Sigma 400mm - It's nature capabilities

[anthonty_debase]

The Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO Macro has often been mentioned as a good inexpensive telephoto lens. Over the last year I have recieved many e-mail requests concerning its suitability for nature photos and bird photos in particular. I thought I would show a few examples of some bird photos I have taken with this lens along with explanitory comments. I DO NOT submit these photos as worthy of any artistic merit. Most of my best stuff is not digitized yet since I don't have a scanner. :(

 

<p>

 

<img src="http://www.eskimo.com/~paulkrik/birds_html/klldeer1.jpg">

 

<p>

 

The nesting kill deer was taken at a distance of 25 feet. The aperture was probably f/5.6 or f/8. Shutter speed about 1/100. Bogen 3221 tripod. Kodacolor Gold 400.

 

<p>

 

<img src="http://www.eskimo.com/~paulkrik/birds_html/bbirdsit.jpg">

 

<p>

 

<img src="http://www.eskimo.com/~paulkrik/birds_html/bbirdfly.jpg">

 

<p>

 

The two images of the red winged black bird were taken at a distance of 8-10 feet. I had switched to manual focus and prefocused on the bird since I knew that it would not be centered when it took flight. The top image was taken with the bird at rest. Then I waited with the lens prefocused and the N90s motor drive set to high speed (4 fps) for the bird to fly. As soon as it did I depressed the cable release and took 4 images in one second. Two images had the bird in them. This one and the next one which only showed the tail feathers on the left edge.

Kodacolor Gold 400. F/5.6 at 1/1000. Bogen 3221 tripod.

[anthonty_debase]

Bye the way all three of these images are flatbed scans of 3.5x5 inch prints. Needless to say some detail is lost this way. For example, the eye of the flying bird does not show up on my monitor but it does show on the print.

[don_baccus]

Thanks for posting these, Anthony. I like the flying red-winged blackbird.

 

<p>

 

The file sizes of the scans are VERY large for the size, ya gotta learn to scrunch them. Are they jpeg format? They're 5-10 times longer than they need to be...

[martin_feldman]

Thanks for the examples. Sigma will probably come out with some type of motor for the 400mm Nikon mount since it already has one for the Canon???

 

<p>

 

BTW, I recently checked with the major New York and West Coast stores and found that the 400mm was uniformly back ordered. I think this reflects it's popularity. I have since decided to stick with my 300mm AF-S (with or without a 1.4x) and go with a shoulder mount. Maybe also do some hammer curls on the weekends.

[anthonty_debase]

I have compressed the black birds about 90%. I hope that helps. Being new to this business I still have a bit to learn.

 

<p>

 

One point I want to make with these images is the fact that 400mm is not a lot of magnification when dealing with small birds. I know that many have stated that numerous times on photo.net, but I hope that by actually seeing how much of a frame a small bird takes up at 10 or 25 feet interested photographers will see what they have to deal with first hand. As Bob says, bird photographers always want a longer lens.

 

<p>

 

Still one can get some very satisfying and intersting images.

More comments later.

[mark___1]

I also use this lens extensively and love it. I have a few areas where I can approach very close to songbirds such as black capped chickadees and white breasted nuthatches. Even with 400mm, you still have to be within 10 feet or so of these small birds to get a decent subject size in the final image.

 

<p>

 

I think also something that would be good to share are techniques for stabilizing lenses like this 400mm. Even though I religiously use a tripod (Bogen 3221/F&L Ball Head), have a modern "mirror damped" camera (though no mirror lockup), I still end up with many images that are sharp, just not TACK SHARP. What would be the slowest shutter speed recommended for a 400 mm f5.6 lens (tripod mounted, no MLU)?

 

<p>

 

Right now I can't picture going to a higher speed film to be the only solution. I typically shoot 100 ASA slide film.

 

<p>

 

Mark

[bobatkins]

With a decent tripod and head (which you have), there should be no

significant sharpness issues with shutter speeds of 1/60 and faster,

as long as you are using good technique. There should certainly

be no problems at 1/125. You'd expect the worst mirror slap

problems to be at around 1/15 and 1/8. That still applies to

modern "mirror damped" cameras (which are more marketing fiction

than reality).

 

<p>

 

The difference between "sharp" and "TACK SHARP" may be the difference

between a Sigma lens and a premium Canon or Nikon lens. While the

Sigma lens may be good (and great value), it's probably not as good

as the

premium optics from Nikon and Canon (which cost at least double).

[mark___1]

Bob - thanks for the tips. I did once consider that it may just be the optics that were not giving me the sharpest images possible. However, since I have obtained on occasion tack sharp images, it makes me think that the lens is very capable. I think it is more likely to be a combination of technique, mirror slap, and using the lower shutter speeds as you mentioned.

 

<p>

 

I am going to try dampening the lens a bit as suggested in other threads here and see if that helps out.

