the lens is fine, it's the guy behind the viewfinder that may be defective. [emoji6]
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk



If you find that is the case come join me in the back room reserved for such folks!   lol


----------



## Derrel

Didereaux said:
			
		

> SNIP>>>>Watch the video completely, the last 1/3 shows the files in LR and has some useful comments, as well as giving the shutter speeds etc.   After the vid you can DL 5 of the RAW files to view yourself at the second link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RAW files
> Sigma 150-600 Contemporary “Real World Review”: The BEST Wildlife / Sports lens for under $1,000?



Good video as far as Jared's go, yes* Big D*, a very good video review, and thanks for linking us to it! The transcript and extended commentary in the article portion mentioned that he shot the entire event with the Sigma OS Optical Stabilization feature ON, in Mode 2, which is the panning mode. I noticed that the vast majority of his sharp images that he highlighted in the video were at 1/3200 second and at f/8, with the ISO around 400, on a bright, but hazy day, but also over a huuuuge expanse of water: what is called a *marine environment. *Marine environments provide much brighter light than over land or forest,etc, so  that means that over say, a golf course or pasture land, the ISO of 400 would NOT have been able to deliver anything even close to f/8 at 1/3200 second! Just an observation that I made, but one he didn't make or say directly in the video. Keep in mind what Jared said: *it was so bright that he could not even see the image he was getting on the rear LCD of the camera well enough to evaluate the images*, and that it was so bad (so,so bright there) that he had to rely on the histogram to gauge how he was exposing.

It is a good video, but a few things went unmentioned: yes....fast target speeds--but at long distance, at fairly parallel approach patterns, high-contrast targets, dark-against-brilliant backdrop, high-contrast, sharp-edge paint jobs and decals make for the EASIEST AF targets ever devised, and also long-distance targets that do not vary much in focusing range: ALL the focusing was at the longest focusing range, beyond 200 feet, but less than infinity: on the Canon 7D, with the lens focused at 450 feet, at f/8, the depth of field band is from 425 feet to 477 feet, for a 52-foot deep focus band...for a computer and hypersonic motor, this is DEAD-EASY focusing, due to high light level, long focus range, small f/stop, and high-contrast target edges against backlighted skies, and also high-contrast, sharp edge decals and paint jobs. Oh....and on targets that are BIG....not ducks, not birds...but large aircraft.

Airshows are where a lot of people want a long tele-zoom, and this video showed a good test scenario, but again...this is LONG-RANGE autofocus on big targets with ideal contrast between aircraft body and bright, white, *target-less sky* backdrop, and high-contrast paint jobs on the subjects. The Blue Angels have that paint scheme to make the aircraft MORE-visible to the eye, so you can see them optimally, and for an AF system, show aircraft at 450-1000 feet distance are basically NOT moving all that fast, over much of an angular view. Also, the farther away a subject is, the slower the speed can be used to freeze its movement. At 650 feet, the DOF band extends from 600 feet to 709 feet at f/8 on the Canon 7D he used. *On the FF Canon 5D, the DOF band at 650 foot focusing distance ranges from 574 feet to 748 feet, for a total DOF zone of 174 feet.*...over HALF of a football field of  acceptable focus error to work within, with 75 feet in front of the focus point of 650 feet, and 98 feet of acceptable focus BEHIND the 650 foot focus point. So yeah...the lens focused great. The science underlying it gives a hint that, yeah, it damned well BETTER focus well at airshow ranges on aircraft.

*I'm not trying to invalidate anything seen in the video, just trying to point out some of the underlying basics that made his results good*. Look at the f/8 at 1/3200 second and ISO 400 exposure. I JUST stepped outside and took some meter readings using a semi-spot meter: for a properly-exposed backlighted subject at ISO 400 at f/8, the shadow-side exposure is 1/160 second: for the most bright part of the sky here on overcast day at 1:20 PM, it is f/8 at ISO 400 at 1/1000 second. The scene there was so bright he could barely evaluate the images he'd just shot on the camera's LCD: this is why a *marine environment* is such an easy location to shoot with a slow-aperture lens.


----------



## jcdeboever

O.K. Here are some more. They got better. Still not 100% sure, maybe you can tell me or direct me for more tests. I got started and my phone was blowing up. errrrrrr
Thanks again everybody...

#1 550mm, F/8, 1/1250s, ISO 4000






#2 550mm, F/8, 1/1600s, ISO 1600





#3 550mm, F/8, 1/640s, ISO 1600





#4 550mm, F/8, 1/1000s, ISO 3200





#5 550mm, F/8, 1/1000, ISO 1600





Here is a crop of #1, I don't know, doesn't seem to good to me. I am missing something. It's not to far away, maybe 30 yards?


----------



## DarkShadow

They look really soft as In not really In complete focus.Was the feeder moving from breeze? Tripod or Hand Held?


----------



## jcdeboever

DarkShadow said:


> They look really soft as In not really In complete focus.Was the feeder moving from breeze? Tripod or Hand Held?



Not really moving. you can't see it but that flag was to the right and was limp. I was using a monopod. I can't hold that thing still hand held, it keep bobbing on me. I am so used to primes. I checked the single focus point (AF-S) and dead center on the bird feeder.


----------



## DarkShadow

You may have very well got caught with a bad copy.Like I said my first one there was something funny going with the OS and I exchanged with B&H the turn around time was less the 48 hours for the exchange but I am not for from NY.


----------



## Didereaux

Just a thought, but when I put mine on a monopod I use the #2(?) panning IS mode, and not just with the Sigma but with the Canon 100-400 L as well.   Kind disregarding the noise it seems to my eye that there is a tiny bit of circular motion blur, not much but if that is so then I believe you need to change the IS mode and try again.   Also just for hoots and giggles try and set a shutter speed to the equivalent 1/focal length.     You really have to eliminate as many outside factors as possible before making any sort of assumptions about lens'.  It's a whole different world above 400mm


----------



## JacaRanda

He already used shutter speeds faster than 1/focal length, not sure if slowing it down will help.


----------



## DarkShadow

Besides what Didereaux suggested  already try to catch a day with lots of sunlight.A slow lens like this needs lots of light to really show what its capable of. If I am In doubt,I would use a tripod,single Center point on something still and self timer or shutter release cable to rule out human errors,not saying it is you but its one way to find out  for sure.


----------



## Braineack

send it back.


----------



## jcdeboever

Braineack said:


> send it back.


I think your correct. They really did not improve all that much. And from what I have seen on a d3300, this is not even remotely close. The exposure meter was dead in the middle as well. I think the OS is not functioning, plus the focus is flaky at times. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Peeb

Were you shooting thru a window?


----------



## robbins.photo

Peeb said:


> Were you shooting thru a window?



A really really dirty window with warped glass?  Well even so I'd probably send that one back, if your looking at those shutter speeds using a mono pod and the photos are that out of focus, I'd say you have a problem child there.


----------



## jcdeboever

Peeb said:


> Were you shooting thru a window?


Did both, same result. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Peeb

robbins.photo said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you shooting thru a window?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A really really dirty window with warped glass?  Well even so I'd probably send that one back, if your looking at those shutter speeds using a mono pod and the photos are that out of focus, I'd say you have a problem child there.
Click to expand...

Just wondered if the window would disrupt the focusing a bit.


----------



## DarkShadow

Yes if your not happy I would return it. Never no maybe it was mishandled,dropped or just a fart straight from Sigma.


----------



## Derrel

ISO 4000 at f/8 at 1/1250 on the cropped image...looks like ISO has been treated with some noise reduction. That does not look very good to me...just not very crisp, looks mushy due to what I think is high ISO gain and maybe some NR. The small ones are hard to see-but ONE of them looks like the focus and sharpness is better than the others. Overall, these look unimpressive for sure. Shot #3 looks best to me on the feeder.


----------



## jcdeboever

Derrel said:


> ISO 400 at f/8 at 1/1250 on the cropped image...looks like ISO has been treated with some noise reduction. That does not look very good to me...just not very crisp, looks mushy due to what I think is high ISO gain and maybe some NR. The small ones are hard to see-but ONE of them looks like the focus and sharpness is better than the others. Overall, these look unimpressive for sure. Shot #3 looks best to me on the feeder.


Thanks Derrel. I did zero noise reduction. I will contact manufacturer tomorrow. If I could load the full converted raw file, well, let's just say it sucks. This website really frustrated me as well as I had to cut way down on the quality to post. So, I think this really is a negative in my situation... In regards to proper evaluation. This type of scenario draws me to selling my digital equipment. 

I am so over the crap I produce. I think I am going to sell all this crap and go back to painting. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary A.

jcdeboever said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ISO 400 at f/8 at 1/1250 on the cropped image...looks like ISO has been treated with some noise reduction. That does not look very good to me...just not very crisp, looks mushy due to what I think is high ISO gain and maybe some NR. The small ones are hard to see-but ONE of them looks like the focus and sharpness is better than the others. Overall, these look unimpressive for sure. Shot #3 looks best to me on the feeder.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Derrel. I did zero noise reduction. I will contact manufacturer tomorrow. If I could load the full converted raw file, well, let's just say it sucks. This website really frustrated me as well as I had to cut way down on the quality to post. So, I think this really is a negative in my situation... In regards to proper evaluation. This type of scenario draws me to selling my digital equipment.
> 
> I am so over the crap I produce. I think I am going to sell all this crap and go back to painting.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

A bit of a rough spot JC?


