[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Sigma S 60-600 mm f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM - sample images - LensTip.com


I am rather impressed with the lens, for a change it looks as if its optimized for the longer FL and the min focus distance is a rather nice touch at 0.6m

[surfar]

BiggerMa!

[normhead]

With all due respect, the images I saw were soft. I wouldn't have published them.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

With all due respect, the images I saw were soft. I wouldn't have published them.

"Please enjoy our gallery of sample images taken with the Sigma A 60-600 mm f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM lens mounted on the Canon EOS 5D Mark III camera. All images are JPEG files straight from the camera with sharpening set to the lowest value. "
Right of the bat I first noticed some color aliasing in some of the bird feathers in several of the bird photographs and this is even with the stronger Anti-aliasing filter that Canon likes to use.

Because they have set sharping to the lowest setting there should be some sharping applied to the final image, when done they do supply you with sharpness that I would not expect to see from a mega zoom like this. And to tell you the truth I don't think a prime 300 and 2x tc could give you any better results.

[normhead]

I like your spin, but, my images are sharper than that before I apply sharpening. My DA 55-300, an incredibly cheap telephoto provides better images. On the image that I posted, ( and others I didn't post but looked at) that is simply unacceptable whether sharpening is applied or not.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Here is the original http://pliki.optyczne.pl/sig60-600/sig60-600_fot10.JPG

If is was to plop this in with the heading it was taken with a prime lens most would not question it

This is shot wide open at its longest FL

Here is a 100% crop of the image and you can see the fine hairs right along the left side of the eye along with false color artifacts above the eye
With modest sharpening the image is very clean and sharp


There is no spin just a nice lens which is really nice considering the FL range this lens covers

[surfar]

The 600mm images look reasonably good, 60mm not so...I didnt look at any others.

[redpit]

The new Bigma! Since the older 50-500 Bigma is so popular in K-mount (I was also very satisfied with the lens myself) I don't see why the new improved version wouldn't be popular too, if it was also offered in K-mount...
Sigma 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

I would buy it without second thoughts, even now that I own the DFA 150-450 since it is the best solution when you want to take only one lens and be able to take high quality pics under various situations. It is so pitty that the monsterous K-1 won't be able to squize the best IQ out of such a lens... Being S lens (weather-dust sealed etc as opposing to the old lens) makes it even more a perfect option for Pentax cameras.

[normhead]

This is the Tamron 300 with the el cheap Tamron MZ-7, there is a little more contrast, but also more sharpness This is a test shot, and also found this combo a little soft for my liking.





The natural contrast is better on mine, but, it's also sharper with more micro-contrast.
That's pretty much the softestI I'll use as a lens.

But if it the 60-600 meets your standards go for it. No sweat off my back. It won't be going on my recommended list.

[automorphism]

Not really a fan of the samples. Even the shots at f/8 look a little soft. Of course, you have to take this into perspective: because of the reach of this lens it would produce many fine images, so in most use cases the slight softness wouldn't matter that much and could be made a lot better with a little sharpening. Could also be the camera, though the ninth shot there shows that it is not a focus problem.

Again, could be a very useful lens. My only point though is that it does not seem as sharp as a prime.

[normhead]

Not really a fan of the samples. Even the shots at f/8 look a little soft. Of course, you have to take this into perspective: because of the reach of this lens it would produce many fine images, so in most use cases the slight softness wouldn't matter that much and could be made a lot better with a little sharpening. Could also be the camera, though the ninth shot there shows that it is not a focus problem.

Again, could be a very useful lens. My only point though is that it does not seem as sharp as a prime.

I'd compare it to my old Sigma 70-300/



I was happy shooting this lens for about 5 years. As an entry level lens to use for a while while you try to get your feet wet feet wet. I'm sure it will do. If it turns out long lens shooting isn't for you then it hasn't cost you a lot of money. But if you get into it at all, it won't be ;omg before you want better, in my experience.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

The natural contrast is better on mine, but, it's also sharper with more micro-contrast.
That's pretty much the softestI I'll use as a lens.

I am sorry but I see the very opposite to what you are seeing

I'd compare it to my old Sigma 70-300/

Sorry could not

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Comparing it to the sigma 500 F4 shot with the same camera.



The 500 f4 is sharper but its going to take the best technique to use to see much of a difference

[Rondec]

(rabbit trail)

I've never understood the need to sharpen up birds to the point that you can see every little feather detail. Even if your lens is sharp enough to allow that, that isn't the way birds look when you view them through binoculars. I guess it is just about proving whose lens is sharpest.

On the subject of the lens, 600mm and f6.3 is a tough combination. It is going to need quite a bit of light and probably a tripod to use. I'm not a wildlife shooter by any means, but if I take my DA 55-300 to the zoo (the closest I ever get), I often end up shooting at iso 1600-3200 to keep a shutter speed in the 1/100-1/200 second range, because it has a similar maximum aperture at 300mm.

Still, I am glad there are options out there for folks who like to shoot these sorts of things.

[normhead]

I am sorry but I see the very opposite to what you are seeing

We will have to agree to disagree here and move on.