Tripod/Head for a Sigma 160-600 Contemporary

[Thlayle]

Richard, thanks. Yes, UV not AV. Still trying to remove it. Bought a filter wrench but it is a plastic piece of junk, not stable enough to provide the torque and move the filter. Will have to try again, look closer at what I am buying. I have always used UV filters but am finally getting to the point of ditching them and just making sure to have the lens hood on. On that note (hoods), I have seen a convincing case for those being an issue at times in cold weather. I believe I reference the video on it in a comment above.

I always turn off the OS when shooting from a tripod.

The camera is new, but it seems to have been performing fine as far as I can tell. I have developed just now this issue with the main dial working only intermittently. Using live view and then turning the dial (say to zoom in on a subject, either in live view or reviewing a shot) seems to result in the dial NOT working at all later when shooting without live view.

The lens choice for me was typical: good quality reputation but not the best in its class necessarily. I have been seeing some awesome pictures from others using this lens, though I cannot always be sure of what they are using for focal length or what their distance to subject is. I am having trouble at 600 mm with a subject about 30 feet away, not impressive at all.

As with most of my problems with getting it right, especially with new gear, I am inclined to assume "user error" is the primary problem. I have seen a lot of good suggestions in this thread, including yours, to try differently. I have been going at this a while and have been maxing out on frustration limits, so that is how I come to this forum and others to get advice. I need to be more systematic about how I approach this. For now, I'm stuck on ...well, a stuck lens filter. Will report back when I get past that, though it may be a while since I am about to embark on a trip for a few weeks.

[DanK]

Unless you are using a junk brand or shooting into the light, and for that matter even if you are using a junk brand, I would be quite surprised if the UV filter has anything to do with this. If there is light in front of the lens (e.g., a backlit subject), any filter increases the risk of flare. Otherwise, they generally have no discernable effect. I've tested this many times over, and the results have always been the same. Most of the tests were with reputable brands, like Hoya and Marumi, but I did one with cheap Chinese filters that came as freebies with my Canon 100-400. I did those tests carefully, using a detailed focus chart, a tripod, etc. What I found was detectable degradation with the cheap CPL but no appreciable effect of the cheap UV. I still use that cheap one, and under many circumstances, I keep a UV filter on all of my lenses. Given the conditions, I'm certain that the photo I posted above was taken with the cheap Chinese UV filter on. (On the other hand, you can save a few dollars by buying multicoated protective filters rather than UV. You don't need the UV protection with digital.)

Also, problems caused by a filter shouldn't be dependent on the focal length.

I saw the same video as you about warm hoods in cold weather, and that seems like a real possibility, but you can test that easily enough by removing the hood.

Personally, I think this will be even more time consuming than it needs to be unless you put the issues in priority order. The first order of business, it seems to me, is checking that the lens isn't off. The best way to that is using the procedures above, using manual focus. If the lens fails that test, you have your culprit. Again, I would try doing the test with nothing else in the picture--e.g., rest the camera on a wall or table, not on the tripod, use mirror lockup, use a remote release, take off the filter (even though it won't matter), and take off the lens hood. Get rid of all possible additional causes.

If it passes that test, repeat with AF. It's entirely possible that the AF is off at the long end.

If it passes the test with AF, start adding things back.

[Thlayle]

Dan, interesting the different thoughts on filters. I know they tend to qualify as "hot topic" on their own. I am going to try your methods of focus testing and make sure to add/subtract the UV filter in the mix. As for the cold weather issue with hoods, I think I already gave that a bit of a test inadvertently. It was when I recently had the hood come off (slight bump did it) that I saw a sharper result than what I had been getting. Undoubtedly, you right about how time consuming this can get without taking care about how I go at it. Exactly what I had in mind when I said I need to be more systematic about it.

Got the filter off finally. Cheap filter wrench worked once I recruited help with the process, having someone else hold the lens while I operated the wrench.

Now to see if I can work in some testing in the next 24 hours as I go about readying myself to depart on my trip. Would be nice to settle this before I leave, especially if I can figure out how to get better results without doing something like calibrating the lens, exchanging it or whatever.

[DanK]

I didn't keep most of my tests of the UV filter issue, but I dug back in LR and found what may be the first I did, in 2009. These were done with a 60mm macro on a Canon 50D, with and without a Hoya multi-coated UV filter. I honestly don't know which is which. I don't know whether CiC will allow this, but I will try to link to the full-size JPEGs. If it works, you should be able to see the big file in the Light Box by double clicking. Note that for some reason, Lightroom was not letting me export at more than 90% quality, but that shouldn't matter.