----------



## jcdeboever

Gary A. said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ISO 400 at f/8 at 1/1250 on the cropped image...looks like ISO has been treated with some noise reduction. That does not look very good to me...just not very crisp, looks mushy due to what I think is high ISO gain and maybe some NR. The small ones are hard to see-but ONE of them looks like the focus and sharpness is better than the others. Overall, these look unimpressive for sure. Shot #3 looks best to me on the feeder.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Derrel. I did zero noise reduction. I will contact manufacturer tomorrow. If I could load the full converted raw file, well, let's just say it sucks. This website really frustrated me as well as I had to cut way down on the quality to post. So, I think this really is a negative in my situation... In regards to proper evaluation. This type of scenario draws me to selling my digital equipment.
> 
> I am so over the crap I produce. I think I am going to sell all this crap and go back to painting.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A bit of a rough spot JC?
Click to expand...


Maybe Gary. I am not progressing. I seem to be going backwards. I think I just don't understand what I am doing. I am kind of throwing in the towel at this point. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary A.

People progress differently ... I have a good friend who doesn't seem to progress, his images look the same-o, same-o for along time ... then bam ... his stuff takes a giant leap forward ... an entire level better. Soooo ... maybe you're like him ... you beat, beat, beat against that wall ... then you find the door and all at once you're through to the next level.


----------



## jcdeboever

Gary A. said:


> People progress differently ... I have a good friend who doesn't seem to progress, his images look the same-o, same-o for along time ... then bam ... his stuff takes a giant leap forward ... an entire level better. Soooo ... maybe you're like him ... you beat, beat, beat against that wall ... then you find the door and all at once you're through to the next level.


Will see I guess. I am so frustrated by all the variables. When you spend $1000, it is not unreasonable to expect good results. It is bad enough that I suck at photography and am late to the game. My mentor moved away and I am feeling blind....

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## xenskhe

jcdeboever said:


> Here is a crop of #1, I don't know, doesn't seem to good to me. I am missing something. It's not to far away, maybe 30 yards?



Looks like it's back focussing.


----------



## jcdeboever

xenskhe said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a crop of #1, I don't know, doesn't seem to good to me. I am missing something. It's not to far away, maybe 30 yards?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it's back focussing.
Click to expand...

Why is it doing that? What the heck is that? Is that something else I have to fliipin learn?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## xenskhe

Could be the camera mirror slightly out of alignment. The AF uses a small secondary mirror underneath the main one. The lens focusses off the mirror. Correct? On older Nikon SLRs there were two hex screws - one for AF one for MF. From memory clockwise corrects back focus. But the adjustment is very minimal using with a 2mm hex spanner. With a more normal prime size lens you could get a 30cm ruler and place it on a table (end on towards/away from you). At full aperture, MFD focus on 15cm mark. Calibrated ok it should give you 15cm  sharp and twice as much blur transition beyond that point than in front. Zooms are harder to get sorted. TBH I gave up on reflex cameras for this reason :/ It started to drive me nuts.


----------



## 480sparky

jcdeboever said:


> xenskhe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a crop of #1, I don't know, doesn't seem to good to me. I am missing something. It's not to far away, maybe 30 yards?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it's back focussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it doing that? What the heck is that? Is that something else I have to fliipin learn?
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Oh, the price we pay for mass-production.

Not every lens is exactly, precisely like every other one of it's counterparts.  Manufacturing tolerances are allowed.  Otherwise, 'perfect' lenses would be prohibitively expensive.

Adjusting for backfocus is kinda like setting the sights on a firearm.  Each lens is slightly different, and the camera must have the ability to take back- (or front-) focusing into account if you are to correct for it.  It's not hard to do, it just takes time.  But when once done, you generally don't have to worry about it.


----------



## jcdeboever

480sparky said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xenskhe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a crop of #1, I don't know, doesn't seem to good to me. I am missing something. It's not to far away, maybe 30 yards?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it's back focussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it doing that? What the heck is that? Is that something else I have to fliipin learn?
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, the price we pay for mass-production.
> 
> Not every lens is exactly, precisely like every other one of it's counterparts.  Manufacturing tolerances are allowed.  Otherwise, 'perfect' lenses would be prohibitively expensive.
> 
> Adjusting for backfocus is kinda like setting the sights on a firearm.  Each lens is slightly different, and the camera must have the ability to take back- (or front-) focusing into account if you are to correct for it.  It's not hard to do, it just takes time.  But when once done, you generally don't have to worry about it.
Click to expand...

WHAT? I have to learn how to get this turd to focus? Crap, I am over this photography art medium then. I need to go back to my wax, pigment, and substrate. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## xenskhe

You're right. But it ended up different for each lens. JC if live view cures the problem i'd assume it's the mirror. If notm it may be the lens. Can you try a different lens?


----------



## 480sparky

jcdeboever said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xenskhe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a crop of #1, I don't know, doesn't seem to good to me. I am missing something. It's not to far away, maybe 30 yards?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it's back focussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it doing that? What the heck is that? Is that something else I have to fliipin learn?
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, the price we pay for mass-production.
> 
> Not every lens is exactly, precisely like every other one of it's counterparts.  Manufacturing tolerances are allowed.  Otherwise, 'perfect' lenses would be prohibitively expensive.
> 
> Adjusting for backfocus is kinda like setting the sights on a firearm.  Each lens is slightly different, and the camera must have the ability to take back- (or front-) focusing into account if you are to correct for it.  It's not hard to do, it just takes time.  But when once done, you generally don't have to worry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT? I have to learn how to get this turd to focus? Crap, I am over this photography art medium then. I need to go back to my wax, pigment, and substrate.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Sorry to spoil it for you.  But I don't think you'll live long enough to learn _everything_.


----------



## xenskhe

f/36 and be there!


----------



## jcdeboever

480sparky said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xenskhe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a crop of #1, I don't know, doesn't seem to good to me. I am missing something. It's not to far away, maybe 30 yards?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it's back focussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it doing that? What the heck is that? Is that something else I have to fliipin learn?
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, the price we pay for mass-production.
> 
> Not every lens is exactly, precisely like every other one of it's counterparts.  Manufacturing tolerances are allowed.  Otherwise, 'perfect' lenses would be prohibitively expensive.
> 
> Adjusting for backfocus is kinda like setting the sights on a firearm.  Each lens is slightly different, and the camera must have the ability to take back- (or front-) focusing into account if you are to correct for it.  It's not hard to do, it just takes time.  But when once done, you generally don't have to worry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT? I have to learn how to get this turd to focus? Crap, I am over this photography art medium then. I need to go back to my wax, pigment, and substrate.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to spoil it for you.  But I don't think you'll live long enough to learn _everything_.
Click to expand...


What? You said something about a back focus issue which I know nothing about. Does this lens auto back focus or something? Do I need to know how to compensate for it? I guess I am a stupid mtf'r 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

xenskhe said:


> You're right. But it ended up different for each lens. JC if live view cures the problem i'd assume it's the mirror. If notm it may be the lens. Can you try a different lens?


Tried that if you look on earlier in the post. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

xenskhe said:


> Could be the camera mirror slightly out of alignment. The AF uses a small secondary mirror underneath the main one. The lens focusses off the mirror. Correct? On older Nikon SLRs there were two hex screws - one for AF one for MF. From memory clockwise corrects back focus. But the adjustment is very minimal using with a 2mm hex spanner. With a more normal prime size lens you could get a 30cm ruler and place it on a table (end on towards/away from you). At full aperture, MFD focus on 15cm mark. Calibrated ok it should give you 15cm  sharp and twice as much blur transition beyond that point than in front. Zooms are harder to get sorted. TBH I gave up on reflex cameras for this reason :/ It started to drive me nuts.


Shoot me in the head now

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## xenskhe

Try it at full aperture on a tripod. Then you can at least rule out focus shift due to stopping down the iris.


----------



## Peeb

xenskhe said:


> Try it at full aperture on a tripod. Then you can at least rule out focus shift due to stopping down the iris.


Or just return it, which is what I would do.


----------



## 480sparky

jcdeboever said:


> What? You said something about a back focus issue which I know nothing about. Does this lens auto back focus or something? Do I need to know how to compensate for it? I guess I am a stupid mtf'r
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk



Your education can start here.

Unfortunately, I don't think the D3300 has the ability to compensate for FF or BF.


----------



## jcdeboever

Peeb said:


> xenskhe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try it at full aperture on a tripod. Then you can at least rule out focus shift due to stopping down the iris.
> 
> 
> 
> Or just return it, which is what I would do.
Click to expand...

That's what I am going to do. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

480sparky said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? You said something about a back focus issue which I know nothing about. Does this lens auto back focus or something? Do I need to know how to compensate for it? I guess I am a stupid mtf'r
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your education can start here.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't think the D3300 has the ability to compensate for FF or BF.
Click to expand...


Well why would I start there if my d3300 can't do it? 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky

jcdeboever said:


> Well why would I start there if my d3300 can't do it?
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk



So in the future, you'll know what you're looking at and what you can do about it.

You can either exchange the lens, or upgrade the body.


----------



## jcdeboever

480sparky said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well why would I start there if my d3300 can't do it?
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in the future, you'll know what you're looking at and what you can do about it.
> 
> You can either exchange the lens, or upgrade the body.
Click to expand...

So a different body would solve the problem? I'm confused. Darkshadows body is the same as mine and his pics in this post are wonderful. I am totally lost now. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky

jcdeboever said:


> So a different body would solve the problem? I'm confused.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk



A body that is capable of AF Fine Tune.  I think you'd have to go to at least a D7100/7200 for that as I don't think the 5xxx is capable.


