Canon EF-S 10-22mm, 3.5 - 4.5

[trossit]

Hi Room,

I just recenly bought a used by pristine Canon EF-S 10-22mm, 3.5 - 4.5 Super-wide -angle zoom lens off Ebay.  Not being experienced with the typical behavoris of super zoom lenses, are they supposed to be tack sharp like a 50mm prime or tele-zoom lens would be?  When taking a picture of citiscape with my focus on the buildings on the far background they dont come out very sharp.  I will include a sample photo.  Should they be as sharp as other types of lenses?  I will include a sample. 

[trossit]

Beautiful pictures Shadow!  Thanks for sharing.  The mansion is called Pittock Mansion built in 1914.  One of my favorite places overlooking downtown Portland, Oregon. 

[shadowsports]

Mine were taken in Liverpool UK, Chantilly France and Moscow Russia.  

[ebiggs1]

"At f/18 you are also getting into the region where diffraction is going to affect (negatively) your images. A shot like that should be on a tripod at f/8."

Exactly. I doubt the 1/50 SS was too much of an issue. The f18 was!  A very important aspect is how are the images going to be used? Are you just shooting for a computer monitor or printing or Facebook?

[trossit]

Hello ebiggs,

I was taking a few pictures today of a 1859 farmhouse and got much better results with the mid range f stop values. 1/160 at f10, 22mm.  Its still hard to read the text on the signs on the porch but I guess wide-angle lenses are not supposed to deliver this kind of detail. 

Thanks everyone!

[ebiggs1]

Yes you are up against the lens resolution ability. "1/160 at f10, 22mm", f10 is still too small aperture for the best IQ. I would limit it to f8 if you want better. Plus, put the focus point directly on the sign you deem important. Even at f8 or f5.6 you DOF is huge with a 22mm lens.

No matter what lens you ever use they all seem to be at their best stopped down one or two stops. Either way more open or more closed is not considered the sweet spot. But again it depends on what your intended use of the picture is.

Your shot is representative for a UWA lens like yours and is a nice photo. Reasonable IQ and nice colors. You can enhance it in post edit if you like. This is a simple levels adjustment in PS with a levels mask to enhance the sky a bit further. 

[trossit]

ebiggs,

Thanks for the critique and advice.  It helps a lot!  The enhancements you did to my photo look great.  I am currently using "RAW Therapy" as my post editor for RAW files.  Its a free piece of software, not sure if you heard of it.  It sets up similar ro PS Lightroom but obviously not as good.  I need to become more knowledgeable with all the adjustments in RT.  I usually just adjust saturation, contrast, over/under exposure, and use the Gradient Filter to get the sky and clouds to pop. I am still an infant to digital photography but learning and enjoying it more each day. 

[ebiggs1]

RAW Therapy is OK. I have tried it but I don't recommend it. It works so that's all that matters. I would prefer to see yo uin the free form Canon DPP4.

Not wanting to go the full blow Photoshop route, I don't blame you one bit but there is a PS alternative that is nearly as good.  It is Photoshop Elements. It is not free but it isn't expensive either. For hobbyists it is fine.

I didn't take any time with your photo which is good to begin with. That makes things easier. Just a levels adjustment and a mask on the sky with a levels adjustment there. Might have taken 3 minutes.

If you are in to post editing make sure you shoot Raw. I encourage you to get DPP4, too. Using Raw most things can be altered or corrected. One thing that can not be fixed is IQ and lens resolution. You must have that from the get go.

[jrhoffman75]

I concur with Ernie's recommendation to use Canon DPP.

It's a seamless process when shooting RAW; just download the file and open it in DPP. Any and all camera setting you might have applied, like custom white balance or user modified Picture Styles are reflected in the image that appears.

Unlike a JPEG, you can easily change any of those parameters.

Also, shooting RAW allows you to use the Canon Digital lens Optimization (DLO) to in DPP.

Digital Lens Optimizer: Taking Image Quality to Greater Heights (canon-asia.com)

After you do all your global editing in DPP you can configure the software to transfer a TIFF file to Raw Therapee (if that is your choice) for local editing like a linear gradient.

As an example of why your lens focal length is not the controlling factor in why you can't read some of the letters on the sign, here is a set of images captures at different focal lengths. The photographer changed the distance between the camera and the subject to keep the subject size the same. The same size object in an image covers the same amount of pixels in the camera; the number of pixels per person controls how the subject eyes look (putting aside lens quality differences).

[trossit]

ebiggs,

Thanks for the tip on Canon DPP4.  I downloaded the software and used it last night and it was fast and effective.  My only issue with it I did not find a "Graduated Filter" as seen in RAW Theoropy which I find effective in calming down over-exposed sky's.  In DPP4 you mentioned you apply a mask for the sky.  Did you mean the function called "Set Adjustment Area? 

I took some more pictures yesterday and my expectations for wide angle lenses may have me over-blown.  I will try to attach 2 pics what I feel WA lenses are strong at and what they are not strong at.  Curious if you agree.

1 - Picture of sailboat just off the shore that is much closer to the photographer...better detail.

2 - Picture taken from a bridge of a far away cityscape - lacks sharpness and detail.

[trossit]

jr,

Thanks for the information.  I want to add I am using an older body 30D with 8.2 mp sensor.  Couild this be a major factor in my WA lens sharpness factor?