[xpatUSA]

... Yes, UV not AV. Still trying to remove it. Bought a filter wrench but it is a plastic piece of junk, not stable enough to provide the torque and move the filter. Will have to try again ..

In extreme cases, I put a hard nylon electrical wire-tie (Ty-Rap) around the filter tightening it pretty hard and of course leaving the bit that one usually snips off pointing in the undo direction (duh). Grab that bit with pliers and, with the body of the pliers resting on the Ty-Rap, push the plier handles toward the filter - et voila!

Take care, one slip could easily ding or scratch something ...

For now, I'm stuck on ...well, a stuck lens filter. Will report back when I get past that, though it may be a while since I am about to embark on a trip for a few weeks.

Good luck with the lens. As to the dial, could be it's contacts but sounds more like firmware ... so no advice about that, sorry.

[Thlayle]

Still needing to work on focus testing, but had to share this. I noticed the Pileated Woodpecker back in the yard today and since it is a rare sight here, I had to try a quick shot with the Sigma. This is more edited, more cropping and some local adjustments to sharpness, vibrance and texture in PS.

This is a handheld shot at 600 mm, 30 foot distance to subject, and f8, 1/750th sec, ISO 4000. This was again without the lens hood and it is WITHOUT the filter (finally got it off). Lighting conditions were essentially the same -- Michigan solid grey winter skies.

Still much to learn about what I am doing right/wrong but at least I know it IS possible to get a good shot at 600mm.

[DanK]

Randy,

This is an grounds for optimisim, but it's not a substitute for a good test. First, I would test in better light at base ISO. At ISO 4000, there is enough granularity introduced in the mids and shadows with that camera that it will interfere with evaluating sharpness. Second, I'd also do no adjustments to the image, other than perhaps the standard capture sharpening will do when you import into LR. The idea is to strip away anyhing you can from the camera simply capturing what the lens produces.

A brick wall is not a bad test target if you want something too far away to use a focus target. However, it can be anything with a lot of clear lines, textures, etc.

Dan

[Thlayle]

Absolutely! I was just so happy to something come right with this lens at 600mm, I just had to share that. Underscoring what you are saying about testing, I just took several shots just now and had my usual, very soft focus result. This in higher light and lower ISO. Very confusing. Got to sort it out. Hopefully will when I get to some careful testing.

[Jim A]

I would second Tom's suggestion, Randy, which he provided a link to. A monopod with a Wimberley Monogimbal works really well. It was suggested to me very recently and it works great. Incidentally, not only does it work better than earlier gimbals it is much cheaper.

[Thlayle]

I still think the tripod and head need to be replaced, but seeing the results at times, by others and myself on rare occasion, with this lens, taking just quick handheld shots, I really am starting to suspect the lens itself. I still have to do some systematic testing, as Dan suggests, but I'm using quite a bit just lately and I am noticing it sometimes just will not even appear in focus in the viewfinder AND at times the lens seems to 'rattle' which seems to me that it is 'focus hunting' --just not zeroing in & staying on a focus point(s).

I am taking it on a trip with me and will be working it some more, but am not optimistic about any better results, and I won't have a chance for a few weeks to do testing of the focusing.

ALSO -- I have, when recently beginning to try to do. some testing of it, placed the camera with this lens on a very solid, stable surface, waited still for some time to minimize the possibility of vibrations, and then when looking at a subject in live view --everything seems to be floating, never staying still. What is up with that? Is this normal?

[xpatUSA]

I still think the tripod and head need to be replaced, but seeing the results at times, by others and myself on rare occasion, with this lens, taking just quick handheld shots, I really am starting to suspect the lens itself. I still have to do some systematic testing, as Dan suggests, but I'm using quite a bit just lately and I am noticing it sometimes just will not even appear in focus in the viewfinder AND at times the lens seems to 'rattle' which seems to me that it is 'focus hunting' --just not zeroing in & staying on a focus point(s).

I am taking it on a trip with me and will be working it some more, but am not optimistic about any better results, and I won't have a chance for a few weeks to do testing of the focusing.

ALSO -- I have, when recently beginning to try to do. some testing of it, placed the camera with this lens on a very solid, stable surface, waited still for some time to minimize the possibility of vibrations, and then when looking at a subject in live view --everything seems to be floating, never staying still. What is up with that? Is this normal?

