New Lens is NOT sharp around the outside of the picture ? Please help

[arthurking83]

.... And to be honest the UV filter shouldn't go back on the lens, you don't need it.

especially an ultra widey!!
If you had to put up with any IQ losses due to filters, you need to make sure that the filter is at least producing a result that balances out the likelyhood that it will also degrade IQ.

At least with a CPL or grads or ND's or whatever other filter used for a specific purpose, you get some benefit in using it, so you weigh up the pros and cons and strike a balance.

UV filters serve no purpose.

[Arg]

Would like to see a shot of the horizon stretching from side to side, focused on the horizon using Live View, at f11 and on a tripod. 10mm, 15mm, 22mm. then again at max aperture.

[peterb666]

If you had to put up with any IQ losses due to filters, you need to make sure that the filter is at least producing a result that balances out the likelyhood that it will also degrade IQ.

Quite frankly, geometry is the enemy of filters on an ultra wide. While a lens can be designed to work well at a paricular focal length or even a range of focal lenghts, the poor old filter hasn't got a clue what lens it is going on. Is it a 10mm lens with a angle of view of more than 90% or a 500mm lens with an angle of view of 5 degrees? Even the best filter will be a compromise.

At 10mm, a filer is typically 2mm thick in the centre and light going through it is at 90 degrees.

Move to the edge and light is going through at around 45 degrees, travelling through approximately 3 mm of glass with a entry and exit angle of 45 degrees in opposite directions.

A filter that serves very little purpose such as a UV filter should be put to better use. A transparent drinks coaster comes to mind.

[arthurking83]

.....

A filter that serves very little purpose such as a UV filter should be put to better use. A transparent drinks coaster comes to mind.

Alternatively:
The subject of a strenuous testing regime for the purpose of determining, once and for all, if they serve any purpose as a so called protective lens.

[PerfectPicture]

Thanks for the replies everybody .. OK slowly uploading the pics to Flickr acct.
l have placed them into SETS e.g. "Canon10-22mm @ 10mm".
They are all straight from the camera, Jpeg's compress from 6MB files to 47% with faststone image viewer to around 660Kb each.
Shot with NO Filters attached, Shot with a Tripod and Shutter release cable, shooting the red brick wall for testing purposes of clarity, Sharpness, etc of the newly purchased Lens.

First Set 'Canon 10-22mm @10mm at different F/Stops' is > HERE

Second Set 'Canon 10-22mm @17mm at different F/Stops' is > HERE

Third Set 'Canon 10-22mm @ 22mm at different F/Stops' is > HERE.

l hope you can see them and their viewable for you guys. if not. let me know.

Please let me know what you think of the images in regards to clarity, Sharpness and overall testing of the new Lens.

Thank you.

[Arg]

First impressions are OK but I can't see the 660kb files, I can only see 1024-pixel-wide images.

[PerfectPicture]

example Pic's .. taken directly after the brick wall test.
All pictures again taken with NO Filters attached, Tripod + Shutter cable release using LIVEVIEW zoomed in at x5 ...

first pic > HERE at image shack (Full size displayed).

Second pic > HERE

and this one, focussed on the foreground rock (again doesn't seem clear to me) > HERE

4th image > again not really clear > HERE

Again blurry and not clear at all?

[kiwi]

The wall tests seem fine to me with pixel peeping

The rock focus I think is simply an indication of oof areas in the background. Run dofmaster to determine wha should be in or oof and look at the concept of hyper focal to determine where you should be focussing to get sharpness throughout the image

[William]

I agree with Darren , The Brick Wall images look fine , I find for Landscapes at 10mm it's best to use f8 to f10 and get your focus points to lock on to about 1/3 into the shot when composing , Or have a read up on Hyperfocal focusing

[Allann]

As stated, I think we can all conclude that the lens is fine. Yes a little soft at the corners when wide open but thats to be expected.

So why are you still getting blurred photos in the landscapes you may ask? I will have a go at the first image if you want.

• f22 will introduce CA in the image, try to stay around f11-f16 for landscapes, use a DOF calculator to determine both the focus point and the DOF needed.
• 1/20 will create motion blur on anything in the scene that is moving, e.g. the birds, the boat masts, clouds, waves in the water, etc. Giving an overall blurred appearance
• foreground and even the clouds are well underexposed introducing noise which can also reduce the crispness in both

For a better test try taking shots at 90 degrees to the sun, not directly into the sun, this will also help boost the colours more as the sun (and flare) will wash out the image.

