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

[anthonyk]

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.

I think I am following what you are saying. One problem though, I only have Lightroom, not the full version of Photoshop.

[ameerat42]

I think you can do a simple select and copy/paste in LR, but I don't

- - - Updated - - -

Am downloading a (hopefully free) version to try.

[anthonyk]

I think you can do a simple select and copy/paste in LR, but I don't

- - - Updated - - -

Am downloading a (hopefully free) version to try.

Okay, I won't be able to mess with the images just now but I will try later. Thanks again

[Cage]

At least you got the focus point plug-in working.

I got it loaded but it says it is malfunctioning.

[anthonyk]

At least you got the focus point plug-in working.

I got it loaded but it says it is malfunctioning.

That's strange. What version of Lightroom are you using? PC or Mac?

[Hawthy]

Kev, the plugin will only work on photos that you have downloaded from your camera not on those copied from the web. Plus if you have focussed, held focus and then shifted to recompose the shot it drags the focus point. It is handy but not infallible. (Apologies if you already know all this).

Looking at these shots reminds me of the poor results that I had when I first bought my Sigma 10-20 mm. Ultra-wide lenses have some characteristics that require different approaches to a normal lens. Firstly, because objects relatively close to the camera can appear quite small it can be difficult to get the autofocus to lock on. Secondly, they have an exaggerated depth of field that makes it difficult to get the whole image sharp. You really need to stop down the aperture a lot and make a decision about whether the foreground or the background should be in sharp focus. Thirdly, because you get such a wide angle of view it is easy to get blown out skies and lens flare that tends to further soften the image.

These lenses are great for specific shots - landscapes at sunrise or sunset, cityscapes, interior of buildings, etc. They are not great as a walk around "snapshot" type of lens. Hence, I use mine a lot less than I thought I would.

So, AnthonyK, don't throw it out just yet. It may be just that the lens was not the correct lens for the job at hand. Find a nice spot at sunset, focus and dial in a f22 aperture or similar and see what happens.

[anthonyk]

Kev, the plugin will only work on photos that you have downloaded from your camera not on those copied from the web. Plus if you have focussed, held focus and then shifted to recompose the shot it drags the focus point. It is handy but not infallible. (Apologies if you already know all this).

Looking at these shots reminds me of the poor results that I had when I first bought my Sigma 10-20 mm. Ultra-wide lenses have some characteristics that require different approaches to a normal lens. Firstly, because objects relatively close to the camera can appear quite small it can be difficult to get the autofocus to lock on. Secondly, they have an exaggerated depth of field that makes it difficult to get the whole image sharp. You really need to stop down the aperture a lot and make a decision about whether the foreground or the background should be in sharp focus. Thirdly, because you get such a wide angle of view it is easy to get blown out skies and lens flare that tends to further soften the image.

These lenses are great for specific shots - landscapes at sunrise or sunset, cityscapes, interior of buildings, etc. They are not great as a walk around "snapshot" type of lens. Hence, I use mine a lot less than I thought I would.

So, AnthonyK, don't throw it out just yet. It may be just that the lens was not the correct lens for the job at hand. Find a nice spot at sunset, focus and dial in a f22 aperture or similar and see what happens.

Thank you for that. You've made me feel a lot better about the whole thing. Ordinarily I would have taken these photos with my 17-55 f2.8, however I just wanted an excuse to try out my new UWA, lol. We are heading over to Japan in a couple of months so I will hopefully get some use out of it then, particularly the sunrise/sunset and architecture shots you mentioned. One question though, you mentioned stopping down to f22, wouldn't that lead to some serious diffraction?

[Hawthy]

Maybe not down to f22 but why not have a play with some apertures from f11 down to f22 at sunset and dusk before you get there? As previously mentioned, these are not a do everything lens but are best used for specific jobs. Enjoy Japan!

[Warbler]

One question though, you mentioned stopping down to f22, wouldn't that lead to some serious diffraction?

"Beginner" talking about diffraction at F22? You sure you're not a smokey Anthony?

[arthurking83]

Hi


..... 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?


.....

In the image with the shed, is the shed sharp(or sharp enough?)
Lens could have focusing issues, but I doubt that's the problem.

Note that with exposure, it can have an effect on what appears to be sharpness.
Sharpness is defined as the contrast between two different tones.
If an image is too bright(as these ones appear on my monitor), it has an effect on what we see as sharpness.
Darker, more contrasty images appear to be 'sharper' to us.
(obviously not too dark, as to eliminate all tones tho!!)

Another point not yet commented on. You appear to be in QLD, and I assume image is just after the low pressure system that was formerly TC Debbie has flooded this area a little.
If so, can we also assume that the weather was still a little breezy?
Breezy conditions don't make for sharp foliage.
Although if the tree trunks are also blurry then this assumption flies out the door(so to speak).

Also, don't expect to see perfect rendering in really fine/small details when you use a wide angle lens.
The lens creates the effect of reverse magnification(extension) of detail at the sensor. if you then magnify that detail by looking at it at the pixel level, you're not exactly going to see the same detail as you would in a magnified image.

We can't really make accurate assessments based on the images as presented.
If you could upload a full sized jpg image to some space for anyone to download and assess, we could offer more in depth help.

[anthonyk]

"Beginner" talking about diffraction at F22? You sure you're not a smokey Anthony?

I'm a beginner who reads a fair bit :P

Not quite sure what a 'smokey' is...

[Warbler]

A "smokey" is a bit like a "burglar" in golf. That is, one who claims his handicap is less than his ability. Never mind, I wasn't being nasty.

[anthonyk]

A "smokey" is a bit like a "burglar" in golf. That is, one who claims his handicap is less than his ability. Never mind, I wasn't being nasty.

I know you weren't trying to be nasty

[ameerat42]

I know you weren't trying to be nasty

Gee, Warbs, you're slipping

[Warbler]

Gee, Warbs, you're slipping

And you pretend to be a moderator?

- - - Updated - - -

How can you do that with some pre-conceived idea such as this?