Could be, Randy.

In the review for the Contemporary model it says:

"However, we did notice some odd, rather distracting jitteriness and twitching of the OS system, that's particularly visible at the longer focal length. It can be difficult to keep the focus point on a small subject; you really notice the focus point jumping and fidgeting around while the stabilization system is active."

Personally, I only use OS for hand-hand shots and turn it off if the lens is supported in any way. You might want also to check the OS Mode 1 or 2 for suitability for the type of shooting being tried.

[pschlute]

What Ted said.......turn off stabilisation when on a tripod or hard surface support.

[Tronhard]

It might be worthwhile checking that the firmware for this lens is up to date. I have it and have done a couple of firmware updates, some specifically linked to stabilization.

Firmware download | Support | 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | Contemporary | Lenses | SIGMA Corporation (sigma-global.com)

[Geoff F]

One thing which hasn't been mentioned so far is the short focus length of these lenses, particularly on close subjects with open apertures. At F6.3 for an average type of bird shot the focus depth can be as little as a couple of inches.

This is the Sport version but hand held with a UV filter. Incidentally my Hoya filter cost £150 and I really only got it for lens protection.



1/320 F8 Iso 800. AF but only using the central focusing points. Note the shallow focus depth.

[Tronhard]

In terms of the original wording of the question, I shoot with both the 150-600c and 60-600s (a much heavier unit). I normally shoot hand-held, but I have got a great unit that I find helpful when I have to keep the camera steady for extended period.

iFootage Cobra 2 Monopod – iFootage Official EU Site (ifootagegear.com)

And: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...tail&FORM=VIRE

It is designed for video work, but I find it is extremely useful for my stills photography too. The cool thing is, it's a 3-in-1 unit. It's a very compact tripod, with the feet attached to the lower end of the shaft, but one can remove the feet to make a compact tripod, and also have a stout monopod as well. The quick release units allow extremely fast transformation. You need to get your own head, and that's a matter of preference - I got a SmallRig ball-head and it works fine for me.

[William W]

I agree that you first should thoroughly test the Focus of the Lens. (i.e. follow Dan's detailed and ordered advice).

I think that the advice above to consider a Monopod (for some of your shooting, like birds for example) should be considered. I think that if you are predominately taking photos other than structured and controlled images of static objects, then, in many (most) situations a monopod would be a better tool to use. That stated, for night time scenes, and the like, a Tripod would be better.

I don't use Ball Heads with such a long (and heavy) on either a Tripod or Monopod.

Personally I have a particular dislike for ever using a Ball Head on any Tripod – arguably it is merely introducing a weak link in the rig. It seems to me economically unsound thinking - the bigger and heavier the lens, the more sturdy and thus more expensive the Tripod required, which (if using a Ball Head) means much more expensive and sturdy Ball Head, a big ball and a great grip – which, in my experiences and observations, will only end up losing grip wobbling after a period of time, anyway: my view is suck it up and buy a (yes agreed) expensive and rugged quality Geared Head, first up.

I rarely use any Head when using Monopod, especially with a long telephoto/zoom lens; instead I mount the Lens’s Tripod Ring directly to the Monopod. If you use a Monopod, especially with super-telephoto, use your Left Hand to steady, on the body of the lens.

I use Manfrotto Tripods (and Monopods) but any quality and heavy duty Tripod will suffice: basically, regarding Tripods, the cost of a new one does generally indicate the quality of it. Second hand is always good shopping. I also use a Manfrotto Geared Head.

Other points (some already mentioned) that I think worth considering are, in no particular order:

* For FL = 600mm at a close range Subject, and a Monopod, I’d like to be pulling faster than 1/1250th for ‘slow moving’ or ‘static’ Subjects. If that shooting scenario were hand held, even with OS engaged, I’d be using faster than 1/2000th

* If using Tripod, then use a Geared Head and use a sandbag counterweight off centre column, mirror up and remote release, OS “off”

* I think yours is a good idea to mark the legs with bright tape so you don’t bump them, especially if you are shooting at night

* Using a super-Telephoto always attach via the Lens's Tripod Collar (i.e. not by the Camera Base)

* Less expensive than an Geared Head is to consider a (sturdy) Video Head for use with a Tripod

* It would benefit to post one or two hi res and with EXIF images depicting the issue

* I reiterate Dan’s advice to follow a dedicated testing procedure to eliminate potential contributing factors.

