sorin_julman Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Hi,First time post here... I've had the Canon 10-22 a week now (on the 40D) and tend to notice two things:1. Sharpness...or the lack off...especially if you get away from the center at wider apertures but even not very good in the center at smaller apertures. Everything speaking at 10-12mm. Once you get into the 20-22mm the center is almost pefect but still some softness in coners.And that is at 100% view. For normal 5x7, 8x10 - everything looks good.Is this a concern? 2. It seems to underexposure. Not sure because with other two lenses (Sigma 30 f1.4 and 70-200 f4 IS) - exposures are usually very good. But with the 10-22 especially on the wide end - I find in Aperure Priority to have to dial in +1/3 or even +2/3 to get it right. Interesting - in Manual I can get it better... Any thoughts? Thanks for your timeSorin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdanmitchell Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Seeing a sample posted here will help us answer your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny_mac Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I have had excellent results with the lens. From the reviews it would seem that your experience is not typical. Maybe at 10mm the corners are softer but the rest is great for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekoppel Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I have the 10-22mm and I think it's a great lens. It's very difficult to find super wide glass that is sharp wide open. I'm thinking f/5.6 or f/8 is the sweet spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jo7hs2 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Post examples shot wide open and preferably also at f/5.6 or f/8 please. Tell us how the shots were taken, w/tripod, w/MLU, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stock-Photos Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Most super wides are soft, in varying degrees, away from the center. If you're getting under exposed images, is it only with that lens? Have you tried others? If not, make sure your exposure compensation is set at 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorin_julman Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 Here are some at 10mm - first at f3.5 http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2196/2201334836_7a160376b7_o.jpg second - same thing at f7.1 http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2359/2201334716_6025b6c10f_o.jpg This one is at 22mm - f4.5 - anyway better http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2010/2200540303_3e4fa01404_o.jpg Another center crop (just aprox - not 100%) at 10mm f16 - should be sharp? http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2320/2202394062_516268bd30_o.jpg Thanks for your input. Sorin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_green4 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Sorin those look pretty bad. there's a ton of CA in the upper right corner. all corners are very soft. upper right is softer than other corners. this is not typical of the 10-22 (or any lens that costs more than $400). you have a bad copy. replace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorin_julman Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 To Joshua....no, they were all handheld. I will do some tests as you suggested as well (I did actually those with my 70-200 f4 IS) Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorin_julman Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 Hi Alan, That's exactly what I thought...Thanks for the input Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrymorgan Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 In fairness to the lens, this is not a good test. The wall at bottom left is very close, and everything else is much further away. Did you use a tripod? Did you focus manually or autofocus? What did you focus on? Also, the final shot is at f/16, so diffraction will reduce sharpness. However, I do find that I need dial in about 1/3 - 2/3 stop more exposure compensation with my 10-22 that with my other lenses. It doesn't bother me because I always use exposure compensation to ensure that my histogram is as far to the right as possible. But I do notice the difference. I've used two copies of this lens, and both required more exposure compensation than my other lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lester_wareham Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Ultra wide angles always tend to have some corner softness wide open, that is part and parcel of extreme retro focus designs. So this is normal for this lens. If you stop the lens down the corners will sharpen up quickly and peak around f8 to f11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorin_julman Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 To Gerry - no, those were quick handheld tests...during the lunchbreak at work. However good that I know you also have to overexpose a bit. To Lester - I knew about "some" corner softness...didn't expext THAT much though. I'll do some more controlled tests tonight or tomorrow. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Try focusing manualy it could be something with your focusing points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stock-Photos Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I agree with Gerry that the sample images are not made in the best conditions for corner sharpness. Use a tripod on a sunny day with all image content equidistant from the lens. Then decide if corner sharpness is a real problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I've had my 10-22 for a couple years and am still happy - the only lens I use. <P> <a href= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images25/2008-1-12/">Here's some pix</a> from last Saturday... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_green4 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Sorin i'm changing my mind. did not realize the test shots were hand held. at 10mm, hand held, the corners can turn to mush. i vote for another test. use tripod, mlu, timer release (10 second delay, not 2 second), lens hood, and use flat subject. let's take another look the 10-22 is very quirky under bad conditions (as are all ultra-wide zooms) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_houtmeyers Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 The first two pictures are taken very close to the brick wall. You need a smaller aperture than f3.5 or f7.1 to get the depht of field from a few feet to infinity....even at 10mm.If you do the same test again at f11 you will get increased sharpness on things that are only a few feet away. For a ultra wide angle this lens performs very well. The more expensive 14mm2.8L prime or 16-35mm 2.8L are not better. Dont know about the newer 16-35mm2.8LII though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_rowe Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 There is nothing wrong with your lens. The 10-22mm does not have corner softness like you think - it has field curvature. Try this - go out and take another shot like your first ones but this time set to manual focus and put the focus on the line at the start of the infinity mark. Now look at the corners and let us know what you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorin_julman Posted January 23, 2008 Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 I did some other shots, still it was freezing cold...so couldn't use tripod, however, this is a shot taken from an utility pedestal: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2357/2208021541_0879e8852a_o.jpg and here some others - handheld though, AF: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2243/2208817736_3f6fc482f3_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2309/2208022693_ea352d7fdb_o.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2137/2208816704_8e87e107e9_o.jpg f8: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2414/2208819630_2f1df1484f_o.jpg f3.5: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2160/2208024057_cd7763bbd2_o.jpg However, I think 22mm is so much better - in my eyes - than 10mm http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2269/2208023355_bfc1a3702d_o.jpg f4.5: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2208024273_baed46bb4b_o.jpg f8: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2120/2208820320_cf036595ef_o.jpg in-house at f6.3 http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2237/2208814336_a684374ce0_o.jpg ...or the truth is that I never shot before at 10mm (or 16mm FF equivalent) and perhaps I'm expecting too much? Or at all - do I need to check everything at 100%? Because if looking up to 50%-66% everything looks pretty good. I'm not doing posters...yet...the largest I ever printed was 11x14...so for this to be good...what equivalent of screen size (50%, 66%, etc) would I need to check. Thanks for your time Sorin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 What size is your screen? If it's around 11x14" (mine is around 10" x 12" of display space), then just fill the screen. Actually, if you want to see how an 11x14 print looks, get an 11x14 print made. Video screens are different from prints. If you don't want to waste ink and paper, just print a 4x6 section of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorin_julman Posted January 24, 2008 Author Share Posted January 24, 2008 Thanks Bob, You're right about wasting ink and paper..:-)...The thing is printing 4x6 or 5x7 gives very good results...My question was if this should be the criteria of evaluating a lens - or only 100% on screen? Sorin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lester_wareham Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I agree with Bob, the resolution requirements for 10X8 are fairly light, almost any correctly focused lens will look good. 100% crop information, or more stringently SRF/MTF testing will show up a lot of small variations in performance that are not significant or noticeable in real world situations. The mistake most people make is they expect perfection from corner to corner, part of this is the psychology of the digital age - everything is expected to be perfect. People looking at 100% crops lack a baseline and don't know what to expect, thus they expect too much in many cases IMHO. In real life situations DOF and not using tripod will limit IQ much more than the glass. In my case I did an interesting exercise of taking 100% crops from various lens tests with known 50% SRF values and printing these at different print sizes. Then evaluating this at normal viewing distances and under a loupe, it helps give me some perspective. http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Understanding.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now