Sigma 170-500mm f-stop test

[StormChaser]

Exposure 1/500 f-stop 6.3 ISO 400
Aperture priority program Focal length 462mm Raw format Adobe raw converter with 10 shadow otherwise completely standard. The other one is with the same settings, but exposure 1/15 and f-stop 38.

[StormChaser]

2nd one

[easternherp]

Were these on a tripod as they don't look overly sharp?

[Ben]

Thanks Anthonie,
(in responce to your PM)

Yes, I can see the F6.3 gives a softer edge, as to the f38.
I suppose the best is to use this lens at F8 to f38 ...

The sort of things SIGMA won`t admit when you tell them :(
But then at the price, I suppose one can`t complain.

This might sound stupid, but I tested the lens with my film based F80, and the results were far more superior, than on the S2 ?

Another thing to concider is the 1.5x or so 'magnification' due to the smaller than, 35mm, CCD in the S2. Although it is supposed to give better results, as the center of the image is being used.

- Film still gives that edge, that digital can`t YET give.

One last comment, I found with the 170-500, one MUST always use a 'rest', be it a monopod, tripod, bean bag etc.. even at 1000+ shutter speeds. The pictures seem to be out of focus any other means. Maybe the mirror slap also has an influence in the long run.

Somewhere in the photo section, way back, I have a photo of GNU at a waterhole, this was taken with the lens, resting on the edge of the hide.

*I viewed these images on a 21 inch :)

[StormChaser]

The pictures were done with a tripod on the lens mount. But I agree that the slap of the lens is allready to much for it. I guess the S2 is not really meant for these magnifications.

Anyway I was happy to oblige.