WW

[rpcrowe]

William introduced a great idea for a tripod head designed for following moving subjects such as birds. He posted, "Less expensive than a Geared Head is to consider a (sturdy) Video Head for use with a Tripod"

I have a Manfrotto 3126 Fluid Head that could easily support a long lens and a full frame digital camera. I have the head mounted on my Giottos 8100 Carbon Fiber Tripod (no longer manufactured) but, it works just fine with a smaller set of legs such as my very old Bogen 3001. I paid right at about $50 USD for this head a few years ago.

The advantages to a fluid head are, of course, the smooth pans and tilts that the fluid dampening will allow. IMO, another advantage is the addition of a pan handle which you can adjust to several different angles for different angles of shooting. I gaffer-tape a remote release onto the handle so I don't have to touch the camera to trip the shutter. This isolates the camera/lens from my shutter release motion. I find that following the subject using the pan handle is easier for me than trying to follow a subject by gripping the camera/lens.

Additionally, for following fast moving subjects, I might mount a sports finder to camera so that I don't have to place my eye right up to the viewfinder. Originally, I used an old Topcon sports finder which was once part of a Navy kit for aircrew photography allowing the photographer to generally frame the image while wearing a flight helmet which prevented placing the camera against the photographers eye. I recycled this finder when my Navy photo lab junked one of the Topcon kits due to saltwater immersion.



However, for a bit more accurate framing, I have an oldie but goodie Hama Sport Finder which I purchased at a flea market a few years ago for ten bucks!



This finder also fits on the hotshoe mount of the camera and facilitates framing for 50-200mm lenses. For framing with longer lenses, I just center the subject in the 200mm frame-line.

The jury is still out whether I like the Topcon or the Hama better.

Another finder that works well for following fast moving subjects is a "Red-Dot" (type) sight for pistols. But you might need to jury rig the sight to fit on your camera's hotshoe.

https://smile.amazon.com/Feyachi-Ref...NsaWNrPXRydWU=

I have not used this type of sight as a finder for any camera but, I have one mounted on a target pistol and it works just great for fast target acquisition or for following moving targets.

[tclune]

Another finder that works well for following fast moving subjects is a "Red-Dot" (type) sight for pistols. But you might need to jury rig the sight to fit on your camera's hotshoe.

https://smile.amazon.com/Feyachi-Ref...NsaWNrPXRydWU=

I have not used this type of sight as a finder for any camera but, I have one mounted on a target pistol and it works just great for fast target acquisition or for following moving targets.

Do you happen to know whether the laser is safe for bird and wildlife eyes?

[rpcrowe]

The "Red Dot" sight is not (AFAIK) a laser sight but, rather a passive optical sight. I do not think that it holds any danger for the eyes of wildlife.

https://opticsmag.com/red-dot-vs-laser-sights/

I have a laser sight on an old 9mm Ruger pistol. While this sighting system is excellent at night and in very low lighting conditions, my sight is not good at all in bright daylight. Additionally I would consider the laser pretty well useless for flying birds. And... I would think that the laser might damage the eyes of wildlife.

OTOH, the passive optical "Red Dot" sight would be excellent for acquiring a flying subject. I have a "Red Dot" sight mounted on a .22 caliber target pistol and it works quite well for following a moving target or subject. In fact, this might just be better for a camera than for a gun because, you would not need to "lead" your subject when shooting an image like you would when shooting a moving target with a gun.

NOTE: I do not hunt and only shoot targets. The last living creature I killed was a large rattle snake in my yard that was threatening my dogs. And the weapon I used had iron sights.

By the way, I have inserted quotation marks around the term "Red Dot" because I am talking about a generic type of sight. The "Red Dot" was introduced by a company called Aimpoint. The company's name for that sight became a generic term for most sights of this type just like "Kleenex" became a generic name for facial tissue.

BTW: This is very close to the type sight that I am referring to. It only costs about fifteen U.S.D.


Here is a video showing what you see with this type of sight. All sights are stationary, the movement is occurring from the movement of ones eye showing how the sight picture holds steady no matter at what angle you are viewing from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eqpP6OKCL4

And no, there is no way that I know of to show the exact framing of the image. This type of sighting will only place your aim at the center of the subject. I supposed that there might be some way to superimpose frame lines but, that is beyond my technical knowledge. That is why the Hama type frame sight (above) might be better for photography.

[tclune]

Thanks for the additional inf, Richard.