----------



## Peeb

480sparky said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a different body would solve the problem? I'm confused.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A body that is capable of AF Fine Tune.  I think you'd have to go to at least a D7100/7200 for that as I don't think the 5xxx is capable.
Click to expand...

And that might fix the issue or might not.


----------



## 480sparky

Peeb said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a different body would solve the problem? I'm confused.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A body that is capable of AF Fine Tune.  I think you'd have to go to at least a D7100/7200 for that as I don't think the 5xxx is capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that might fix the issue or might not.
Click to expand...


It will if the lens is FF or BF.  Only testing it will determine that.


----------



## Derrel

480sparky said:
			
		

> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? You said something about a back focus issue which I know nothing about. Does this lens auto back focus or something? Do I need to know how to compensate for it? I guess I am a stupid mtf'r
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your education can start here.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't think the D3300 has the ability to compensate for FF or BF.
Click to expand...


He bought the Sigma dock, so he'll have to adjust the focus there, using Sigma's tool set. Again, the target here is too danged small to see what the back-focusing or front-focusing might possibly be...this is a hit or a miss...run a  strip of silver duct tape down a fence or a wall, make some 1/2 inch spaced marks, 40 inches in back, 40 inches in front, with a BIG diamond right on the 0, and go -40 and +40 inches with 80 Sharpie marker stripes. FOcus on the DIAMOND at 80, with the camera at an angle...see where this SOB focuses...  That is "my" personal focus micro-adjust target method.

The issue is the type of scene being shot: we have ONE target...and then nothing but AIR...shooting the side of a barn, or the fence, or even a house, would give more information. All the empty air fore and aft of the hanging bird feeder air isn't helping create very revealing test photos.


----------



## DarkShadow

I really hope you stick it out with photography. If you return the sigma before throwing In the towel,You may want to try something like the Tamron SP 70-300 DI VC  for about half the cost and then some with the $100.00 mail In rebate.Its sharp,well built,much lighter and the vibration control blows away sigmas OS and something you should have no problem hand holding.


----------



## robbins.photo

jcdeboever said:


> So a different body would solve the problem? I'm confused. Darkshadows body is the same as mine and his pics in this post are wonderful. I am totally lost now.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk



A different body *might *make it possible to solve the issue, assuming it is a focusing issue with the lens that could be corrected by the fine tuning feature of a more advanced body.  Honestly, even if such were the case, I'd still return the lens if it were me even if I owned a camera like my 7100 that could compensate.

My reasoning behind this is simple, lets say I own the lens for a bit and suddenly Tamron or Sigma comes out with a newer version that I just can't live without.  I go to sell the old lens on Ebay or Craigslist.. and, bam, I've hurt my resell value a lot because the lens can only really be used effectively with the more advanced bodies that have the ability to fine tune the focus.

So yup, I'd be sending it back myself.  YMMV of course.


----------



## astroNikon

jcdeboever said:


> I think the OS is not functioning, plus the focus is flaky at times.


Read your statement again and ask your self if you think you should send it back.


----------



## astroNikon

jcdeboever said:


> Shoot me in the head now


I think we should get together sooner rather than later

and I won't bring my 40 cal either.  Just the camera.
But you may like my camera much more than yours testing the Tamron 150-600 v Sigma 150-600

FYI, the d3x00 does not have lens focus  fine adjustment.  I think only the d7x00 and above.


----------



## DarkShadow

It don't matter that the D3300 don't have fine tune,thats what the Dock is for.Changing body's is not going to make a difference If the lens is wonky.To bad we are not neighbors or I meet up with you to test your lens on my D3300 and mine on yours.


----------



## jcdeboever

DarkShadow said:


> It don't matter that the D3300 don't have fine tune,thats what the Dock is for.Changing body's is not going to make a difference If the lens is wonky.To bad we are not neighbors or I meet up with you to test your lens on my D3300 and mine on yours.



Well, I did a crap load of testing today. I reset my shooting menu to start off fresh... Here is what I learned... Oh, and thanks to @Didereaux on pointing out to look at the OS2 panning function, good eye sir and your were correct. 

#1: I can not get anything sharp at all on the tripod, using ML3 remote shutter, with or without OS on.
#2: I found that OS1 does not appear to work. It is used for regular stabilization.
#3: I got some consistently good shots handheld at 600mm using OS2 (panning stabilization), f/8, 1/2000s, Auto ISO, AF-S or AF-C Focus Mode, Auto or Dynamic AF-Area Mode, and Matrix Metering.
#4: I don't like testing stuff after spending $1000 for glass, the thing should work. The Stabilization is an issue.

Both these image were cropped so I could post on here.


----------



## robbins.photo

These are much better than the other samples, but from the issues you listed above I'd probably still be looking at a return.


----------



## Gary A.

I'd send it back.


----------



## Didereaux

jcdeboever said:


> DarkShadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It don't matter that the D3300 don't have fine tune,thats what the Dock is for.Changing body's is not going to make a difference If the lens is wonky.To bad we are not neighbors or I meet up with you to test your lens on my D3300 and mine on yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I did a crap load of testing today. I reset my shooting menu to start off fresh... Here is what I learned... Oh, and thanks to @Didereaux on pointing out to look at the OS2 panning function, good eye sir and your were correct.
> 
> #1: I can not get anything sharp at all on the tripod, using ML3 remote shutter, with or without OS on.
> #2: I found that OS1 does not appear to work. It is used for regular stabilization.
> #3: I got some consistently good shots handheld at 600mm using OS2 (panning stabilization), f/8, 1/2000s, Auto ISO, AF-S or AF-C Focus Mode, Auto or Dynamic AF-Area Mode, and Matrix Metering.
> #4: I don't like testing stuff after spending $1000 for glass, the thing should work. The Stabilization is an issue.
> 
> Both these image were cropped so I could post on here.
> 
> View attachment 117039
> 
> View attachment 117040
Click to expand...



thank you!   and By George I think you've got it!   ...or getting pretty dammed close.   Kudos on sticking with it.


----------



## DarkShadow

Yes Yes who ha.Much much better.Now that your getting it you will only get better from here with practice.


----------



## jcdeboever

Thanks to everyone really. It was really frustrating. I needed to turn off my phone and concentrate on what I was doing. Too many interruptions before.


----------



## jcdeboever

DarkShadow said:


> Yes Yes who ha.Much much better.Now that your getting it you will only get better from here with practice.



Strange it won't work on a tripod. I also think it could be a little sharper. I also noticed there was some kind of visual shifting in the view finder a couple of times while focusing, kind of freaked me out a little the first time... I was like, what the heck was that! Not sure what that was about...


----------



## astroNikon

The visual shifting could be the Image Stabilization


----------



## jcdeboever

astroNikon said:


> The visual shifting could be the Image Stabilization



Kind of what I was thinking. Got the repair order all filled out. Boxing it up now, getting ready for shipment tomorrow.


----------



## astroNikon

oops, I was going to add that I had image shifts from time to time on my Sigma 150-500.  Though it focused fine and images were good.

The lens also drew my camera battery down even with the camera off, and OS turned off.
It was odd.  I learned to not keep it attached to my camera.  All other lenses didn't have that issue.


----------



## DarkShadow

When I go birding I go solo and my cell is on vibrate only and I never answer anyways unless its from the wife just In case of an Emergency at home others wise I am In a  quiet hunt and scan mode.


----------



## JacaRanda

While it's in for repair or replacement, I would suggest reading the manual if you haven't, and reading it again if you have.  Include both the camera manual and the lens manual.

You really want to have an idea of what every button does or does not do.  Never expect that everything you pay good cash for is going to work perfectly from the start; especially if you don't have a clear understanding of how it works.  You will cause yourself more headaches than necessary.

Keep on pushing on.  The more Birdographers (non snobby ones) the merrier!


----------



## jcdeboever

JacaRanda said:


> While it's in for repair or replacement, I would suggest reading the manual if you haven't, and reading it again if you have.  Include both the camera manual and the lens manual.
> 
> You really want to have an idea of what every button does or does not do.  Never expect that everything you pay good cash for is going to work perfectly from the start; especially if you don't have a clear understanding of how it works.  You will cause yourself more headaches than necessary.
> 
> Keep on pushing on.  The more Birdographers (non snobby ones) the merrier!


Well, the manual for the lens took about 5 minutes, not much there really. As far as my D3300, I have read that one a few times but I always end up going online for clear understanding. Like the link Derrel sent about the lens was very helpful. Problem I have mostly is when I change things in the menu and forget to put them back. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## xenskhe

robbins.photo said:


> These are much better than the other samples, but from the issues you listed above I'd probably still be looking at a return.



These look fine. Get a refund  you know you want to.


----------



## robbins.photo

xenskhe said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are much better than the other samples, but from the issues you listed above I'd probably still be looking at a return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These look fine. Get a refund  you know you want to.
Click to expand...


Are you kidding, I would absolutely LOVE a refund.  Sadly, however, it's not my lens.. soo.. not sure how that would work exactly.


----------



## JacaRanda

jcdeboever said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> While it's in for repair or replacement, I would suggest reading the manual if you haven't, and reading it again if you have.  Include both the camera manual and the lens manual.
> 
> You really want to have an idea of what every button does or does not do.  Never expect that everything you pay good cash for is going to work perfectly from the start; especially if you don't have a clear understanding of how it works.  You will cause yourself more headaches than necessary.
> 
> Keep on pushing on.  The more Birdographers (non snobby ones) the merrier!
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the manual for the lens took about 5 minutes, not much there really. As far as my D3300, I have read that one a few times but I always end up going online for clear understanding. Like the link Derrel sent about the lens was very helpful. Problem I have mostly is when I change things in the menu and forget to put them back.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Gotcha, and I forget sometimes also.


----------



## minicoop1985

I know how I like things. That being said, I change the hell out of the settings on my wife's camera and never put them back, pissing her off greatly. She still doesn't quite understand that you can't have the same exposure in our dark living room as you can in broad daylight...


----------



## Don Kondra

Late to the party and all....   

I may have missed some posts in this thread but I wonder if the OP actually understands how Auto Focus works ?  And/or the need for contrast.  And how you can change the "size" of the AF box ? 

Assuming center point was used, both of the last two images are lacking in high contrast for AF..












Cheers, Don

PS > there is no need to post a 5 MB image, a 500 K image will look the same on a computer screen  

Just resize to 1000 wide and you're good !


----------



## jcdeboever

Don Kondra said:


> Late to the party and all....
> 
> I may have missed some posts in this thread but I wonder if the OP actually understands how Auto Focus works ?  And/or the need for contrast.  And how you can change the "size" of the AF box ?
> 
> Assuming center point was used, both of the last two images are lacking in high contrast for AF..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers, Don
> 
> PS > there is no need to post a 5 MB image, a 500 K image will look the same on a computer screen
> 
> Just resize to 1000 wide and you're good !



Do explain, I have a Nikon D3300. How do I change the size of the focus box? I normally do not use live view mode, I know there is a setting in there for wide area AF. 

Why won't it focus on a tripod and OS turned off? 

Why can I take several test pics in OS1 and none of them come out sharp and with the same setting and moving the switch to OS2 they come much better? 

Why does the image shift sometimes in the view finder? 

So basically, your saying it's me and I can't take a picture of a bird on my bird feeder from my deck or that tree.? Where exactly can I use the lens, perfect conditions during golden hours in a field of black crows? Or do I just by a full frame DSLR?


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky

jcdeboever said:


> ..........Why does the image shift sometimes in the view finder?..........



That's a result of using the OS.  It's caused by the internal elements being moved by the OS system.  If it's turned off and you see these shifts, you've got something seriously wrong with the lens.


----------



## jcdeboever

480sparky said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........Why does the image shift sometimes in the view finder?..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a result of using the OS.  It's caused by the internal elements being moved by the OS system.  If it's turned off and you see these shifts, you've got something seriously wrong with the lens.
Click to expand...

Yes sir Sparky. I am a little startled when it happens. It definitely did it when on the tripod with remote shutter looking through view finder. I did it hand held to. Is that normal when handheld?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky

Was the OS on or off?


----------



## jcdeboever

480sparky said:


> Was the OS on or off?


OS was off when on tripod. Is it normal for it to do it handheld? Cause it did it sometimes.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky

It should not move when off.


----------



## Don Kondra

> Do explain, I have a Nikon D3300. How do I change the size of the focus box? I normally do not use live view mode, I know there is a setting in there for wide area AF.



RTFM 



> Why won't it focus on a tripod and OS turned off?



Probably not enough contrast.  You know, light And dark areas.



> Why can I take several test pics in OS1 and none of them come out sharp and with the same setting and moving the switch to OS2 they come much better?





> OS 1 is the equivalent of Nikon's "active" VR mode, meaning that the lens compensates for horizontal and vertical motion while OS 2 is to be used for panning horizontally as it corrects only vertical motion.





> Why does the image shift sometimes in the view finder?



Either focus breathing or the OS kicking in...



> So basically, your saying it's me and I can't take a picture of a bird on my bird feeder from my deck or that tree.? Where exactly can I use the lens, perfect conditions during golden hours in a field of black crows? Or do I just by a full frame DSLR?



No, there is no need for a full frame 

Confirm that it is the lens and not your technique.  Check your focus settings and when focusing, make sure there is light and dark areas in the focus box.

You can check for front/back focusing by laying out a tape measure and focusing on one of the dark "foot" markings.






Or something like this...






Cheers, Don[/QUOTE]


----------



## Derrel

THIS AF fine tune target works GREAT for me...a bonus is that this duct tape has little patterned dots in it. I bought  the roll of tape at Home Depot, like a year ago. Here are some of my test shot fine tune center crops from SOOC JPEGs made at 3,024x pixels.





105 AF-D DC Nikkor tested at f/2.8, focused right on the center "O" target.


Here is the center crop for the 300mm f/4 AF-S Nikkor, wide-open at f/4. Focus is dead-in...but as you can see, the 4-inch mark behind the focused upon spot at "O" is "out"...

I am shooting at an angle of oh, 30 degrees maybe, to the  wall.

*Below,on the right*, is the link to a 3,024x full-frame shot from the 300mm f/4 AF-S Nikkor lens, with the full run of my focus target shown, so you can see the DOF effect better (file is named D3X_7775-copy_300-f4_afs-nikkor-jpg):


----------



## jcdeboever

Getting my lens back tomorrow. They upgraded the OS, fixed the focus motor, calibrated, and updated firmware. So, I wasn't crazy after all. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## astroNikon

jcdeboever said:


> Getting my lens back tomorrow. They upgraded the OS, fixed the focus motor, calibrated, and updated firmware. So, I wasn't crazy after all.


well the lens was driving your crazier.
The part about being Crazy to begin with you may want to ask your wife about that


----------



## DarkShadow

Awesome!  For what its worth,I didn't think you where crazy.Fact I got a flaky one on the first copy but it was only the OS.Can happen with the best of them,mass produced stuff you know.


----------



## jcdeboever

DarkShadow said:


> Awesome!  For what its worth,I didn't think you where crazy.Fact I got a flaky one on the first copy but it was only the OS.Can happen with the best of them,mass produced stuff you know.


Thanks. Lord knows I exhausted most of human error. I really wanted to do Derrel's test but weather wasn't ideal at the time. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

Just got home and a note from UPS on my door.... another day of throwing around.


----------



## jcdeboever

Got it back. This thing is a POS and I am not happy. My  10 year old DSLR takes better pics than this. I am so very much over it. I just about threw the lens up against the wall. Took my blood pressure... 170-112. Thanks Sigma for aiding in my crappy eating ritual and prematurely killing me via stroke / heart attack. Now I have to confess, I apologize for my keyboard swearwords... Lord help me in my time of complete insanity over a $1000 lens, please guide me into the least possible human injury you can muster, in order to destroy the evil wickedness of poor manufacturing. And Father God, help me to understand the vast recommendations that I will receive to deceive me from sending back to this conglomerate, that I take pleasure in their general concern for my  bad luck. See Lord, I need all the help I can get.


----------



## Overread

I take it the repair didn't work?
I assume you sent it back without your camera body - remember recalibration is still only to within tolerances; people had the very same problems with the earlier 100-400mm L lenses and it took time to get the calibration tolerances for that nailed down to be more reliable en-mass. And Canon was only producing it for their own bodies not a range of options on the market.



Now pause and BREATH - and steady - in and out - and BREATH and relax. 

*helps with the language issues too *


----------



## weepete

I feel for you mate, I really do....


----------



## jcdeboever

Overread said:


> I take it the repair didn't work?
> I assume you sent it back without your camera body - remember recalibration is still only to within tolerances; people had the very same problems with the earlier 100-400mm L lenses and it took time to get the calibration tolerances for that nailed down to be more reliable en-mass. And Canon was only producing it for their own bodies not a range of options on the market.
> 
> 
> 
> Now pause and BREATH - and steady - in and out - and BREATH and relax.
> 
> *helps with the language issues too *



Not with camera body...It worked in certain aspects but it still is a crap lens. It is not sharp at all. It focus's now in all modes but just looks like crap. I am expecting a razor sharp pic like dark shadow gets with his D3300. Mine looks like a point and shoot.  Now Iam really mad. You posted before I finished my prayer


----------



## JacaRanda

Would love to see examples again, with exif.


----------



## jcdeboever

JacaRanda said:


> Would love to see examples again, with exif.


----------



## jcdeboever

JacaRanda said:


> Would love to see examples again, with exif.


Here we go... Believe it or not, I can actually visualize my shots before there taken. I am not always spot on but come on, I am not this far off in what I consider acceptable.


----------



## Derrel

Focus is not on. Do you have another body that's digital?


----------



## Overread

First shot f8 ISO 1600, 1/1600sec.

That does indeed look soft. I would suggest focus chart photos and CALMLY contacting the repair centre again to inform them that the repair has failed. You might consider sending your camera body to them if you decide to have it recalibrated again. Considering that the repair has clearly failed I would not expect you to be charged again - save for any postage costs.


----------



## jcdeboever

Derrel said:


> Focus is not on. Do you have another body that's digital?



No sir


----------



## pixmedic

is a refund a possibility?
'cause this is where I would strongly consider it as an option.


----------



## jcdeboever

Derrel said:


> Focus is not on. Do you have another body that's digital?



I tried all three, this, AFS was the best.


----------



## JacaRanda

Would love to know the process that the repair shop does.  What camera(s) they use to test shots after repair.


