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 :)

https://preview.ibb.co/iau9gF/IMG_9686.jpg

https://preview.ibb.co/fHFt8v/IMG_9695.jpg

[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 (http://www.canon.com.au/) 10-18mm lens (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=New_To_Photography:Using_different_lenses)

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.

https://preview.ibb.co/iau9gF/IMG_9686.jpg
Canon 650D, Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS @ 10mm, f8, ISO100

https://preview.ibb.co/fHFt8v/IMG_9695.jpg
Canon 650D, Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS @ 10mm, f8, ISO100

https://preview.ibb.co/g8KpWF/IMG_9700.jpg
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:rolleyes:.

[Cage]

Hi Anthony,

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

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. :Doh:

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.


130234130235130236

[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. :nod:

This is a quick edit with the above suggestions.

130239

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. :nod:

This is a quick edit with the above suggestions.

130239

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:D:D

[anthonyk]

Cage left the GAS on and overcooked it:D:D

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. :confused013

130240

PS: Maybe I need new glasses. :lol2:

[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. :confused013

130240
PS: Maybe I need new glasses. :lol2:

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:D:D

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.

130241130242130243

[ameerat42]

Kev. I gave you 2 :D:Ds 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.

[anthonyk]

Kev. I gave you 2 :D:Ds 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:confused013

- - - 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:confused013

- - - 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.:th3:

[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.:th3:

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? :D

[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? :D

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:p:p

[Warbler]

Gee, Warbs, you're slipping:p:p

And you pretend to be a moderator?

- - - Updated - - -

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