Is this Lens Sharp? (100% crops included)

Fujifilm XF 23mm f/2 R WR

05/25/2007 01:48:00 PM · #1

Hey all, I've just been testing a new sigma lens I got, and I can't figure out if this is "too soft"? I've put some crops below at f/4 and f/8 @10mm... are these acceptable levels of sharpness? or do I have a soft copy? I just can't seem to decide... maybe i'm just being picky :P...

Opinions please... (these are all RAW images put through photoshop, with sharpness at 0, and 100% crops posted). I've also included the whole image in case anyone wants to check them out...

F/4
center

left

right

F/8
center

left

Full Image Links:
//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/51020/orig/520012.jpg
//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/51020/orig/520016.jpg

Message edited by author 2007-05-25 13:48:45.

bassbone

Nikon Df

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

05/25/2007 01:53:57 PM · #2

No - these are not sharp. Did you take this on a tripod or freehand?

Originally posted by diablo2097:

Message edited by author 2007-05-25 13:54:54.

aznym

Fujifilm X-T3

05/25/2007 01:54:56 PM · #3

It looks pretty bad to me.

MrEd

Sony DSLR-A100

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Minolta

05/25/2007 01:55:46 PM · #4

Originally posted by pccjrose:

No - these are not sharp. Did you take this on a tripod or freehand?

What shutter speed, zoom range did you use?

Added: Which lens?

Message edited by author 2007-05-25 13:56:12.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

05/25/2007 01:56:24 PM · #5

That's pretty much what mine are like, but I can't afford to splash out on pricey lenses.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

05/25/2007 01:58:06 PM · #6

If you're focus point was right in the middle then the sharpness is not acceptable.

What are they like at f11 or f16?

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

05/25/2007 02:01:53 PM · #7

What the freak happend to that church? These shots look horrid!

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

05/25/2007 02:07:32 PM · #8

This is a 100% crop of center of a RAW file from the tokina fisheye I have - the least sharp lens I own. I think your f4 shots are soft.

pineapple

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

05/25/2007 02:10:31 PM · #9

You're speaking about the Sigma 10-20mm??? If so, this review for one seems to suggest the lens might perform better - but then again, you might have had the caffeine shakes ;-)

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

05/25/2007 05:55:01 PM · #10

If this is the Sigma 10-20, and you're doing everything else right (camera's not moving, focus is correct, etc), I'd return it and try again. You probably just have a bad example of that lens. I got a 12-24 Tokina a few weeks ago that's miles sharper than that. (Sorry, I'm at work, nothing available to show and tell.)

ssodell

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical HF for Canon

05/25/2007 06:04:07 PM · #11

Yes I agree they are blurred. Should be sharper than that. Is that a fisheye lens?

FireBird

05/25/2007 07:02:47 PM · #12

Originally posted by MrEd:

Originally posted by pccjrose:
No - these are not sharp. Did you take this on a tripod or freehand?

What shutter speed, zoom range did you use?

Added: Which lens?

EXIF info indicates F4, 1/1250 second shutter. ISO 100 and lens at 10mm. I doubt there was any shake problem involved.

EDIT: second shot 1/320th second, F8

Message edited by author 2007-05-25 19:05:20.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/25/2007 07:13:57 PM · #13

Would like to see them sharpened per Canon's recommendation before passing judgement (0.3 radius, 300% strength).

FireBird

05/25/2007 07:16:42 PM · #14

I had this lens. There are bad copies out there. Mine was pretty bad. I traded mine for something else. I see some very good shots here with that lens. I'd love to have a good copy. I just don't want to go to the expense and time of sorting through their stock to get a good copy. I also can't affort 3xthe cost for the nikkor 12-24.

EDIT: You might want to check the clock setting in your camera. I think it's ahead a bit.

EDIT: Never mind, you're in OZ. LOL I haven't even started drinking for the holiday yet!

Message edited by author 2007-05-25 19:20:06.

05/25/2007 09:12:50 PM · #15

hey all, thanks for the awesomely quick feedback :P I knew "bad copies" are an issue with this lens, so I bought locally, so swapping it over isn't an issue... gonna go harrass the camera store today...

yes, the lens is a Sigma 10-20mm... And no i didn't use a tripod shots were handheld, as shutter speeds were pretty dam high... and focus was dead on the church using center point AF... I didn't use hyperfocal points or anything to make sure the church would be as sharp as possible without user error. oh, and of the two large pictures, the first is f/4, second f/8... I only stopped down to f/8 as picture should be sharp by then

Message edited by author 2007-05-25 21:26:04.

crayon

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH1

05/25/2007 09:18:19 PM · #16

they looke softer than my panasonic. handheld?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/25/2007 09:26:49 PM · #17

yep... handheld... but f/4 shots were at 1/320...i highly doubt shake is an issue at that shutter for this focal length...

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

05/25/2007 09:39:48 PM · #18

Not good. Did you take all the plastic wrappings off before shooting? : )
If you had a filter of any kind on it, I would also suspect the filter.
I have an old Sigma 400 that is a little soft about C A, and contrast compared to the Nikon ED lenses. I would think that a new lens should have much better sharpness and contrast when shooting with the light as good as it was for your images. I would see about exchanging it.
I enjoy the old Sigma 15 fisheye that I have it shoots beautiful, sharp and contrasty images when I shoot with it. I used it today.

bfox2

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/25/2007 09:55:25 PM · #19

My 10-20 was awesome, I never had any problems with sharpness. If this is what all of your shots are coming out like i'd say its the lens.