Photoclubalpha

These are just quick handheld snapshots trying out my new Sigma 120-400mm HSM,
They are straight from the camera (a700) +1contrast +1Sharpness no-other PP.

So far i really like this lens although i have only been out with it for half an hour.


250mm @ F7.1 ISO1600


Seems a bit soft @f5.6 but not to bad.
120mm f5.6 ISO200


400mm f5.6 ISO200


A few more in next post

400mm f8 ISO200


210mm f8 ISO320


Should manage out tomorrow for a proper go with the lens.

Those are looking pretty good - Sigma's MTF data seems to hold out in practice!

David

Thanks for the pictures. I thought of purchasing this lens, but when I saw the weight at I think 1,640g I thouoght otherwise and went for the Tamron 70-300 at less than 500g. I would be most interested in knowing if this lens works with in lens stabilization in the Sony version or whether this function is simply locked in a single position. You seem to suggest in the first picture that it seems a bit soft @f5.6 but not too bad. I wonder if this is a result of the Sony version basically being a Canon/Nikon/Sigma VR lens version with the stabilization fixed in one position, so that the Sony lens inherits a resolution weakness inherent in the VR design. That basically adds to weight and cost without providing a benefit to Sony users.

alphaomega wrote:Thanks for the pictures. I thought of purchasing this lens, but when I saw the weight at I think 1,640g I thouoght otherwise and went for the Tamron 70-300 at less than 500g. I would be most interested in knowing if this lens works with in lens stabilization in the Sony version or whether this function is simply locked in a single position. You seem to suggest in the first picture that it seems a bit soft @f5.6 but not too bad. I wonder if this is a result of the Sony version basically being a Canon/Nikon/Sigma VR lens version with the stabilization fixed in one position, so that the Sony lens inherits a resolution weakness inherent in the VR design. That basically adds to weight and cost without providing a benefit to Sony users.

There is no in-lens Stabilization with the sony model. Its heavy but i dont find it to heavy.
Dont get me wrong its getting close to being to heavy to carry around all day, but the tripod collar has nice sort of pistol grip to carry it with.

Tiny niggles are when you lock the lens for barrel creep then place the hood on for storage, the lens becomes basicaly unusable until to hood is removed as it covers both the lock button and the zoom ring.

I hazard a guess that the Sigma 120-400 at 1640g is around 150g heavier than the Sony 70-400G at 1490g mostly because the Sony probably carries the weight of the Sigma lens stabilization without the function. In addition the Sony is longer at the short end but, of course, the Sony is also a good deal more expensive.

The weight difference is probably down to the barrel construction not the stabiliser (they tend to add about 50g not 150g). The Sony makes more use of lightweight materials, I suspect the barrel extension for zoom is where a lot of the difference lies. Also, for versions without the OS, that component would be omitted not disabled.

David

So far iam loving this lens, my initial thoughts that it was soft actually seem to be not true. It seems its either slight front focus maybe caused by hand holding @400mm.

I love the 1.5m close focus distance which i didnt expect to be using on a 400mm lens.

I never got the chance to get very far yesterday to test it further as my bad luck struck, I had a tiny chip on my car windscreen (been there for a few months ) Switched on the Air-con when my tiny chip decided it would grow to a 2ft crack!

Anyway here is a few from the quarry where my brother teaches spey casting.





While i was at the quarry this moring (Sunday) i heard a plop in the water, when i looked around there was a gorgeous Kingfisher with breakfast unfortunatly i was not ready for him but did manage a few shots wide open at 400mm probably 40 to 50 feet away, again focus was missed, not sure if its me or the camera, i shall need to try with my tripod and 2sec mlu later.

Well one week on with the lens and any initial concerns with the lens or body focus issues are gone. Basically all focus errors were user error and not fully understanding that @ say over 200m with very fine DOF and the spot focus sensor on sony bodys apears large focus can be easily missed on small targets.

Iam in no position to compare to the Sony 70-400g but for my needs this lens fits the bill very very well.

These may be a bit oversaturated but i do like them, I was messing with a XBOX 360 using my LCD for the screen and forgot what i was doing and messed about with all my screen settings to get the xbox looking good, result photo editing is now way over saturated and i have not yet put it back to editing mode.

This one's wide open @ 400mm


This ones 400mm @ f11

Actually, I rather like your oversaturated results! I bet that at 100% even at f11 the ducklings still have one dead sharp and the others a bit softer, but the thing to do is look at a screen or print size image.

David

Yeah i must admit on shots this this i do like them a bit overcooked.

Have you had a chance to try a copy of lens out yourself David?

I think a managed to get a decent copy, its sharp enough wide-open for my eyes, certainly at anything under about 20-30m.

Only on Nikon D3, where it proved a really good lens. Richard had one on loan for about six months.

David

I'm liking the look of this lens.

David, what you think of the sigma compared to the Sony 70-400G?

Compared to the Sony 70-400 G, I think the bokeh of the Sigma 120-400 looks far superior.