All the images basically fall into the same issues. underexposed and too high aperture. Since it was reasonable dark (assumed since high ISO and slow shutter was used) this introduces a whole new set of techniques to get a good shot and will take practice to get right. Try taking them late afternoon around 6pm instead of 9pm, the light will be better and you'll be able to use a faster shutter speed and lower ISO. Landscape photographers will use as low an ISO as possible, rarely leaving ISO 100.

[arthurking83]

As Allann said .. ISO at 1600 is not a good way to determine sharpness in images, and neither is f/22.

Minimum aperture value you use should be f/16, as that is generally the point where the human eye can clearly see diffraction starting to affect the images(when compared to say f/8 and f/11).

Other points worthy of noting. try to avoid harsh sunlight, high contrast induces chromatic abberations and some fuzzyiness along sharply defined edges(so the edges look softer than they otherwise may).
exposure also makes a difference. slight underexposure has an effect that is similar to sharper images. They're not really, but the illusion is such. As sharpness is highly dependent on contrast, more contrast looks like sharper images(that's what USM bases it's magic upon)
if in low light(better) use a sturdy tripod, mirror lockup and a remote, all of which help to eliminate user errors.

If you need any help, don't hesitate to send me a PM to arrange for us to meet. It has to be next week tho, as I'm busy with kids up till Monday morning. Anytime on or after Monday evening I'm free.

So far, from these images, I'd say your lens looks to be about on par(or maybe just below). It really is luck of the draw if you get the best copy or the worst made by Canon at any given moment.

[PerfectPicture]

Thanks guys for your responses and comments, l really do appreciate it.
Was shooting in AV mode so l can shot all pictures in the whole range of F/Stops available on the lens. Must of had Auto ISO selected, that why got ISO1600. p.s. Shots taken around 7:30 til 8:20pm~, so getting low light as well.

Thank you Arthur for the meetup offer, l would love to catch up anytime your free in the next week or so, either after work (norm, 5:30pm onwards or the weekends). Thanks alot mate.

l have sent 2 emails to Citiwide, they have responded, with fill in a word document, serial no, address, issues, etc. done that.
They now want to see explains of pictures as well via email before sending lens back, so when l get home tonight l will do that.
Hopefully l can get my money back! Has anybody else experience this or got a full refund back for overseas stores?

p.s. whilst l was shooting the brick wall, l also tested my Tokina 12-24mm lens as well, and reviewing the pictures late last night, you can see texture in the brick work!! l'm amazed this lens is much sharper then the Canon 10-22mm one?
like you mentioned ... must of being one that slipped through Canon's Quality control centre, as heaps of reviews say this lens is a good sharp lens. ohh well .. hopefully issue is resolved quickly...

l'll keep you posted.

Cheers
Robert

[kiwi]

I'm confused why you bought a 10-20 when you have the highly regarded tokina 12-24 ?

[PerfectPicture]

Hi,
l actually thought the Canon 10-22mm is actually better then the Tokina 12-24mm, so it was an upgrade. but its didnt work out that way. and found out the Tokina is actually a much sharper lens, after all !

Nice , pleasant surprise!

[Arg]

Ahem!
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...f4_review.html

The Tokina is obviously a v nice lens but if it is sharper than the Canon then you do have a dud Canon.

The thing with ultra-wides is that every extra mm is significant in terms of photographic flexibility. That's the main reason to pick the Canon, to get an effective 16mm instead of 19.2mm.

[kiwi]

I just spent 10 minutes looking at side by side reviews. Not sure what you've seen but they are fairly unanimous in that the canon has quality sample variations. That the Tokina is very good and every bit as sharp and better built , but if you get -a sharp canon that is has a big less barrel distortion and purple fringing wide open.

So if I were you I'd see if they could swap for a similar value lens in a range you don't already have and keep the tokina

If not well, you have two Uwa lenses. Why ? I dunno

[arthurking83]

Both SLRGear and PhotoZone have tested both lenses and found their sharpness performance to be close enough to equal across the frame.
To call either one better than the other would be a case of variable quality control from the respective manufacturers.

if it came to a choice between the two, I'd test them both in the exact same manner, find each lenses strengths and weaknesses, and offload the one that doesn't perform as well.
Note that the one stop faster aperture of the Tokina at the tele end would weigh in heavily if it were my decision!! (but then again that extra 2mm of width is also nice to have).