User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  5
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Issues with Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    04 Feb 2013
    Location
    Eagleby
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Unhappy Issues with Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS

    Hi


    I recently acquired a Canon 10-18mm lens and used it for the first time today. Unfortunately the photos it is producing are quite awful. This could very well be user error, however there is always the possibility that it isn't as I have never experienced this issue with other lenses on the same camera body. I have included a sample image which has not undergone any post-processing apart from a conversation to JPG from CR2. As you can see from the images below the trees, leaves, etc. in the distance are not at all sharp, they look pixelated and smudgy (if that's a word) if anything.


    Does anyone have any ideas?


    Thanks




  2. #2
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    5,530
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Anthony

    If you could list the settings for each shot it would be a huge help to give CC.

    ie Canon xxx, Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS @ 12mm, f4.5, ISO800
    Cheers
    Kev

    Nikon D810: D600 (Astro Modded): D7200 and 'stuff', lots of 'stuff'

  3. #3
    Ausphotography Regular Filter's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 May 2014
    Location
    Mornington
    Posts
    710
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I recently acquired a Canon 10-18mm lens
    When you say "acquired" was this new or secondhand?
    Filter


    EOS R & 16-35 f4 EF, 70-200 2.8 RF
    Olympus OMD-EM1 Mark II 7-14 12-40 40-150 Pro lens.
    EOS 7D Mark II - 70D - Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM, 17 - 55 2.8 Lenses

  4. #4
    Ausphotography Addict Gazza's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Mar 2013
    Location
    無聊的 Birdwoodton
    Posts
    9,513
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    AF turned on?
    If you replace the 'W' with 'T' in When, Where and What, you get the answer for each question.
    CC more than welcome. Remember, I can't be offended so go for it. Feel free to post your ideas with an edit if you have time. Thanks in advance.



  5. #5
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    04 Feb 2013
    Location
    Eagleby
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Filter View Post
    When you say "acquired" was this new or secondhand?
    Secondhand.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gazza View Post
    AF turned on?
    Yep. I even double checked in DPP.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Cage View Post
    Hi Anthony

    If you could list the settings for each shot it would be a huge help to give CC.

    ie Canon xxx, Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS @ 12mm, f4.5, ISO800
    I can't find a way to edit my original post so I will repost the photos here with the missing information. I have added an additional photo.


    Canon 650D, Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS @ 10mm, f8, ISO100


    Canon 650D, Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS @ 10mm, f8, ISO100


    Canon 650D, Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS @ 12mm, f11, ISO100

  6. #6
    Ausphotography Regular Filter's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 May 2014
    Location
    Mornington
    Posts
    710
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have seen some very good images come from one of these lenses coupled to a 70D. There a few reasons why ppl off load lenses, pic quality is one, so not sure of your circumstances. Give the lens an opportunity to give its best, use a tripod, manual focus, image stabilization shouldn't be needed in this case but leave it on, pick a subject with defined lines. It should be a good walkaround lens that delivers good photo's.
    I had my 17-55 put in for calibration at Canon, they say they adjusted something & I think it was a bit better.

  7. #7
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    04 Feb 2013
    Location
    Eagleby
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Filter View Post
    I have seen some very good images come from one of these lenses coupled to a 70D. There a few reasons why ppl off load lenses, pic quality is one, so not sure of your circumstances. Give the lens an opportunity to give its best, use a tripod, manual focus, image stabilization shouldn't be needed in this case but leave it on, pick a subject with defined lines. It should be a good walkaround lens that delivers good photo's.
    I had my 17-55 put in for calibration at Canon, they say they adjusted something & I think it was a bit better.
    Thank you, I think that is good advice. I plan to do what you suggested, that should show if there are any shortcomings with the lens or if it was purely operator error.

  8. #8
    Ausphotography Regular Filter's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 May 2014
    Location
    Mornington
    Posts
    710
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The shot of the shed certainly shows softness/focus issues. I would also suggest taking the same shot at 18 to see if the issue is at it's widest. The 650D appears to have micro adjust but eliminate everything else before going there. It does your head in with a tele lens, different focal lengths give different results. There is meant to be a happy medium.

  9. #9
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    5,530
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Anthony,

    First up, I neglected to mention the other important factor in the shooting equation, Shutter Speed.

    Looking at the shots in your second post, the first and third seem overexposed. Were these cropped at all as I also see pixelation when zoomed in although this could be due to the shot only being 72 Pixels/Inch. Also it helps to know what camera mode you used, ie Auto, Manual, Shutter Priority or whatever. Do you shoot in RAW or .jpg? Makes a huge difference to image quality.

    When posting on AP you can use a maximum size of 1200 pixels on the longest side and save at 400KB maximum, which will show heaps more detail than 640 x 427 at 64KB.

    Lots of questions huh? And one more. What program do you use for processing?
    Last edited by Cage; 01-04-2017 at 1:04pm.

  10. #10
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    04 Feb 2013
    Location
    Eagleby
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cage View Post
    Hi Anthony,

    First up, I neglected to mention the other important factor in the shooting equation, Shutter Speed.

    Looking at the shots in your second post, the first and third seem overexposed. Were these cropped at all as I also see pixelation when zoomed in although this could be due to the shot only being 72 Pixels/Inch. Also it helps to know what camera mode you used, ie Auto, Manual, Shutter Priority or whatever. Do you shoot in RAW or .jpg? Makes a huge difference to image quality.

    When posting on AP you can use a maximum size of 1200 pixels on the longest side and save at 400KB maximum, which will show heaps more detail than 640 x 427 at 64KB.

