Posted by Joe Stockwell on December 19, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Still having trouble with the sig, but i managed an ok shot at f9
EOS 30D Sigma 170-500, 1/1000 f/9 iso 640
RAW-JPEG dpp
Posted by John Robinson on December 19, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Hi Joe
Could have been a good action grab but I,m affraid its way under exposed. If you were on spot metering I would say it had read the water value but even that is down. What trouble with the Sigma ?
Pity
JohnR
Posted by Joe Stockwell on December 19, 2008 at 4:58 PM
i know its a real shame as i love this lens
here is an example of when its really bad http://www.pbase.com/jsphotography/image/107243808
see the allmost "double image"
J
Posted by John Robinson on December 19, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Don't think its all the lens Joe - the camera settings determine the metering options
JohnR
Posted by eric weight on December 20, 2008 at 1:54 AM
Hi Joe,
The problems with this shot and the one on your link are different. This one is operator error (I have lots of theses as well!) and is under-exposed as John has pointed out.
Your lens ghosting problems generally are definitely down to a faulty lens. I know of at least three people on this forum alone who have this problem with big sigma lenses, both brand new and second hand. One of them is me. All of these lenses are back in Japan being repaired (I hope they are anyway). For what it's worth and I hate being so negative, mine has been gone since the end of October and I have just been quoted another 8 weeks wait.
Other more knowledgable photographers have suggested to me that the element retaining system inside the lens is not as robust as it might be and the slightest knock can upset the alignment of the elements which causes this ghosting effect. This effect is particularly noticeable around white subjects and is worse against dark backgrounds. (see image - that is ghosting around the PAY & DISPLAY not 3D writing!) With my lens it also prevented me from getting a truly sharp image at 100%. Being a relatively inexperienced photographer I thought at first that my technique was the issue until Phil Tomkinson kindly took the trouble to set his similar vintage lens alongside mine for some comparison tests. the difference was staggering.
I did a lot of on-line research before buying my secondhand lens but I found no mention of this problem and now I find it is a pretty common fault with big Sigs. I know of people who have the same problem with 500mm, 300-800mm and now 170-500mm versions and I wouldn't have thought it was the hardest problem in the world for Sigma to have sorted by now. I guess the long term solution is save the price of a small car for the canon/nikon version. feel free to e-mail me if you want any more details about the problem. Eric
Posted by John Robinson on December 20, 2008 at 3:35 AM
Eric/Joe
Its funny you should bring this up, but thats why I went for the 100-500 as opposed to the one you have. A friend had one and all his stuff was the same - never quite sharp. I put it down to his error and camera shake,but now maybe you've explained it !
Cheers
John
Posted by eric weight on December 20, 2008 at 4:41 AM
Hi Joe,
I keep getting a failure notice when I reply to your e-mail, you could try sending it me again, but in the meantime I sent my lens here:
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/support/service-tariff.htm
I think Fixation are the only other approved sig repairers and if they can't fix it they will surely only send it on to SigUk anyway.
Long lenses on a budget are a minefield of unhappiness in my experience, but you might find the 400, f5.6 worth a look. Don't go for a 100-400 and expect it to work with a convertor although it's ok without one, I've been pleased with mine. Eric
Posted by Andy Astbury on December 21, 2008 at 4:30 AM
This lens is definitely faulty Joe and needs to go back to sigma - give them a call and ask to speak to Daniel Cortes.
I'm one of the folk to which Eric alludes - shocker when it happens on a £5000 lens
Posted by Joe Stockwell on December 21, 2008 at 1:18 PM
not a good time to have to send this away! I am working on my second year a level at the moment and to be without this is going to be a huge problem.
thank you for all who has helped, i had noticed this problem before (ever since i had it) and i just put it down to being at the cheap end of the market, it will go back and hopefully come back in working order
just by chance has anyone used the 120-400? or the 150-500?
Discussion
8 repliesEOS 30D Sigma 170-500, 1/1000 f/9 iso 640
RAW-JPEG dpp
Could have been a good action grab but I,m affraid its way under exposed. If you were on spot metering I would say it had read the water value but even that is down. What trouble with the Sigma ?
Pity
JohnR
here is an example of when its really bad http://www.pbase.com/jsphotography/image/107243808
see the allmost "double image"
J
JohnR
The problems with this shot and the one on your link are different. This one is operator error (I have lots of theses as well!) and is under-exposed as John has pointed out.
Your lens ghosting problems generally are definitely down to a faulty lens. I know of at least three people on this forum alone who have this problem with big sigma lenses, both brand new and second hand. One of them is me. All of these lenses are back in Japan being repaired (I hope they are anyway). For what it's worth and I hate being so negative, mine has been gone since the end of October and I have just been quoted another 8 weeks wait.
Other more knowledgable photographers have suggested to me that the element retaining system inside the lens is not as robust as it might be and the slightest knock can upset the alignment of the elements which causes this ghosting effect. This effect is particularly noticeable around white subjects and is worse against dark backgrounds. (see image - that is ghosting around the PAY & DISPLAY not 3D writing!) With my lens it also prevented me from getting a truly sharp image at 100%. Being a relatively inexperienced photographer I thought at first that my technique was the issue until Phil Tomkinson kindly took the trouble to set his similar vintage lens alongside mine for some comparison tests. the difference was staggering.
I did a lot of on-line research before buying my secondhand lens but I found no mention of this problem and now I find it is a pretty common fault with big Sigs. I know of people who have the same problem with 500mm, 300-800mm and now 170-500mm versions and I wouldn't have thought it was the hardest problem in the world for Sigma to have sorted by now. I guess the long term solution is save the price of a small car for the canon/nikon version.
Its funny you should bring this up, but thats why I went for the 100-500 as opposed to the one you have. A friend had one and all his stuff was the same - never quite sharp. I put it down to his error and camera shake,but now maybe you've explained it !
Cheers
John
I keep getting a failure notice when I reply to your e-mail, you could try sending it me again, but in the meantime I sent my lens here:
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/support/service-tariff.htm
I think Fixation are the only other approved sig repairers and if they can't fix it they will surely only send it on to SigUk anyway.
Long lenses on a budget are a minefield of unhappiness in my experience, but you might find the 400, f5.6 worth a look. Don't go for a 100-400 and expect it to work with a convertor although it's ok without one, I've been pleased with mine.
I'm one of the folk to which Eric alludes - shocker when it happens on a £5000 lens
thank you for all who has helped, i had noticed this problem before (ever since i had it) and i just put it down to being at the cheap end of the market, it will go back and hopefully come back in working order
just by chance has anyone used the 120-400? or the 150-500?
Joe