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

[anthonyk]

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

[Cage]

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

[Filter]

I recently acquired a Canon 10-18mm lens

When you say "acquired" was this new or secondhand?

[Gazza]

AF turned on?

[anthonyk]

When you say "acquired" was this new or secondhand?

Secondhand.

- - - Updated - - -

AF turned on?

Yep. I even double checked in DPP.

- - - Updated - - -

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

[Filter]

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.

[anthonyk]

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.

[Filter]

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.

[Cage]

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?

[anthonyk]

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

[Cage]

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.

[anthonyk]

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.

[ameerat42]

Cage left the GAS on and overcooked it

[anthonyk]

Cage left the GAS on and overcooked it

lol, so it wasn't just me then...

[Cage]

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.

[anthonyk]

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...

[Hawthy]

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.

[Cage]

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.

[anthonyk]

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 - - -

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

[ameerat42]

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.