Anyone else unhappy with the 10-22 ?

gus · September 12, 2005

Ok...the honeymoon is over.

I can't get it sharp.... f/3.5 thru to f/kazillion.

Am i asking too much of it ?

Date Taken:2005-09-11 11:33:05Date Modified:2005-09-12 14:31:20Make:CanonModel: Canon EOS 20D Size: 5120x3413 Bytes: 5512347 Aperture: f/9.0 ISO: 100 Focal Length: 10mm Exposure Time: 0.0062s (1/160)Flash:Flash did not fire, compulsory flash modeExposure Program:Aperture priorityExposure Bias:0

Date Taken:2005-09-11 11:59:33Date Modified:2005-09-12 15:11:22Make:CanonModel: Canon EOS 20D Size: 5120x3413 Bytes: 7050748 Aperture: f/8.0 ISO: 100 Focal Length: 11mm Exposure Time: 0.0012s (1/800)Flash:Flash did not fire, compulsory flash modeExposure Program:Aperture priorityExposure Bias:-1

devbobo · September 12, 2005

Hey Gus,

I was doing some reading over on FM today and found a interesting shots from the 10-22.

Here's a few of my favourites..

http://ericcotter.com/blog/index.php?showimage=114

http://ericcotter.com/blog/index.php?showimage=138

http://ericcotter.com/blog/index.php?showimage=118

David

gus · September 12, 2005

Well wouldnt that tear a hole in your nightie !

Now i have to keep it.

marlof · September 12, 2005

These pictures might give the wrong impression, since you've posted the large version where the resizing compensates for the lack of sharpness for a bit. I've taken a look at the first one in the original size, and saw (next to a strange dark line on the transition to the sky, and other chromatic abberations) that it doesn't like very sharp to me. If that is to be expected from this lens is something I'll leave to other Canon shooters to decide. You may have been spoiled by your other lenses, which (if I'm not mistaken) mainly exists of L class primes. These are bound to be sharper than zooms, let alone non-L zooms.

One point though: where was your focus point? Somehow I think that might be in the front parts, since the stones in the bottom seem to be sharper than more upwards. If you want it all to be as sharp as possible, you'd better take the hyperfocal distance into consideration.

John Mueller · September 12, 2005

Getting spoiled with the L glass Gus?

Im happy with mine.I feel its sharper than the 17-40 I had.

herion · September 12, 2005

John Mueller wrote:

Getting spoiled with the L glass Gus?
Im happy with mine.I feel its sharper than the 17-40 I had.

That's why I love my Sigma 10-20 ...

Nikolai · September 12, 2005

Is it possible to find comparable shots

herion wrote:

That's why I love my Sigma 10-20 ...

of both Sigma 10-20 and Canon 10-22? That 10-22 was (and still is) on my list of things to get, but now I'm intrigued by what you've said about Sigma..

Thanks!

ginger_55 · September 12, 2005

Gus, send me the lens, I will try it out for you. Got nothing better to do right now. And I have noticed that you don't seem to be using it lately.

That Sigma gets very good reviews. It was out of stock for awhile. I wanted to buy it. I think B&H just told me that it is back in stock. I can't afford it now.

So, Gus, I would love to "test" your Canon.

g

rutt · September 12, 2005

Got this from mine last evening. Sharpened with separate lighten and darken layers ala my sharpening tutorials. I don't really know why it is, but this kind of sharpeing seems very important with this lens. It likes those bold dark halos a lot, but if you make the light ones as opaque, it looks horrible.

Here is the image before sharpening (and other PP):

Nikolai · September 12, 2005

Can you please

herion wrote:

That's why I love my Sigma 10-20 ...

... post a few images from your Sigma, hopefully both before and afer PP?
Thanks!

gus · September 12, 2005

herion wrote:

That's why I love my Sigma 10-20 ...

From all the info i have found on the net..the sigma is worse. I think its my problem with settings.

gus · September 12, 2005

rutt wrote:

Got this from mine last evening. Sharpened with separate lighten and darken layers ala my sharpening tutorials. I don't really know why it is, but this kind of sharpeing seems very important with this lens. It likes those bold dark halos a lot, but if you make the light ones as opaque, it looks horrible.

Here is the image before sharpening (and other PP):

Still pretty blurry around areas like the blokes legs rutt. I dont know what it is but im going to give it a real work out this week-end at all settings to see what i can find.

gus · September 12, 2005

John Mueller wrote:

Getting spoiled with the L glass Gus?
Im happy with mine.I feel its sharper than the 17-40 I had.

