New Lens purchase and confused (Page 3): Annie, I agree with what you said about the photos being unexposed, and also that the problem may be not with the camera or lens. I do not mean...

GordonB. Loc: St. Petersburg, Fl.

Annie_Girl wrote:

Both images seem underexposed, I have a feeling it's not the lens that is the issue.

Annie, I agree with what you said about the photos being
unexposed, and also that the problem may be not with the camera or lens. I do not mean this in an ugly way.

Gordon

naturepics43 Loc: Hocking Co. Ohio - USA

D0r1neK wrote:

I have uploaded them again so you will be able to see the settings. I could be me. :-)

First thing, a tree is a poor test for focus/sharpness test. Second, you used AF-S for the 55-300 image & AF-C for the 70-200 image. I would pick a different subject & Use AF-S & single focus point for your test. Also, as I suggested in an earlier post, if this doesn't produce sharp results, try adjusting the AF fine tune. Hope this helps.

PS: Don't forget that DOF will be smaller at f2.8 so take this into consideration & practice, practice, practice.

cthahn

D0r1neK wrote:

I just purchased the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I was comparing photos I took with my Nikon 55-300 lens that cost $350 compared to the Sigma lens that was $1250. I was expecting a better, sharper picture from the Sigma and honestly I can't tell the difference between the lenses. Should I see a difference?

You should take some time to learn about lens specifications and light. You are hung up on zoom lenses. Why did you purchase the Sigma? From what you wrote, you spent money thinking you would get better pictures. How do you determine a better picture? You obviously do not know the difference between f2.8 and f4.5-5.6. Check the price on a Nikon f70-200mm f2.8. Now when you use your camera, what lens are you going to use? I wish I had your money to spend foolishly on lenses.

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

D0r1neK wrote:

I just purchased the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I was comparing photos I took with my Nikon 55-300 lens that cost $350 compared to the Sigma lens that was $1250. I was expecting a better, sharper picture from the Sigma and honestly I can't tell the difference between the lenses. Should I see a difference?

And that's the whole story of photography!

Peter Boyd Loc: Blyth nr. Newcastle U.K.

dooragdragon wrote:

wow I paid less then 1250.00 for my sig 150-500mm

The difference being its not f2.8!

floridamet

what camera?
try buying use (Adarama E category lenses are like brand new)
look for the f/2.8 80-200mm lens. Its not the newest but sharp

floridamet

better quality off glass. Better built. Pro model. Sharper

sbesaw Loc: Boston

dooragdragon wrote:

wow I paid less then 1250.00 for my sig 150-500mm

Good but did you get the 70-200 2.8 like the OP

Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

Hi Dorine. I got a 28-300 to take on a family vacation a few years ago. I got it about 3 weeks before the trip. It took me 2 weeks of playing with it to start getting sharp pictures. I was so disappointed the first two weeks I was about to bury it in the yard. But learning how a lens works is all part of the learning curve.:):) I did add+2 sharpness in camera. And now I have a hard time taking it off the camera. And yes I have gotten lazy in my old age.:):)
I think you should pick one simple subject, like your mail box and keep shooting it when you play. Easier to get feed back on how you are doing.:)
Erv

D0r1neK wrote:

I just purchased the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I was comparing photos I took with my Nikon 55-300 lens that cost $350 compared to the Sigma lens that was $1250. I was expecting a better, sharper picture from the Sigma and honestly I can't tell the difference between the lenses. Should I see a difference?

bersharbp Loc: Texas

D0r1neK wrote:

I just purchased the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I was comparing photos I took with my Nikon 55-300 lens that cost $350 compared to the Sigma lens that was $1250. I was expecting a better, sharper picture from the Sigma and honestly I can't tell the difference between the lenses. Should I see a difference?

You didn't mention the size of the glass on the Nikon version (ie.4.0 or?). Size of the glass is the biggest factor in determining cost.

GordonB. Loc: St. Petersburg, Fl.

D0r1neK wrote:

I assumed besides the ability to shoot in lower light situations it would see a difference in the picture.

I bought a bridge camera with a f/2.8 and it's great for
low light and, considering that it IS a bridge camera, takes relatively sharp pics; certainly not the quality of lens and cameras that combined cost thousands of dollars compared to a $400+ Canon bridge that's now over 2 yrs old.

I hope that you can get this unsatisfactory situation for you rectified in some manner. As others have said, LEARN YOUR CAMERA. I, too, wish that I had your money to spend. Be thankful.

Good luck,
Gordon

Jaime Loc: Los Angeles

The only real way to tell the difference is to put the camera on a tripod, shoot the same subject at the same focal length with the same exposure at the same time of day. It becomes a lab type of situation. Then, compare the images at 100/200 %. I would do that before returning the lens. My 2.

D0r1neK Loc: Connecticut

cthahn wrote:

You should take some time to learn about lens specifications and light. You are hung up on zoom lenses. Why did you purchase the Sigma? From what you wrote, you spent money thinking you would get better pictures. How do you determine a better picture? You obviously do not know the difference between f2.8 and f4.5-5.6. Check the price on a Nikon f70-200mm f2.8. Now when you use your camera, what lens are you going to use? I wish I had your money to spend foolishly on lenses.

I purchased the Sigma 70-200 2.8 because I'm going to Uganda to trek the Mountain Gorilla. I will be in a jungle wth a dense canopy which could make the lighting poor. That is why I choose a 2.8 lens . After I can use it for indoor sports photography. That is why I was practicing on trees because that is where the gorilla will be.

Annie_Girl Loc: It's none of your business

can you post the SOOC images that are using the same settings and as close to the same focal length as you can get? That will help us figure out if it's a lens issue or a user issue. Not to be mean but I'm pretty sure it's going to be a user issue, 95% of the time it is.

Place a stuffed animal in the tree and focus on the eye of the toy, that will also help us figure out the issue.

dooragdragon Loc: Alma , Arkansas

No , have the 70-300 Tamron and Sigma 150-500mm