----------



## DarkShadow

I would love to try his lens on my Nikon body's. This lens is very very thirsty for sun light and you still need to be 25-35 yards for maximum sharpness and detail. Also do check your focus point location after some test shots If you have not done this already.It still maybe a lemon just because sig had there hands on don't mean its 100 percent.


----------



## Derrel

I have a feeling that it is front focusing by a half a foot maybe. See how FAST the farther bird in frame 1199 drops to way OUT of focus? I think the actual focus point if in front of the feeder tube. Also...the image quality in 1199 looks watercolor-ish...looked at large, it has low image quality, what was commonly called "the watercolor effect". I mean the image's structure, the pixels, have a low-quality look, like they have been hit with a huge degree of noise-reduction, or something very odd, like a HUGE degree of image compression, and then a really coarse form of sharpening.

I did a crop...there's more than just a "lens" issue going on here. The base of the image, the pixels, look bad. Was this from an in-camera .NEF file?

I cannot read the full EXIF information from this processed JPEG image. One thing I have noticed after having seen a lot of your D3200 shots is that the image quality is just not that good. ISO 1600 looks substandard on many smaller sensors, but this looks like it has had the Noise Reduction set to High...it's just got bad base image quality, core image quality....utter watercolor effect. Your focus is off only slightly, but again, the "core image quality" is what's missing here.

There is a serious image quality problem with 1199...not just a lens issue, but the core image is intrinsically very poor, at the pixel and color levels. I'm trying to explain this fully; this is not just a lens problem, there is something else that's very seriously wrong. It looks like, due to absence of digital noise, that there is a major, major noise reduction and or compression/sharpening problem in the workflow that led to a 1 megabyte 3,922 pixel image looking this watercolor-y, not considering the focus.


----------



## jcdeboever

DarkShadow said:


> I would love to try his lens on my Nikon body's. This lens is very very thirsty for sun light and you still need to be 25-35 yard for maximum sharpness and detail also do check you focus point location after some test shots If you have not have done this already.



Well if it is that specific I do not want it. I have enough trouble with focus interfering with my framing. I only wanted to spend money on a long lens to compete with bullduram. I was wrong in my analogy but shooting high standard with optics. It is clear that I made a financial mistake. I can not compete at dollar store level.


----------



## DarkShadow

I am not saying you can't shoot further away or in a little less then ideal light but within reason and thats with any lens.Shooting 4 inch birds at 50 yards away and expecting great results on focus accuracy sharpness is not impossible but unlikely and asking for miracles from any lens no matter what price tag is on it. Shoot a much larger subject I bet its focused and sharp if the lens is working correctly.


----------



## Peeb

I'm seriously bummed for you, bro!


----------



## jcdeboever

Derrel said:


> View attachment 118184
> 
> I have a feeling that it is front focusing by a half a foot maybe. See how FAST the farther bird in frame 1199 drops to way OUT of focus? I think the actual focus point if in front of the feeder tube. Also...the image quality in 1199 looks watercolor-ish...looked at large, it has low image quality, what was commonly called "the watercolor effect". I mean the image's structure, the pixels, have a low-quality look, like they have been hit with a huge degree of noise-reduction, or something very odd, like a HUGE degree of image compression, and then a really coarse form of sharpening.
> 
> I did a crop...there's more than just a "lens" issue going on here. The base of the image, the pixels, look bad. Was this from an in-camera .NEF file?
> 
> I cannot read the full EXIF information from this processed JPEG image. One thing I have noticed after having seen a lot of your D3200 shots is that the image quality is just not that good. ISO 1600 looks substandard on many smaller sensors, but this looks like it has had the Noise Reduction set to High...it's just got bad base image quality, core image quality....utter watercolor effect. Your focus is off only slightly, but again, the "core image quality" is what's missing here.
> 
> There is a serious image quality problem with 1199...not just a lens issue, but the core image is intrinsically very poor, at the pixel and color levels. I'm trying to explain this fully; this is not just a lens problem, there is something else that's very seriously wrong. It looks like, due to absence of digital noise, that there is a major, major noise reduction and or compression/sharpening problem in the workflow that led to a 1 megabyte 3,922 pixel image looking this watercolor-y, not considering the focus.


I can send you the original

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

DarkShadow said:


> I am not saying you can't shoot further away or in a little less then ideal light but within reason and thats with any lens.Shooting 4 inch birds at 50 yards away and expecting great results on focus accuracy sharpness is not impossible but unlikely and asking for miracles from any lens no matter what price tag is on it. Shoot a much larger subject I bet its focused and sharp if the lens is working correctly.


The image is 20ft away, max.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

Peeb said:


> I'm seriously bummed for you, bro!


Yeah, I am pretty much over with this photography experiment. I am just going to go back to painting. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## DarkShadow

I really do feel for you seriously,frustration is a killer.3 years ago starting out with birds i was ready to smash all my stuff but i stuck with it and got better over time with a lot of help from some members on TPF.My biggest thing in the beginning was shooting to far away and then killing it with excessive cropping.

Hopefully you keep a camera around,It would be nice to see your paintings. I cant draw or paint to safe my life but do enjoy looking at other peoples talents other then photography.


----------



## jcdeboever

DarkShadow said:


> I really do feel for you seriously,frustration is a killer.3 years ago starting out with birds i was ready to smash all my stuff but i stuck with it and got better over time with a lot of help from some members on TPF.My biggest thing in the beginning was shooting to far away and then killing it with excessive cropping.
> 
> Hopefully you keep a camera around,It would be nice to see your paintings. I cant draw or paint to safe my life but do enjoy looking at other peoples talents other then photography.


Thanks. It really is a technical thing with me. I am not stupid and can gravitate quickly to concepts, execution, and clarity. I have little patience for stupid on a manufacturer level. I pay ex amount, I expect ex amount.  Seen your results with the d3300 and thought I may compete on a style level, with bullduram. Not quality per say but thump him a little with a new look. I am never going to sniff his ball sack with this lens, I give up before I start.  F**k I am.so frustrated. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

Derrel said:


> View attachment 118184
> 
> I have a feeling that it is front focusing by a half a foot maybe. See how FAST the farther bird in frame 1199 drops to way OUT of focus? I think the actual focus point if in front of the feeder tube. Also...the image quality in 1199 looks watercolor-ish...looked at large, it has low image quality, what was commonly called "the watercolor effect". I mean the image's structure, the pixels, have a low-quality look, like they have been hit with a huge degree of noise-reduction, or something very odd, like a HUGE degree of image compression, and then a really coarse form of sharpening.
> 
> I did a crop...there's more than just a "lens" issue going on here. The base of the image, the pixels, look bad. Was this from an in-camera .NEF file?
> 
> I cannot read the full EXIF information from this processed JPEG image. One thing I have noticed after having seen a lot of your D3200 shots is that the image quality is just not that good. ISO 1600 looks substandard on many smaller sensors, but this looks like it has had the Noise Reduction set to High...it's just got bad base image quality, core image quality....utter watercolor effect. Your focus is off only slightly, but again, the "core image quality" is what's missing here.
> 
> There is a serious image quality problem with 1199...not just a lens issue, but the core image is intrinsically very poor, at the pixel and color levels. I'm trying to explain this fully; this is not just a lens problem, there is something else that's very seriously wrong. It looks like, due to absence of digital noise, that there is a major, major noise reduction and or compression/sharpening problem in the workflow that led to a 1 megabyte 3,922 pixel image looking this watercolor-y, not considering the focus.



Well crap Derrel, what the **** am I going to do. I am a frikkin artist and don't need this crap. I can deal with learning the basics but I have no time to troubleshoot ****. Ok have a d3300 piece of **** , not a d3200 of piece of ****. OK, all my images suck, I get it... It s probably me because of know nothing about nothing. **** digital


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## astroNikon

Isn't 20 feet close to the minimum focus distance for that lense ??

I feel a short road trip is in order with my Tamron 150-600 & d600


----------



## jcdeboever

astroNikon said:


> Isn't 20 feet close to the minimum focus distance for that lense ??
> 
> I feel a short road trip is in order with my Tamron 150-600 & d600


Oh I would love that, then we could both MF this POS lens.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Didereaux

Youu know I agree that you maybe got a bad lens.  I am not totally convinced, but it seems a possibility.  What I am going to jump on is implying that the Sigma 150-600 S lens is a POS!   It is NOT.   Here is a sample shot using that lens on a Canon 6D at 600mm.     1/2000  F7.1  ISO 1000    HANDHELD!    ...and I am only one of many many people getting thee same results.   So either you got a one-off lemon, or you or your camera aren't up to that lens.  That may be harsh, but not any more so than calling this lens a POS.


----------



## Derrel

Not sure what's going on here, how you're shooting, how the camera is set up. You have shot a subject that is mis-focused by a few inches, at 600mm on a 1.5x camera, so you've missed focus by a SMALL AMOUNT...HAVE NOT SEEN anything to show what the lens ca do, only what you cannot do--and, at ISO 1600...from what? A NEF? an SOOC JPEG? Why is the noise reduction so danged hugh?

Long lens technique is not something you learn in one day. You just missed a 1,000-meter shot at a big buck deer: is the problem with the rifle's scope, the shooter's breath control, or the absurdity of taking a shot under such a crazy scenario?

What can the lens do over a DAY? How many frames did you shoot? Why do you expect to be able to shoot such an exotic lens like a pro on day one back from repairs. You CAMERA could easily be out of whack. Not every lens is calibrated for every camera, not ever camera is calibrated for every lens. The test shots...all two of them...you think the lens is the issue, but I can;t tell much from two frames shot and processed as seen here.

