D50+sigma 70-200f2.8 newbie

[lenzz]

I recently bought this lens.. i noticed that the pictures are soft @ 2.8.
I am sure that there are lot of people using this lens and mind to share the tips for getting sharper shots?

Thanks

 

[net-g]

I know people will come in and ask you to change to a Nikkor 70-200VR f2.8 IF-ED. :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[eawtan]

I recently bought this lens.. i noticed that the pictures are soft @ 2.8.
I am sure that there are lot of people using this lens and mind to share the tips for getting sharper shots?

Thanks

Some possibilities
- use a faster shutter speed (what speed did u see softness at?)
- stop down 1-2 stops (again watch out for shutter speed).
- very useful if you could show the "unsharp" picture

 

[TMC]

Sigma 70-200 was never that sharp at f2.8 to begin with. When I had mine, I was shooting mainly at f3.2 for portraits with it. It is sharp enough but was never that tack sharp.

 

[roti_prata]

i thought its quite sharp, here's a sample i took with my friend's sigma 70-200.

 

[Henessy]

OMG, dun think it is sharp at all at 2.8

 

[TMC]

it is good enough. Like I said earlier, 70-200 sigma wasnt that sharp to begin with in the first place. It is a good performer for its price, dun demand too much for it.

 

[fndjufri]

Sigma's 70-200 will not get you sharp pictures at f/2.8.
It's even worse when used with a 2x tele converter.
I normally stop down to f/4 or so to get reasonably sharp pictures.
And a tripod always helps.
If you're so particular about getting super tack sharp pictures, this isn't THE lens.
Save some money and get the Nikkor.
Since I don't make a living out of photography this lens is good enough for me.

 

[scubasimon]

i had one before. it isn't the easiest lens to shoot with because of the weight and the range. but if you use a tripod properly weighted down, and stop it down a little (as mentioned by someone on this thread already), and trip your shutter remotely (or with a 2 sec timer), this lens will be just fine. also note that at f2.8, the depth of field (especially at 200mm) is very shallow so you have to focus carefully.

 

[espn]

Most glasses when open wide is a poor performer. Stepping down often brings out the sweeter/st spots in the glass.

However, the AF-S 17-35, 70-200VR is sharp at f/2.8 ;p

 

[Henessy]

If most glasses when wide open are poor performer,then what is the use of buying those glasses that are wide open?

 

[espn]

Not poor performer, but not up to expectations mostly in terms of image sharpness.

 

[lenzz]

Some possibilities
- use a faster shutter speed (what speed did u see softness at?)
- stop down 1-2 stops (again watch out for shutter speed).
- very useful if you could show the "unsharp" picture

These 2 pictures are shot at 2.8

#1

#2

These 2 pictures are shot at 3.5
#1

#2

 

[lenzz]

Sigma's 70-200 will not get you sharp pictures at f/2.8.
It's even worse when used with a 2x tele converter.
I normally stop down to f/4 or so to get reasonably sharp pictures.
And a tripod always helps.
If you're so particular about getting super tack sharp pictures, this isn't THE lens.
Save some money and get the Nikkor.
Since I don't make a living out of photography this lens is good enough for me.

Thanks for this comment. i feel it true because in the last week i went to shoot in Marina SQ.
The shots were done at f3.x., i felt it was better than the pictures taken using f2.8.

 

[lenzz]

i had one before. it isn't the easiest lens to shoot with because of the weight and the range. but if you use a tripod properly weighted down, and stop it down a little (as mentioned by someone on this thread already), and trip your shutter remotely (or with a 2 sec timer), this lens will be just fine. also note that at f2.8, the depth of field (especially at 200mm) is very shallow so you have to focus carefully.

Thanks for your advise. i feel that this lens is better in 130-150 @ f4. at 200 its bit unsharp.
how do sports photog get such a sharp fotos? :sweat:

 

[espn]

Thanks for your advise. i feel that this lens is better in 130-150 @ f4. at 200 its bit unsharp.
how do sports photog get such a sharp fotos? :sweat:

Pro grade glasses. These perform better than normal glasses wide open.

 

[TMC]

1st 2 pics suffer from handshake and off focus.

last 2 pics isnt that bad in sharpness but then if you looked more carefully, some portions are sharper. Prob means your focussing is slightly off.

 

[lenzz]

Sigma 70-200 was never that sharp at f2.8 to begin with. When I had mine, I was shooting mainly at f3.2 for portraits with it. It is sharp enough but was never that tack sharp.

Thanks for the comment. but event at f3.2 200mm the potraits are not sharp. plse see the photos i have posted which was taken in marina sq fashion show last week

 

[espn]

I think you're having problems with the handholding part of the glass.

 

[loudhailer]

I recently bought this lens.. i noticed that the pictures are soft @ 2.8.
I am sure that there are lot of people using this lens and mind to share the tips for getting sharper shots?

Thanks

here's a sample of 70-200 f2.8 sigma with canon 350D.

taken @ 1/1600 f2.8 ISO800. resized from original.