Originally posted by woodywesty I'm hoping that I can get some recommendations here or suggestions of another thread on the forum for answers. This past year I've purchased both a Sigma 300mm 2.8 and Sigma 500mm 4.5 from forum members and both lens appear to be in near mint condition. My first goal in getting back into photography after 25 years away from SLR photography is to photograph birds. This 300mm thread has been a wonderful learning experience about technique and tools which is why I chose these two particular lenses. A number of outstanding photographers here use these two lenses and produce some of the most beautiful, razor sharp photographs. I have a K3 and a K3ll and am still in the learning curve of digital photography but am getting some of the basics sorted out. The 500mm lens is reasonably sharp but I suspect isn't 100% matching up with the camera body to give really sharp pictures but its close enough that it might just be my limitations. The pictures I see posted here often are so sharp as to be nearly unbelievable. I know that this is a combination of all the gear operating at its best as well as great skill of the photographer. I'm probably a long way from that level of ability so the 500mm lens might be tack sharp and I'm not. The 300mm, 2.8 though is way off. I've struggled trying to do fine focus in camera adjustments in my home at a distance of 25 feet using a meter scale at a 45 degree angle. Once I get the lens adjusted I can go outside (where it is very cold this time of year) and shoot objects like wooden fences and roof parts that are 15 to 30 feet away and the lens seems pretty sharp. When I drive to the local river where there is no ice I can shoot Mallards from 50 to 60 feet away (makes them pretty small) and when I enlarge the pics on the back of the camera they are ALL way out of focus. I've been fiddling with this for a week now and am nearly burned out and am hoping someone can point me to an exact method of adjusting big telephoto lenses. Anybody have any ideas? Anybody in the US that can do this precisely?
Thanks, Bob
Hi Bob! It's such a downer when you work so hard to get sharp shots and find many OOF. I have hundreds. No, wait, thousands.
It sounds, from this and your later posts, that you've taken all the usual precautions and learning some new ones (like BBF, etc.). Some of that sounds like it's helping. And I see that some folks have offered their ideas, too. Here's my $.02:
I don't know about that 300 and whether the lens itself is off. Could be. The only way to know that will be when you can take a bunch of shots with lots of light, your heaviest tripod/gimbal setup, very high shutter speed, and dead-still subjects at increasing distances from the lens without moving it. If you find that your results match your field results (as in, sharp closer in, OOF farther out), either the focusing mechanism is off OR this is happening: You mention shooting mallards at 50-60 feet away and finding them not sharp when cropped close. I will offer that I don't shoot anything live at 60 feet with a 300mm lens. In my opinion, that's just too far away, forcing such a close crop that you're going to magnify the results of any slight movement too many times to get any real sharpness.
The other piece of advice I would offer, after you've done all the basic things to minimize camera movement is this: I now shoot at much higher shutter speeds than we might normally think of as adequate, precisely because long shots are so easily blurred by the slightest movement of camera or subject. 1/2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000... I try to take advantage of our higher available ISOs, preferring to deal with a little grain in post, if necessary, than to risk a whole card full of blurred shots.
I will also add that I think our perspective is somewhat skewed about the percentage of ultra-sharp wildlife shots we're actually seeing. There are many, many shots on this forum and elsewhere that aren't anywhere near tack-sharp. The ones that are - you know, when you say, "Wow!!" - are either a) made by very experienced people who are on the downside of the learning curve OR b) the one photo that made the grade out of perhaps several hundred that didn't OR c) a really lucky shot. I know my Lightroom catalogue is full of the ones that didn't make it.
I keep planning to end this and then think of one more thing... I have a cupboard full of lenses and, in some cases, multiples of the same lens. The multiples have taught me a real lesson in variability: one lens produces consistently sharp images while the other, its twin, will not. If you find your lenses are not producing for you after they've been tuned and you're controlling for all the variables, swap 'em out. Or stick with the one(s) that work and offload the others.
Good luck working with your new techniques and don't be too hard on yourself. I occasionally hit myself over the head for how crappy my shots are from a whole day of shooting and then remind myself that I was shooting from a kayak or other floating platform and, gee, maybe I should expect some movement?
When I'm on solid ground, with the right lens and following all the rules, including high s/s, it works. Except for BIFs. That's a total crap shoot!