You are using a very specialized tool, and on a bargain-level camera with an awful viewfinder, and you have almost zero experience with it. There's a lot wrong with this scenario. The chances are 50-50 that there's nothing wrong with "the lens". I don't want to blame you, but there are unanswered questions, and you have how many hours' worth of experience shooting this thing?  WHat do you expect the songbird focus keeper rate to be with a new lens? HOW MANY frames did the two mis-focused ones we saw come from? 100? 10? 40?


----------



## Didereaux

Didereaux said:


> Youu know I agree that you maybe got a bad lens.  I am not totally convinced, but it seems a possibility.  What I am going to jump on is implying that the Sigma 150-600 S lens is a POS!   It is NOT.   Here is a sample shot using that lens on a Canon 6D at 600mm.     1/2000  F7.1  ISO 1000    HANDHELD!    ...and I am only one of many many people getting thee same results.   So either you got a one-off lemon, or you or your camera aren't up to that lens.  That may be harsh, but not any more so than calling this lens a POS.




Here's another with that lens on my old 7D @600mm(900mm equiv)    ISO 250 1/1000 F6.3  again HANDHELD (by an old man)  Find fault with this.


----------



## DarkShadow

Hopefully astroNikon can meet up to help out but In the meantime.


----------



## jcdeboever

OK Folks. I will get with ASTRO. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo

jcdeboever said:


> Getting my lens back tomorrow. They upgraded the OS, fixed the focus motor, calibrated, and updated firmware. So, I wasn't crazy after all.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


Strange, I've got this jury sitting over here and the foreman is saying they are still deliberating on that one.. lol

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

robbins.photo said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting my lens back tomorrow. They upgraded the OS, fixed the focus motor, calibrated, and updated firmware. So, I wasn't crazy after all.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Strange, I've got this jury sitting over here and the foreman is saying they are still deliberating on that one.. lol
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Lmao. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo

jcdeboever said:


> OK Folks. I will get with ASTRO.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


No worries, the frustration is normal.  My suggestion is to start with a non moving target that is relatively in the open, and change the cameras AF system so you control the focus point and it's only using one.  Best thing I've found to use believe it or not is a sign of some sort.  The lettering makes it easy to tell if your focus is off.

Take test shots using raw and jpg, back up, repeat.  By using one focus point and shooting at an uncluttered target you will remove all the variables of the cameras af system locking on the wrong target.  Good lighting, fast shutter speed, turn the os system off.  If the images come out clear, then it's a technique issue that can most likely be addressed.

Once you've done this with the os off, repeat with the os on at both fast and slower shutter speeds.  See if the os system is engaging at shutter speeds where it shouldn't.  I had that issue with my 70-200, once diagnosed it was easy to shoot around it.  I just turned off the OS manually at higher shutter speeds

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## bribrius

Didereaux said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youu know I agree that you maybe got a bad lens.  I am not totally convinced, but it seems a possibility.  What I am going to jump on is implying that the Sigma 150-600 S lens is a POS!   It is NOT.   Here is a sample shot using that lens on a Canon 6D at 600mm.     1/2000  F7.1  ISO 1000    HANDHELD!    ...and I am only one of many many people getting thee same results.   So either you got a one-off lemon, or you or your camera aren't up to that lens.  That may be harsh, but not any more so than calling this lens a POS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another with that lens on my old 7D @600mm(900mm equiv)    ISO 250 1/1000 F6.3  again HANDHELD (by an old man)  Find fault with this.
Click to expand...

 too much contrast and looks oof


----------



## bribrius

bribrius said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youu know I agree that you maybe got a bad lens.  I am not totally convinced, but it seems a possibility.  What I am going to jump on is implying that the Sigma 150-600 S lens is a POS!   It is NOT.   Here is a sample shot using that lens on a Canon 6D at 600mm.     1/2000  F7.1  ISO 1000    HANDHELD!    ...and I am only one of many many people getting thee same results.   So either you got a one-off lemon, or you or your camera aren't up to that lens.  That may be harsh, but not any more so than calling this lens a POS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another with that lens on my old 7D @600mm(900mm equiv)    ISO 250 1/1000 F6.3  again HANDHELD (by an old man)  Find fault with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too much contrast and looks oof. \
Click to expand...

LOL


----------



## Didereaux

bribrius said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youu know I agree that you maybe got a bad lens.  I am not totally convinced, but it seems a possibility.  What I am going to jump on is implying that the Sigma 150-600 S lens is a POS!   It is NOT.   Here is a sample shot using that lens on a Canon 6D at 600mm.     1/2000  F7.1  ISO 1000    HANDHELD!    ...and I am only one of many many people getting thee same results.   So either you got a one-off lemon, or you or your camera aren't up to that lens.  That may be harsh, but not any more so than calling this lens a POS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another with that lens on my old 7D @600mm(900mm equiv)    ISO 250 1/1000 F6.3  again HANDHELD (by an old man)  Find fault with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too much contrast and looks oof
Click to expand...


Sue your optometrist, you've been defrauded!


----------



## Braineack

Didereaux said:


> Find fault with this.




you mean other than the fact that it's out of focus, lacks detail, and simply looks bad?

Sue your optometrist, you've been defrauded!


----------



## jcdeboever

Derrel said:


> Not sure what's going on here, how you're shooting, how the camera is set up. You have shot a subject that is mis-focused by a few inches, at 600mm on a 1.5x camera, so you've missed focus by a SMALL AMOUNT...HAVE NOT SEEN anything to show what the lens ca do, only what you cannot do--and, at ISO 1600...from what? A NEF? an SOOC JPEG? Why is the noise reduction so danged hugh?
> 
> Long lens technique is not something you learn in one day. You just missed a 1,000-meter shot at a big buck deer: is the problem with the rifle's scope, the shooter's breath control, or the absurdity of taking a shot under such a crazy scenario?
> 
> What can the lens do over a DAY? How many frames did you shoot? Why do you expect to be able to shoot such an exotic lens like a pro on day one back from repairs. You CAMERA could easily be out of whack. Not every lens is calibrated for every camera, not ever camera is calibrated for every lens. The test shots...all two of them...you think the lens is the issue, but I can;t tell much from two frames shot and processed as seen here.
> 
> You are using a very specialized tool, and on a bargain-level camera with an awful viewfinder, and you have almost zero experience with it. There's a lot wrong with this scenario. The chances are 50-50 that there's nothing wrong with "the lens". I don't want to blame you, but there are unanswered questions, and you have how many hours' worth of experience shooting this thing?  WHat do you expect the songbird focus keeper rate to be with a new lens? HOW MANY frames did the two mis-focused ones we saw come from? 100? 10? 40?



No noise reduction done in software. The actual raw files were bad, I was so frustrated looking at it. Meter dead on, tried several shots different focus modes, ISO, shutter speeds, etc. Focus point was spot on head of bird, actually framed the little guys head in most of my test shots. I shot 68 frames and they all looked like crap. 

I expect at least one good reference point to start with, I can't even get a good enough shot to work from. I am 99.9% certain this thing is flawed. It may well be my camera, it is the only thing I have not ruled out.


----------



## astroNikon

jcdeboever said:


> OK Folks. I will get with ASTRO.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


Yeah, we'll do target practice with the lens .. lol .. if here ... test photos of small aircraft coming in (they fly right over my house on landing/takeoffs) and other fixed tests.

I always test lenses against my house wall which has this really detailed brick stuff. Great for IQ testing.  Then the airplanes.

otherwise AnnArbor and Huron River has plenty of waterfowl and cars.


----------



## jcdeboever

astroNikon said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK Folks. I will get with ASTRO.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we'll do target practice with the lens .. lol .. if here ... test photos of small aircraft coming in (they fly right over my house on landing/takeoffs) and other fixed tests.
> 
> I always test lenses against my house wall which has this really detailed brick stuff. Great for IQ testing.  Then the airplanes.
> 
> otherwise AnnArbor and Huron River has plenty of waterfowl and cars.
Click to expand...


Thanks Brother, getting it setup for Saturday via PM. I hope I am the idiot, it will make for a great thread, we can really pour it on if it's me and not the lens. Should be good for a crap load of good laughs, providing it's me and not the lens.


----------



## robbins.photo

jcdeboever said:


> Thanks Brother, getting it setup for Saturday via PM. I hope I am the idiot, it will make for a great thread, we can really pour it on if it's me and not the lens. Should be good for a crap load of good laughs, providing it's me and not the lens.



I'll keep my fingers crossed, lets hope that it is you and not the lens.  Although if such is the case and Astro offers to "update your firmware" make a run for it.  You can thank me later.  Lol


----------



## petrochemist

jcdeboever said:


> Strange it won't work on a tripod. I also think it could be a little sharper. I also noticed there was some kind of visual shifting in the view finder a couple of times while focusing, kind of freaked me out a little the first time... I was like, what the heck was that! Not sure what that was about...



 The last few handheld ones look much better.

What tripod/head are you using? At longer focal lengths there is a need for a better quality tripod than for everyday shots. Even minor vibrations can be a major issue.

It could be the stabilization is loose when turned off, but I'm not sure a tripod confirms that.
Having the camera on something rock solid, supported by something like a jacket/bean bag, & operated by self timer should rule out any possible movement (including shutter shock).


----------



## astroNikon

robbins.photo said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Brother, getting it setup for Saturday via PM. I hope I am the idiot, it will make for a great thread, we can really pour it on if it's me and not the lens. Should be good for a crap load of good laughs, providing it's me and not the lens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll keep my fingers crossed, lets hope that it is you and not the lens.  Although if such is the case and Astro offers to "update your firmware" make a run for it.  You can thank me later.  Lol
Click to expand...

I ain't gonna update anyone's Firmware
lol
I use a Tamron 150-600


Tripod-wise I'll use my heavy duty Slik Professional tripod with remote release for initial tests,  then handheld tests.  I use my lens mostly handheld or if sometimes on a monopod for sports.


----------



## jcdeboever

astroNikon said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Brother, getting it setup for Saturday via PM. I hope I am the idiot, it will make for a great thread, we can really pour it on if it's me and not the lens. Should be good for a crap load of good laughs, providing it's me and not the lens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll keep my fingers crossed, lets hope that it is you and not the lens.  Although if such is the case and Astro offers to "update your firmware" make a run for it.  You can thank me later.  Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ain't gonna update anyone's Firmware
> lol
> I use a Tamron 150-600
> 
> 
> Tripod-wise I'll use my heavy duty Slik Professional tripod with remote release for initial tests,  then handheld tests.  I use my lens mostly handheld or if sometimes on a monopod for sports.
Click to expand...

Firmware is the latest. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## DarkShadow

The latest Firmware is 1.1 and only improves on AF speed and has nothing to do with sharpness or the OS.


----------



## robbins.photo

DarkShadow said:


> The latest Firmware is 1.1 and only improves on AF speed and has nothing to do with sharpness.



Well, I wasn't actually taking about the "firmware" of the lens, but once a joke fails that bad not much point in going back and trying to explain it.  Lol


----------



## DarkShadow

Oh that one went flew over my head.wink wink.


----------



## DarkShadow

Here is one hand held pegged at 600mm 1/640 f/8 ISO500.




DSC_2262 by David Kammerer, on Flickr


----------



## jcdeboever

DarkShadow said:


> Here is one hand held pegged at 600mm 1/640 ISO500.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DSC_2262 by David Kammerer, on Flickr


Yup, my lens or camera is crap.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## JacaRanda

DarkShadow said:


> Here is one hand held pegged at 600mm 1/640 f/8 ISO500.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DSC_2262 by David Kammerer, on Flickr



Now that's an example and doggone good at still a relatively slow ss considering the focal length.  Steady Freddy


----------



## JacaRanda

robbins.photo said:


> DarkShadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The latest Firmware is 1.1 and only improves on AF speed and has nothing to do with sharpness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I wasn't actually taking about the "firmware" of the lens, but once a joke fails that bad not much point in going back and trying to explain it.  Lol
Click to expand...


I totally got it because I play with my firmware all the time.  I learned early that it's super important.


----------



## Derrel

DarkShadow said:


> Here is one hand held pegged at 600mm 1/640 f/8 ISO500.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DSC_2262 by David Kammerer, on Flickr



Notice the depth of field plane's front to back distance...not much deeper than the width of that bird.


----------



## bribrius

sounds like you have a excuse to buy a new camera to test out the new lens and make sure it isn't bad..


----------



## jcdeboever

Took it by the store. He said D3300 is OK, the focus is wonky in his opinion. Did the same thing on a D7200. He thinks it is back focusing. He pulled his display model off shelf and it was way better. He thinks they didn't do anything to the lens. He is sending it in. He also said I should not need to setup a custom profile via the dock to get it right. It should be right then use the dock to fine tune if I have free half of day to do it. It is tedious but pretty cool and worth the effort. It doesn't help that I am shakey either. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## JacaRanda

jcdeboever said:


> Took it by the store. He said D3300 is OK, the focus is wonky in his opinion. Did the same thing on a D7200. He thinks it is back focusing. He pulled his display model off shelf and it was way better. He thinks they didn't do anything to the lens. He is sending it in.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk



Wow.  I guess that answers one of my questions earlier in the thread regarding their testing process (after so called repairs).


----------



## jcdeboever

JacaRanda said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Took it by the store. He said D3300 is OK, the focus is wonky in his opinion. Did the same thing on a D7200. He thinks it is back focusing. He pulled his display model off shelf and it was way better. He thinks they didn't do anything to the lens. He is sending it in.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  I guess that answers one of my questions earlier in the thread regarding their testing process (after so called repairs).
Click to expand...

Well, they did do something because it will at least focus on a tripod now, not very well but it didn't do that the first time. I wanted him to take it back but he wouldn't. I would have used the credit for something else. Oh well, I get it. Hopefully they get it right this time. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo

jcdeboever said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Took it by the store. He said D3300 is OK, the focus is wonky in his opinion. Did the same thing on a D7200. He thinks it is back focusing. He pulled his display model off shelf and it was way better. He thinks they didn't do anything to the lens. He is sending it in.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  I guess that answers one of my questions earlier in the thread regarding their testing process (after so called repairs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, they did do something because it will at least focus on a tripod now, not very well but it didn't do that the first time. I wanted him to take it back but he wouldn't. I would have used the credit for something else. Oh well, I get it. Hopefully they get it right this time.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Or maybe have him take it back and use the credit to buy the display model assuming it works properly

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

robbins.photo said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Took it by the store. He said D3300 is OK, the focus is wonky in his opinion. Did the same thing on a D7200. He thinks it is back focusing. He pulled his display model off shelf and it was way better. He thinks they didn't do anything to the lens. He is sending it in.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  I guess that answers one of my questions earlier in the thread regarding their testing process (after so called repairs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, they did do something because it will at least focus on a tripod now, not very well but it didn't do that the first time. I wanted him to take it back but he wouldn't. I would have used the credit for something else. Oh well, I get it. Hopefully they get it right this time.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or maybe have him take it back and use the credit to buy the display model assuming it works properly
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I tried that, he wouldn't. He noticed my hand tremors and said that doesn't bode well for a long zoom. I used to take medicine for it but too many side affects. It comes and goes, more so when I am not sleeping well, which has been going on for a month now. The sleep medicine makes for drowsy driving the next day. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

Oh, held a Pentax 67 today. What a monster of a camera. I've seen them on eBay and never realized how massive they are. He wanted 600 for it. Had a wood grip, 55mm wide lens and a 150mm. Manual, hard case and a bellow looking thing. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## spiralout462

jcdeboever said:


> Oh, held a Pentax 67 today. What a monster of a camera. I've seen them on eBay and never realized how massive they are. He wanted 600 for it. Had a wood grip, 55mm wide lens and a 150mm. Manual, hard case and a bellow looking thing.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk



Too cool!  Wish I had a camera store within 300 miles.


----------



## robbins.photo

jcdeboever said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Took it by the store. He said D3300 is OK, the focus is wonky in his opinion. Did the same thing on a D7200. He thinks it is back focusing. He pulled his display model off shelf and it was way better. He thinks they didn't do anything to the lens. He is sending it in.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  I guess that answers one of my questions earlier in the thread regarding their testing process (after so called repairs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, they did do something because it will at least focus on a tripod now, not very well but it didn't do that the first time. I wanted him to take it back but he wouldn't. I would have used the credit for something else. Oh well, I get it. Hopefully they get it right this time.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or maybe have him take it back and use the credit to buy the display model assuming it works properly
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tried that, he wouldn't. He noticed my hand tremors and said that doesn't bode well for a long zoom. I used to take medicine for it but too many side affects. It comes and goes, more so when I am not sleeping well, which has been going on for a month now. The sleep medicine makes for drowsy driving the next day.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Maybe a monopod of some sort might help, I used one shooting high school sports with the 70-200mm to support the lens so I didn't have to hand hold it for several hours.  Worked pretty well.  Might do the trick once they get the lens fixed so its working properly

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## KenC

jcdeboever said:


> I tried that, he wouldn't. He noticed my hand tremors and said that doesn't bode well for a long zoom. I used to take medicine for it but too many side affects. It comes and goes, more so when I am not sleeping well, which has been going on for a month now. The sleep medicine makes for drowsy driving the next day.



Caffeine also has a big effect on tremors.  It often gives me a slight tremor, which I never have under any other circumstances.


----------



## astroNikon

KenC said:


> Caffeine also has a big effect on tremors.  It often gives me a slight tremor, which I never have under any other circumstances.


I start shaking if I consume caffeine, so I try to avoid it as much as possible unless I'm in an athletic activity, then it's useful.
Does Caffeine Give You the Shakes? | LIVESTRONG.COM


----------



## DarkShadow

By the time I get out birding In the early mornings,I already had two cups of coffee but it does nothing to me as far as tremors.


----------



## Braineack

its pretty easy to spot camera shake from a lens that simple cant achieve focus.


----------



## astroNikon

DarkShadow said:


> By the time I get out birding In the early mornings,I already had two cups of coffee but it does nothing to me as far as tremors.


It also depends if your body is used to it.   I don't normally drink anything with caffeine in it.  From time to time I'll accidentally drink tea with caffeine even though all my teas at home are caffeine-free.  With the one except limited during sports.


----------



## DarkShadow

Plus I take meds,Albuterol and Prednisone for Emphysema but my body has adjusted to all the meds and coffee so I don't have any obvious side effects.


----------



## jcdeboever

Finally some progress... I loaded it on the dock and spent around four hours tweaking the focus, what a flippin job that was... @astroNikon  gave me directions on how to do and strongly emphasized taking notes.... I did like the good little student does and I think this bad boy is dialed in. @Didereaux gave me the motivation via PM, thank you sir for your confidence in me. OK... here are some test shots with some good distance on them. I shot everything in auto so I could stay true to my dock results. Didn't do very much editing, everything shot in jpeg. I am on my way now to getting good shots from this glass. 