 

<p>

 

Mark

[bobatkins]

You might also consider focus. I've used Sigma lenses on an EOS

that didn't always hit the same focus every time on the same

subject. I've also seen examples of hitting a consistant but

wrong focus point. Just something else to consider. Could be

the difference between "sharp" and "TACK SHARP". You probably

wouldn't notice the offset via the viewfinder image since the

focus wasn't off by very much.

 

<p>

 

I'm not saying all Sigma lenses do this, but I've seen it on

a 21-35 zoom and a 70-210/2.8 zoom at certain focal length

settings.

[craig_andrew_yuill]

For what it's worth, Moose Peterson indicated that he thought this latest Sigma 400 was a better lens than the Nikkor 400. (This may be due to its superior close-focussing abilities rather than outright image quality at regular distances.) Another comparative review showed it to be slightly less good than the Canon 400 f/5.6 L. I really don't think there's enough of a difference there for amateur photographers to justify the BIG price difference between the Sigma and Nikon or Canon lenses.

 

<p>

 

It is unfortunate Nikon has not seen fit to produce a reasonably-priced AF 400 f/5.6. The 300 f/4 is an outstanding lens, and is really not all that expensive (only 30-50% more than the Sigma). A 400 f/5.6 from Nikon that is in the same price range really would be welcome.

[anthonty_debase]

The ability of the Sigma 400 to focus to about 4 feet is a real plus. I often use it to photograph flowers and other small objects. The working distance is great and the angle of view cuts out a lot of clutter. Even when I get my 500mm or 600mm lens, I will keep the Sigma. With more and more parks and natural areas restricting people to marked trails, the ability to get "up close" from a distance is becoming more important.

[jeff_hallett]

For whatever it's worth , Pop. Photog. mag did not feel that Canon's

4005.6 L was that much better to warrant a $1400+ price tag.I have

been using Sigma's 400 5.6 for 3 yrs now and my slides are sharp

enough to have one of them in Nature Photographer and several sold to

stock agencies. How "sharp" does a slide have to be? Apparantly NP

and the others thought mine were good enough even though I saw some

minor flaws in them. If you are just going to do slide shows, who

cares if they aren't "tack" sharp but if you are trying to publish,

then critique the HELL out of them in both exposure and composition

and if they aren,t "tack" sharp send em in anyway. Worked for me!

[mark___1]

Jeff brings up a good point, how sharp does an image need to be? (Sorry, this may be wandering a bit too far from the subject) Time and time again we hear and read if it isn't tack sharp, its not worth sending to an editor. However, time and time again I see images in publication that I would have tossed out just viewing it in a slide viewer.

 

<p>

 

Mark

[Albins images]

I own(ed) the older Sigma 400mm APO and made good use of it during a 5 months stay in northern Cameroon. Lightweight and close-range up to 4 meters. Most pictures from monopod/car window, sharp to my satisfaction, not so good contrast.

 

<p>

 

--> BUT, after some time off-the-road the internal focussing unit became loose and a frequent brusk shake was necessary to ensure sharp photographs. A repair at the Dutch Sigma Service-center cost me about $75, which helped, for a year or so (infrequently used). Then the problem resurfaced.

 

<p>

 

A local repair man opened the lens again and found that the seals to the focussing untit had >never< been removed! Apparently the people at Sigma's just had just given it a good kick and charged me for that effort.

 

<p>

 

But after this repair well done another problem arose: (tropical) mold, a growing, seemingly organic layer on the focussing unit. Opening the seals must have disturbed a subtle (climatic) balance, giving the resident bateria/fungi an advantage. Or so is theorised. Could happen to any equipment, but it ended the love affair with this lens.

 

<p>

 

Why this story? Not to unnecessarily flame a certain brand, though many pages of frustration can be found on the Internet on this particular one... But because on this Site we are trying to distill the best solutions and compromises from our diverse experiences in 'the field'. My experience leads me to believe that a brand like this one, for the purposes intended by many of us (I think), is NOT the way to go.

 

<p>

 

A lens like this has a smaller chance of survival in rugged use, optically it is not as good as the camera-manufacturers primes and the service is downright lousy (from experience and reports). For $100 more than the new-price of the Sigma 400, I recently bought a Nikon 300mm f4 second-hand...

 

<p>

 

A lens test can show you fine results, but in the end what matters is reliability. Time will tell if there really is a 'best' way..

[bobatkins]

I've written for Nature Photographer a number of times, and they

aren't super critical about image quality if the image is interesting.

That's not a negative comment. If they are going to do even a 1/2

page image, they don't <em>need</em> super critically sharp slides.

Photo magazines in general aren't very picky about image sharpness

because they don't need to be.

 

<p>

 

The time when critically sharp slides are important is when a

publication either <em>needs</em> them (e.g for a cover, or for

a calendar or poster) or when you are competing with other photographers

for a slot (e.g. if the magazine needs a shot of a loon), and 5

photographers send in equally "artistic" images, your's had better

be SHARP or you have no chance.

 

<p>

 

It's also important for initial submissions to a stock agency.

To compete with others you'd better show your work is as perfect

as it can be. Anything not critically sharp will count against

you, both for not discarding it the first place and for sending it

as part of your portfolio (bad judgement!).