Maybe so...the 135 f/2 lives on my camera. I have grown quite used to what it produces.

rutt · September 12, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Still pretty blurry around areas like the blokes legs rutt. I dont know what it is but im going to give it a real work out this week-end at all settings to see what i can find.

It's a motion blur, 'Gus. In fact, in the first version I enhanced that on purpose at the suggestion of Yuri. Look at the nonmoving parts of the image.

gus · September 12, 2005

Doh ! Its to the sides like that were i see it start to distort so im quick to blame it. I will see what this week-end brings. I will give you front seat to judge it mate.

rutt · September 12, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Doh ! Its to the sides like that were i see it start to distort so im quick to blame it. I will see what this week-end brings. I will give you front seat to judge it mate.

And let me sharpen a few from raw before you make any final judgements.

gus · September 12, 2005

rutt wrote:

And let me sharpen a few from raw before you make any final judgements.

ok..ebay can wait a week

I have been advised that f/5.6 is its best apature...can anyone comfirm what they recon it its from their experience ?

John Mueller · September 12, 2005

Here Gus a few test shots.

No sharpening applied.Some level and curve adjusments.

Andy · September 12, 2005

gus,

there is some variations in this lens from copy to copy, but in general, with the two that i've owned, i think that it's a darn neat lens to have, and i think you'd miss not having it. try shooting at 11, 12 or 13 mm, vs. fully wide at 10. make sure your shutter speeds are fast (1/250th and higher, to eliminate 100% the possiblity of camera shake)... check your focus point - you said f/5.6 i dig f/8 on this lens - and f/11 if on a tripod, for a landscape with max dof.

i got some really sharp shots with this lens, gus...

DavidTO · September 12, 2005

You could also try DxO

gus · September 13, 2005

John Mueller wrote:

Here Gus a few test shots.

No sharpening applied.Some level and curve adjusments.

They look fine john...what f/stop did you use & was it wide open or 11...12mm as andy suggested ?

gus · September 13, 2005

DavidTO wrote:

You could also try DxO

Ta David.

Will def take a butchers at the demo & see how it goes...bit steep though dont you recon ?

gus · September 13, 2005

andy wrote:

gus,

there is some variations in this lens from copy to copy, but in general, with the two that i've owned, i think that it's a darn neat lens to have, and i think you'd miss not having it. try shooting at 11, 12 or 13 mm, vs. fully wide at 10. make sure your shutter speeds are fast (1/250th and higher, to eliminate 100% the possiblity of camera shake)... check your focus point - you said f/5.6 i dig f/8 on this lens - and f/11 if on a tripod, for a landscape with max dof.

i got some really sharp shots with this lens, gus...

Thanks for the advice mate...will slow down & try the info & see how i go. I do like wide.

Gus

Matthew Saville · September 13, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Thanks for the advice mate...will slow down & try the info & see how i go. I do like wide.

Gus

'Tis folly to post an 800 pixel version of the whole shot and call a lens "not sharp"... Almost every shot posted here looks sharp as a tack, corner to corner.

PLEASE post a 100% crop EVERY time you want to demonstrate lens sharpness or lack therof. Posting a whole photo is only useful in demonstrating vignetting or lack therof, etc. etc.

-Matt-

gus · September 14, 2005

I will do what i feel like.

devbobo · September 14, 2005

Humungus wrote:

I will do what i feel like.

gus · September 14, 2005

& thats enough outta you !

I was lining you up to buy it.

marlof · September 14, 2005

At least Gus left the original image up on his site to view. Just replace the -L with -O in the linked image, and you can see it in full glory. Seeing that first image that way proofed that there is something wrong with the sharpness of that image. To me it looks like its beyond something that in post sharpening would really salvage, but other than Rutt I'm not known for any expertise in that area.

gus · September 14, 2005

marlof wrote:

At least Gus left the original image up on his site to view. Just replace the -L with -O in the linked image, and you can see it in full glory. Seeing that first image that way proofed that there is something wrong with the sharpness of that image. To me it looks like its beyond something that in post sharpening would really salvage, but other than Rutt I'm not known for any expertise in that area.

Thanks mate. I dont know what it is.If anyone calls those shots sharp then they need glasses. Is it something in my processing maybe ?

I am going to let rutt loose on it with some stuff i will take this week-end with a variety of f/stops etc.

devbobo · September 14, 2005

Humungus wrote:

& thats enough outta you !

I was lining you up to buy it.

It's funny, I was actually thinking....since ginger said to send her the lens to test out. Logistically it would have been easier for Andy to ship the lens that I bought from him to ginger and you ship ur lens to me.

gus · September 14, 2005

Mate i dont ever want to see any lens back that has had a trip with 0zzie Post.

Anyone else unhappy with the 10-22 ?

Comments