1. f/5.6, 1/500s, ISO 280, 300mm





2. f/5.0, 1/400s, ISO 400, 150mm


 

3. f/6.3, 1/640s, ISO 200, 270mm




4. 100% + crop of little robin a long ways away, way high up in tree and I missed focus spot on him... f6/3, 1/320s, ISO 400, 550mm full out zoom.


----------



## Didereaux

jcdeboever said:


> Finally some progress... I loaded it on the dock and spent around four hours tweaking the focus, what a flippin job that was... @astroNikon  gave me directions on how to do and strongly emphasized taking notes.... I did like the good little student does and I think this bad boy is dialed in. @Didereaux gave me the motivation via PM, thank you sir for your confidence in me. OK... here are some test shots with some good distance on them. I shot everything in auto so I could stay true to my dock results. Didn't do very much editing, everything shot in jpeg. I am on my way now to getting good shots from this glass.
> 
> 1. f/5.6, 1/500s, ISO 280, 300mm




Way ta go!    Thumbs up Kudos and all that stuff!


----------



## SquarePeg

Awesome!  Glad you stuck with it.


----------



## astroNikon

Great detail in his Tongue in # 1   LOL

Good to see some progress and GOOD weather to test it too.


----------



## jcdeboever

astroNikon said:


> Great detail in his Tongue in # 1   LOL
> 
> Good to see some progress and GOOD weather to test it too.


Thanks Bud, you were a big help. You were right, focus was off, front and down. It is way better in overcast now too. Next is to go out and shoot in M, P, and A modes to bring it all together. Let's get out soon. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## SquarePeg

Is there a TPF Determined SOB of the Month thread?


----------



## minicoop1985

Glad to see you got it working finally. It's too good of a lens to give up on, it would seem.


----------



## astroNikon

jcdeboever said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great detail in his Tongue in # 1   LOL
> 
> Good to see some progress and GOOD weather to test it too.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Bud, you were a big help. You were right, focus was off, front and down. It is way better in overcast now too. Next is to go out and shoot in M, P, and A modes to bring it all together. Let's get out soon.
Click to expand...


Shooting between snow flakes was a tad difficult.
But now that it's clear you can make significant progress.

We'll have to shoot some birds or something on Huron River or elsewhere.

I've been meaning to wander to Metro Airport resevoirs they built as required years ago when they expanded and took away wetlands.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbowman/birds/se_mich/locations/metroair.txt
it contained in '97 on a count
78 Great Egrets.
44 Great Blue Herons
20 G/Yellow Legs
1  Common Snipe
1  Solitary Sandpiper
23 mallards
2  pied billed grebes
1 pergrine falcon
2 redtail hawks
among others

I heard recently that a Bald Eagle family was there too


----------



## jcdeboever

astroNikon said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great detail in his Tongue in # 1   LOL
> 
> Good to see some progress and GOOD weather to test it too.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Bud, you were a big help. You were right, focus was off, front and down. It is way better in overcast now too. Next is to go out and shoot in M, P, and A modes to bring it all together. Let's get out soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting between snow flakes was a tad difficult.
> But now that it's clear you can make significant progress.
> 
> We'll have to shoot some birds or something on Huron River or elsewhere.
> 
> I've been meaning to wander to Metro Airport resevoirs they built as required years ago when they expanded and took away wetlands.
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbowman/birds/se_mich/locations/metroair.txt
> it contained in '97 on a count
> 78 Great Egrets.
> 44 Great Blue Herons
> 20 G/Yellow Legs
> 1  Common Snipe
> 1  Solitary Sandpiper
> 23 mallards
> 2  pied billed grebes
> 1 pergrine falcon
> 2 redtail hawks
> among others
> 
> I heard recently that a Bald Eagle family was there too
Click to expand...

Let's do it my "brother from another mother"

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## astroNikon

How goes the bird shooting ?


I caught this bird right above me.  Saw her flying from far off and it looked pretty good to be right under neath.
Luckily it didn't drop a ton of poop of me .. that woulda' hurt.

*Aircraft* Boeing 747-400 (quad-jet) (B744/L – photos)
*Speed* 520 kts (planned: 482 kts) (graph)
*Altitude* 35,000 feet (planned: 35,000 feet) (graph)
6.6 miles above my head.  Not bad for cropped 600mm SOOC.

*Distance* Direct: 3,946 sm    Planned: 4,095 sm


----------



## jcdeboever

Neat, hand held?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## astroNikon

jcdeboever said:


> Neat, hand held?
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


always hand held.
Not enough time to do anything else.
they are moving fast.  So when I see them I usually have 30 seconds max to get outside with the camera and ready.


----------



## jcdeboever

astroNikon said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neat, hand held?
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> always hand held.
> Not enough time to do anything else.
> they are moving fast.  So when I see them I usually have 30 seconds max to get outside with the camera and ready.
Click to expand...

I shot some birds on vacation with a bridge camera but nothing with the Sigma. I used it at the soccer game but don't really need it that long. Probably could use my 55-300 for it. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Peeb

Zoomed WAY in on this jet but I still can't see any markings that ID the model, the departure, or the destination.  You got an app?


----------



## jcdeboever

Peeb said:


> Zoomed WAY in on this jet but I still can't see any markings that ID the model, the departure, or the destination.  You got an app?
> View attachment 120302


He does and is the plane guru. He blew my mind with his stuff. Dude has it going on. Click on his link, you will see app

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

astroNikon said:


> How goes the bird shooting ?
> 
> 
> I caught this bird right above me.  Saw her flying from far off and it looked pretty good to be right under neath.
> Luckily it didn't drop a ton of poop of me .. that woulda' hurt.
> 
> *Aircraft* Boeing 747-400 (quad-jet) (B744/L – photos)
> *Speed* 520 kts (planned: 482 kts) (graph)
> *Altitude* 35,000 feet (planned: 35,000 feet) (graph)
> 6.6 miles above my head.  Not bad for cropped 600mm SOOC.
> 
> *Distance* Direct: 3,946 sm    Planned: 4,095 sm
> 
> View attachment 120300


On its way to London, England. Neat, flew right over your crib... glad I have that app. I followed my wife's flight a couple weeks back. I was able to know when to pick her up.[emoji41] 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## astroNikon

Peeb said:


> Zoomed WAY in on this jet but I still can't see any markings that ID the model, the departure, or the destination.  You got an app?
> View attachment 120302



Detroit Metro Wayne Co Airport (Detroit, MI) KDTW  / DTW Flight Tracker ✈ FlightAware

Watch them all the time.  Above link is Detroit Metro - go the the "Live Flight Tracking" in the top left menu option and you can see all that you can track.  I also have the iPhone app for when I'm out and about.

You can watch for specific planes flying around the world.
Check their flight paths .. and hope it may be just perfectly above you.
Blue planes are inbound landing.
Green are outbound.
The fatter planes are international flights.

But the app is about 5 minutes behind (minimum).
If you hear  one way above go about 30-45 degrees past the sound and you can visually find them way up there if there are no trails.


----------



## astroNikon

It's a lot easier though it you get permission to sit on the landing .. j/k



Air02-09 by Steve Sklar, on Flickr

But with that app you can camp out at an airport in a specific location of hte planes coming in and get them further away from the airport getting ready to land, such as above with my Sigma 150-500

or, if you know the landing patterns in various weather conditions you can camp out and getting them doing the final turn for a long approach or where ever

this is UNcropped .. the link shows the 747 doing a 45 degree turn for final approach.
747 Turning May 17 2015 (MD-11, A-380 and others )




Air20150517-43 by Steve Sklar, on Flickr


----------



## jcdeboever

astroNikon said:


> It's a lot easier though it you get permission to sit on the landing .. j/k
> 
> 
> 
> Air02-09 by Steve Sklar, on Flickr
> 
> But with that app you can camp out at an airport in a specific location of hte planes coming in and get them further away from the airport getting ready to land, such as above with my Sigma 150-500
> 
> or, if you know the landing patterns in various weather conditions you can camp out and getting them doing the final turn for a long approach or where ever
> 
> this is UNcropped .. the link shows the 747 doing a 45 degree turn for final approach.
> 747 Turning May 17 2015 (MD-11, A-380 and others )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air20150517-43 by Steve Sklar, on Flickr



I remember the days (70's) my Dad would take us to the foot of the runway at Metro and the planes would fly just over your head. It was exciting for a kid. I used to love that. Unfortunately, those days are long gone.


----------



## astroNikon

The police have checked out my lens before.
so I stay further away from the airport, plus the better pics are further away unless you get the smoke from the tire landing.

I have driving spots on my GPS to go to for the various landing patterns.
And you learn the larger planes may land on one specific runway at airports, etc.


----------



## astroNikon

jcdeboever said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neat, hand held?
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> always hand held.
> Not enough time to do anything else.
> they are moving fast.  So when I see them I usually have 30 seconds max to get outside with the camera and ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I shot some birds on vacation with a bridge camera but nothing with the Sigma. I used it at the soccer game but don't really need it that long. Probably could use my 55-300 for it.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I took pics at a soccer game.  Sat at the 50 yard line as far up as I could (high school stadium) on a full pitch.  Got some great shots with the 150-600, JPEG, mostly SOOC.


----------

