All Forum Comments
Comment by pentaxanne posted on Flat result (1 images) at 16/07/2010 - 10:17
Algernon wrote:
set up some feeders you will be supprised what you get, if you need any advice please pm me, All the shots are in my garden.pentaxanne wrote:
All images in my portfolio are takn with a 170-500mm, most wide open at 500mm f6.3 from different lenses and bodies.
Some nice sharp shots there, I rarely see anything other than sparrows and blackbirds around where I live, so I don't bother trying to photograph them. I can get 520mm with my Pentax A* 300mm f/4 and a 1.7x AF adapter, not sure if it would be up to birding though OK for ducks at f/8. I have the Sigma 135-400mm but rarely use it.All images in my portfolio are takn with a 170-500mm, most wide open at 500mm f6.3 from different lenses and bodies.
and on a nice day you will need f8.
Comment by pentaxanne posted on sigma 170-500 at 16/07/2010 - 10:13
All images in my portfolio are takn with a 170-500mm, most wide open at 500mm f6.3 from different lenses and bodies.
https://www.pentaxuser.com/photo/mr-nut-16293/large
https://www.pentaxuser.com/user/pentaxanne-10778
https://www.pentaxuser.com/photo/mr-nut-16293/large
https://www.pentaxuser.com/user/pentaxanne-10778
Comment by pentaxanne posted on sigma 170-500 at 15/07/2010 - 21:26
Algernon wrote:
Thanks for that information pentaxanne, you've certainly had plenty of experience with these lenses and that counts for more than all the marketing hype and MTF tests, I had heard before that the 150-500mm wasn't a very good buy. Seems to be the same with most things these days never as good as the items that they replace..... I've just bought a new TV and hard drive recorder and the old stuff was way better. I can't believe Panasonic have removed the delete button from the handset and I have to go to the second level of a menu to delete a recorded program.... great if you have to delete about half a dozen
Pleasure algi. Thanks for that information pentaxanne, you've certainly had plenty of experience with these lenses and that counts for more than all the marketing hype and MTF tests, I had heard before that the 150-500mm wasn't a very good buy. Seems to be the same with most things these days never as good as the items that they replace..... I've just bought a new TV and hard drive recorder and the old stuff was way better. I can't believe Panasonic have removed the delete button from the handset and I have to go to the second level of a menu to delete a recorded program.... great if you have to delete about half a dozen
Try one you might like it.
also i know what you mean about tecnology, My 50-500mm has to go back to sigma for af problems..
I have a strong feeling this will be my last sigma.
Comment by pentaxanne posted on sigma 170-500 at 15/07/2010 - 21:08
Thordell wrote:
hi jackie, what about cloning the top duck out and colour popping the other duck, (something way out there)..pentaxanne wrote:
Jackie i think if you would of got down lower it would have more impact.
Agree pentaxanne, the composition is pants was just clicking around with a new compact camera (X90) and although I am pleased with the results in general I wondered if there was something I could have done to improve the rather flat result.George Lazarette wrote:
There is nothing wrong with it if you like pictures that look flat.
G
thats helpfull.There is nothing wrong with it if you like pictures that look flat.
G
Jackie i think if you would of got down lower it would have more impact.
Comment by pentaxanne posted on Flat result (1 images) at 15/07/2010 - 20:58
George Lazarette wrote:
The word "helpful" has one L before the P, and one L at the end.
And it's "would have", not "would of".
Hope you found that helpful.
G
Oh sticks and stones george,pentaxanne wrote:
Jackie i think if you would of got down lower it would have more impact.
If you thought my comment wasn't helpful, allow me to be of service to you.George Lazarette wrote:
There is nothing wrong with it if you like pictures that look flat.
G
thats helpfull.There is nothing wrong with it if you like pictures that look flat.
G
Jackie i think if you would of got down lower it would have more impact.
The word "helpful" has one L before the P, and one L at the end.
And it's "would have", not "would of".
Hope you found that helpful.
G
im sorry my keyboard is knackerd,(but what ever pleases the blinkered)what if i had Dyslexia, shame on you,
Its people like you that ruin sites like this.
bbfg.
Comment by pentaxanne posted on Flat result (1 images) at 15/07/2010 - 20:54
Algernon wrote:
Are you saying that Sigma are telling porkies when they say:
DG (Digital) Lenses:
The most suitable lenses for 35 mm film single-lens reflex cameras, as well as for digital SLR cameras. Sigma’s development of the DG (Digital) range of lenses has concentrated on the correction of distortion and aberrations. Magnification of chromatic aberration is particularly conspicuous with digital cameras. The optical designs and cutting-edge technology incorporated by Sigma eliminate flare and ghosting from the image sensor and create excellent color balance. Vignetting is minimized whilst marginal illumination is ensured. These high performance lenses are equally suited for digital and analogue cameras.
==================================
Possibly not too reliable but http://www.dyxum.com gave slightly higher marks to the DG version for sharpness.
We also have to bear in mind that Sigma lenses do tend to vary quite a bit even with supposedly identical lenses.
I have had (in different mounts) 3 non dg and 3 dg all have been the same in image quality and af speed.pentaxanne wrote:
Perhaps you would like to explain further the basis of that statement?Algernon wrote:
It's the film model not the DG so the IQ isn't as good.
wrong the iq is no different,It's the film model not the DG so the IQ isn't as good.
Are you saying that Sigma are telling porkies when they say:
DG (Digital) Lenses:
The most suitable lenses for 35 mm film single-lens reflex cameras, as well as for digital SLR cameras. Sigma’s development of the DG (Digital) range of lenses has concentrated on the correction of distortion and aberrations. Magnification of chromatic aberration is particularly conspicuous with digital cameras. The optical designs and cutting-edge technology incorporated by Sigma eliminate flare and ghosting from the image sensor and create excellent color balance. Vignetting is minimized whilst marginal illumination is ensured. These high performance lenses are equally suited for digital and analogue cameras.
==================================
Possibly not too reliable but http://www.dyxum.com gave slightly higher marks to the DG version for sharpness.
We also have to bear in mind that Sigma lenses do tend to vary quite a bit even with supposedly identical lenses.
I also have had 3 150-500mm, and all 3 have not been as good as any of the 170-500mm,.
I now have a 170-500mm non dg (cost me £300) and a 50-500mm os cost me (£1250) and at 500mm wide open there about the same the 50-500mm is better at f8 and the af is quicker.
Sigma will tell you black is white if it gets them more money.
Comment by pentaxanne posted on sigma 170-500 at 15/07/2010 - 19:46
George Lazarette wrote:
There is nothing wrong with it if you like pictures that look flat.
G
thats helpfull.There is nothing wrong with it if you like pictures that look flat.
G
Jackie i think if you would of got down lower it would have more impact.
Comment by pentaxanne posted on Flat result (1 images) at 15/07/2010 - 19:38
Algernon wrote:
It's the film model not the DG so the IQ isn't as good.
wrong the iq is no different,It's the film model not the DG so the IQ isn't as good.
Comment by pentaxanne posted on sigma 170-500 at 15/07/2010 - 16:53
about half hour ago is was slow, ten mins ago like a rocket, and now very slow.
Comment by pentaxanne posted on Slow at 14/07/2010 - 20:44
Err, actually pentaxanne, I also enjoy George's comments, acerbic though they often are.
What ever floats your boat.