    Lots of questions huh? And one more. What program do you use for processing?
    Thanks for taking the time to reply

    It is quite likely that the first and third were overexposed. I really didn't put much time into these shots as I had my 11 year old with me demanding that we go to the next flood spot, lol. I was still surprised to see such poor quality for what are essentially 'snapshots' though.

    All photos were shot in aperture priority mode. Also photos were also shot in RAW.

    I have now uploaded the photos to match the specifications you posted. I use Lightroom for post-processing, however in this instance I only exported. I made no other adjustments as I wanted people to be able to assess the raw images without me complicating the situation.


    IMG_9686.jpgIMG_9695.jpgIMG_9700.jpg

  11. #11
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    5,530
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Now we're cooking with gas.

    If you pull the highlights and the whites back and do a mild sharpen I think you should have an acceptable 'quick snap'.

    What comes out of the camera is only the starting point.

    This is a quick edit with the above suggestions.

    IMG_9700RAW.jpg

    PS: There is still some pixellation visible. Make sure your camera is set to 'RAW' and not 'M RAW" or 'S RAW' to get maximum pixels per inch.
    Last edited by Cage; 01-04-2017 at 2:28pm.

  12. #12
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    04 Feb 2013
    Location
    Eagleby
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cage View Post
    Now we're cooking with gas.

    If you pull the highlights and the whites back and do a mild sharpen I think you should have an acceptable 'quick snap'.

    What comes out of the camera is only the starting point.

    This is a quick edit with the above suggestions.

    IMG_9700RAW.jpg
    hmmm...I'm not sure if it's my monitor but that image looks worse than the original. It has a lot of artifacts and smudging. Not sure what happened there.

  13. #13
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    21,336
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Cage left the GAS on and overcooked it
    CC, Image editing OK.

  14. #14
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    04 Feb 2013
    Location
    Eagleby
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ameerat42 View Post
    Cage left the GAS on and overcooked it
    lol, so it wasn't just me then...

  15. #15
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    5,530
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm looking at it on a calibrated Dell 25" IPS Ultrasharp monitor.

    Here is another take with only a Dehaze adjustment and a sharpen at 40 x 1, detail @ 25.

    There is still visible pixellation in the top RH corner.

    IMG_9700RAW-Dehaze.jpg

    PS: Maybe I need new glasses.
    Last edited by Cage; 01-04-2017 at 2:45pm.

  16. #16
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    04 Feb 2013
    Location
    Eagleby
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cage View Post
    I'm looking at it on a calibrated Dell 25" IPS Ultrasharp monitor.

    Here is another take with only a Dehaze adjustment and a sharpen at 40 x 1, detail @ 25.

    There is still visible pixellation in the top RH corner.

    IMG_9700RAW-Dehaze.jpg
    PS: Maybe I need new glasses.
    Maybe it is the lens after all...

  17. #17
    Ausphotography Regular Hawthy's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Mar 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,663
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am not sure where the focus point is on these photos. In the second photo for example, the fence post looks to be quite sharp but the trees are not. There is a free plugin for Lightroom that highlights the focus point in the photo. I haven't used it but it might shed some light on the problem: http://www.lightroomfocuspointsplugin.com/

    As you said in the original post, it might be a user error.
    Andrew




  18. #18
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    5,530
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ameerat42 View Post
    Cage left the GAS on and overcooked it
    Am, I'm trying to help this guy find out what is wrong with his lens. Just adjusting brightness shouldn't introduces artefacts.

    My gut feeling is that the lens is out of alignment.

  19. #19
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    04 Feb 2013
    Location
    Eagleby
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cage View Post
    Am, I'm trying to help this guy find out what is wrong with his lens. Just adjusting brightness shouldn't introduces artefacts.

    My gut feeling is that the lens is out of alignment.
    Thanks for your ongoing help I think I have come to the same conclusion. I have used a number of Canon's cheaper lens offerings over the years but have never encountered this problem. The moral of the story is don't buy a used lens from a Gumtree seller just because it is cheap. She could have dropped it at some point for all I know. My wife is out at the moment taking some more photos using the same lens but a different body. It will be interesting to see if she experiences the same issues.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawthy View Post
    I am not sure where the focus point is on these photos. In the second photo for example, the fence post looks to be quite sharp but the trees are not. There is a free plugin for Lightroom that highlights the focus point in the photo. I haven't used it but it might shed some light on the problem: http://www.lightroomfocuspointsplugin.com/

    As you said in the original post, it might be a user error.
    Thank you. I will look into that plugin.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Focus info screenshots.

    Capture3.JPGCapture2.JPGCapture1.JPG

  20. #20
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    21,336
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Kev. I gave you 2 s to show it was a joke.

    Looking at the posted images when copied into Photoshop, you can see that there are incipient artifacts
    present. These will be enhanced when any sort of tonal adjustments is made.

    Anthony, the gross appearance of the 2nd, larger version image shows the fence wire to be pretty focused, right to the
    reflections under the near tree. After that you can't tell because the detail size is too small. I suspect, though, that there
    may be too much compression applied when converting to jpeg and shrinking to fit on AP.

    It's hard to tell, and what is needed are a couple of 100% crops of the suspect areas you are talking about. That means,
    enlarge the image to FULL/ACTUAL/SIZE/PIXELS after you have converted it to jpeg. Do not save a small version as jpeg
    but the full size of the raw file. After that, pick some areas to show using he selection tool. Paste each into a new file
    and flatten it in Photoshop, then post here without any further PP.

    Make sure you don't select too large areas. Make them say 800x600 pixels. You can do this in Photoshop setting the
    selection tool to "Fixed Size". Do not compress too much when saving as jpegs, say no less than quality 10.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •