Whats going on here?

[UniSonBBS]

Ive been trying to figure it out, but I am not sure what is going on here. I am by far an amature photographer. This is only my first "REAL" SLR camera Ive had. But I purchased a Sigma 70-200 EX lens and I am getting results like this about 50% of the time. Whats going on here. It looks perfect when I snap it.

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/307softsample1.jpg?6197

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/307softsample2.jpg?2241

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/307softsample3.jpg?1609

My fiancee said it looks like its dreamy. I usually get these results at f/2.8 with 500-2000th of a second shutter. Lots of flowers, etc have a large halo around the subject and usually totally out of focus. Camera says its focused and looks focused. Whats wrong? I also have to do alot of post processing after my pictures (color, contrast, etc) anyone have camera settings they have found that works well in that subject?

Any help would be great.

(Maybe I should have gotten that Canon 70-200 L lens, instead of getting this huh...) If my pictures are not showing, the website I go through seems to be having troubles.

[mwinog2777]

Can't see your pictures.

[Belmondo]

mwinog2777 wrote:
Can't see your pictures.




Ditto

[mattchase]

Also can't see the photos, but have one thought. You mention you shoot at f2.8, and that you have halos, things are out of focus, and have a dreamy look to them. I would say that to an extent, this is a normal factor of shooting things at f2.8. (emphasis on "to an extent") You also say you shoot at 500th - 2000th shutter, which leads me to believe the scenes can be bright, which might indicate flare.

At 2.8, especially with a longer focal length, your depth of field is going to be extremely shallow, and you are more prone to flare because of the large aperture especially if there is a light of light or bright objects in the scene (the light is bouncing off of everything in the lens when you are wide open). The focus will fall off pretty quickly moving from the center out to the edges, and this can sometimes make things look like they were shot through a fog or mist filter, giving that dreamy look.

This isn't to say that you should always expect these results, nor that this is the problem you are having. I have the same Sigma lens, and have shot many sporting events with it where I was at f2.8, 1/500th shutter, and got great results. My depth of field was very short, which was the biggest problem, leading many images to be out of focus because things were just moving so fast. But many other images were fine, such as...

http://www.coredistortion.com/8_sportspage/unlv/UNLV9-19-03_31.JPG
(more at http://www.coredistortion.com)

Also check out this page I put up, comparing the Sigma and Canon lenses. This was a very simple test, to compare sharpness more than anything else. I and others plan to do more testing of these two lenses in the future.
http://www.matthewchase.com/tests/canon_sigma/index.html

[UniSonBBS]

Yeah sorry about the pictures, Im not sure why the place I uploaded them to had a problem with them. However I deleted them and replaced them with the exact file and they seem to work fine now. Odd.

[defordphoto]

Wow! Those look absolutely horrible! Is there any way we can see one that hasn't been post-processed except for resizing?

You have some serious issues there. Make sure your camera settings are at factory default. Reset the camera. Do you have another lens? If not, take your camera to a local store and 'try' out another lens to see if you get the same results.

I have to say those are probably the worst pictures I have seen out of a 10D yet. Looks like there's plastic film of some sort over the front of the lens. Inspect the lens too. There's something very funky going on with this setup and you need to determine whether it's the lens (first suspect) or the camera.

[Pekka]

If you don't get sharp, contrasty and generally ok looking photos AT ALL with any lens, then the camera may be faulty. But if you do get good ones 50% of time, then you should pay attention to aperture and mm of those bad shots - is there a pattern?

By the look of the photos I'd say you have a lemon lens. If those bad shots do have a pattern lens could be calibrated by repair - if they are all over apertures and mm then an exchange may be in order.

[Littlebike]

Take a photo on Autofocus then immediately take another using manual focus and see which one is sharper, or if there is a difference at all.

Are you using the Auto settings or Aperature Priority when taking these?

[CyberDyneSystems]

These do look awfull... hazy out of focus :(

I have the 70-200EX and it can be sharp as a tack. So something is definately wrong,...

...one thing that strikes me as odd though.
All your examples are extreme close-ups if not macro shots. The 70-200mm EX has the longest minimum focus distance of any lens I have used (I think it is seven feet!)

You may be just too close to the subject for it to focus?

[Belmondo]

The best suggestion so far is to try that lens on a different camera, and try another lens on your camera. That will tell you pretty quickly where your problem lies. Based only on the images, however, it's about 99% certain that the problem lies with your lens. Even the picture that's most in focus (the bee) has a lot of chromatic aberration which suggests a problem beyond the primary focus of the lens---perhaps a loose or misaligned element inside the lens.

Good luck. 10D photography is supposed to be more fun than this.

Tom

[BobbyC]

The one with the bee also looks like a fogged lense after moving the camera outside from a cool indoors, could that have happened?

[DonCoon]

It would help to know what distance and focal length are you using.

I think the specs for this lens list a minimum distance of 6 feet.

At 6 feet f/2.8 these are the depths of field you can expect:

70mm 2.75 inches
135mm

[soumya63]

This definitely looked like a fogged lens or I wonder if you have accidentally smeared the front element with your body grease? Please clean the front element or the filter attached to the lens and retry. Also check the rear element. Hope this may solve the issue.

Soumya

http://www.mitraphoto.com

[Mark Kemp]

two suggestions

1 - are you sure that you are farther away than the minimum focussing distance of the lens?

2 - f2.8 at 1/2000th is pretty extreme, try using f8 or f11 and a slower shutter and see what it looks like then. Not because you want the picture, but as a test. You may get camera shake, but you may also learn more about what is happening.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oh yes,. for gods sake stop that lens down out on a sunny afternoon! :)

Also what ISO are you set at? Just curious,.

[UniSonBBS]

THanks for all your help guys... For the few questions you guys had, here are some answers.

1. I am positive that my lens was not fogged/smeared at all. When the photographs where taken, it was completely focused to my eye and camera has determand that indeed it was focused.

2. I am pretty sure that I wasnt right on the boarder of the max closeness of the focus. I would continue to back up until the camera knew for sure it was in focus.

Here are the specs of the pictures taken. In order top to bottom.

The Bee:

Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/4000
Av( Aperture Value )
3.5
Exposure Compensation
-1/2
ISO Speed
200

-------------------
The Flowers:

Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/500
Av( Aperture Value )
4.5
Exposure Compensation
-1/2
ISO Speed
400

--------------------
The Rope:

Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/180
Av( Aperture Value )
2.8
Exposure Compensation
+1/2
ISO Speed
100

--------------------

Im pretty sure these where all taken at 200mm. To be honest, if there is anything wrong, I am hoping its either me, or the camera. Where I bought the camera at bestbuy with warrenty, I can just take the body back, and get a new one. They dont attempt to fix it in any way. Its almost dark outside, but Ill do some testing tonight where I can get some bright lighting.

[ChrisNardone]

I agree with Mark, it looks like you are inside the minimum focusing distance, or you are locking focus and then changing subject distance.

[MediaMagic]

UniSonBBS wrote:


Here are the specs of the pictures taken. In order top to bottom.

The Bee:

Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/4000
Av( Aperture Value )
3.5
Exposure Compensation
-1/2
ISO Speed
200

-------------------
The Flowers:

Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/500
Av( Aperture Value )
4.5
Exposure Compensation
-1/2
ISO Speed
400

--------------------
The Rope:

Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/180
Av( Aperture Value )
2.8
Exposure Compensation
+1/2
ISO Speed
100

--------------------

Im pretty sure these where all taken at 200mm. .



Do you have some kind of filter attached? I can't see the original post now in the reply to check. If you do, take it off before further testing, even if it's just a UV or Haze filter.

On my 100-400L, if I shoot anything at 400mm it's a bit soft. If I shoot at 400mm at less than f8 it gets quite a bit softer, and, if I open up all the way, the shots become throwaways. They're not as soft as the ones you are getting, but definately terrible. If I really want to get the shot, I shorten the zoom to around 350. I also have a Tamron 28-200 and its characteristics are the same at maximum zoom.

I think the rule of thumb for any zoom lens is that if you go out to maximum zoom, it's very important to have the aperture in that particular len's sweet spot. On my copy of the 100-400 it's at f8 (most are f11 from what I hear). Surprisingly though, my 24-70L is very clean throughout all zooms and aperture settings. This is the first zoom lens I've seen with this level of performance. I'm not sure if I received an extraordinary copy or if this is characteristic of all 24-70's.

Switch to Av mode and step to f8 and smaller, back away from the minimum focus distance, and see what happens. You should notice a major improvement. You'll probably still see softness in the shot at full zoom, but if you are still seeing results like those above, it's time to look at an exchange.

Take care,
David

[DonCoon]

UniSonBBS wrote:

2. I am pretty sure that I wasnt right on the boarder of the max closeness of the focus. I would continue to back up until the camera knew for sure it was in focus.




The camera will register a focus closer than the minimum specs for the lens.

For example, my 28-135 has a minimum focus of 1.64 feet but it will register focus as close as 8 inches.

Even if you were beyond the minimum range of 6 feet, at 200mm f/2.8 your depth of feild would only be 1/4"

That's means from 1/8" in front of your target to 1/8" into your target will appear to be in focus.

[UniSonBBS]

Hello,

Well I did some minor testing to try to understand what is going on. I guess if I want to take pictures of objects up close with this lens 6-10ft then I should set it to say f/5.6-11ish? I did a small DOF setup with some small items from about 8ft away from the lens. The shutter speeds where obviously not that high, but here is what I got from f/2.8 (Item in focus, white cap of salt shaker) 100% cropped to this area.

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/307testimage1.jpg?798

Shooting Mode
Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/8
Av( Aperture Value )
2.8
Metering Mode
Evaluative
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
100
Lens
70.0 - 200.0 mm
Focal Length
200.0 mm

------------------------------------

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/307testimage2.jpg?798


Shooting Mode
Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
0.5
Av( Aperture Value )
5.6
Metering Mode
Evaluative
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
100
Lens
70.0 - 200.0 mm
Focal Length
200.0 mm

---------------------------------

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/307testimage3.jpg?798

Shooting Mode
Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
2
Av( Aperture Value )
11
Metering Mode
Evaluative
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
100
Lens
70.0 - 200.0 mm
Focal Length
200.0 mm

------------------------------

Looks to improve (the bleeding of whites) as the higher my fstop goes. This is probably a no brainer to most, but is this what I should exspect? I guess maybe I dont fully understand what the hole f2.8 is supposed to do for me other then faster shutter and narrow DOF. I guess if I want to use the f/2.8, make sure Im not doing macro or close up photography huh? I can no think of any pictures that I have that are that have that "fog/dream" look of picture of landscapes, objects far away, its always been subjects where I wanted to get the detail. Am I thinking in the right direction?

[defordphoto]

Ahhhh...now things are making sense. Try taking a normal/non-macro, outdoor photo like of a tree or a bike or a child or something. I think that lens and the camera is okay. It looks like you're trying to shoot macro with a lens that can't do macro.

You'll need extension tubes to do that, or get a macro lens.

[UniSonBBS]

I will bring my camera to work tomorrow with full battery and do some shooting during my lunch time. By the time I get home, its pretty much dark. Ill preform similar testing and see how it does.

Thanks for everyone's help so far to see what you can do for this new guy that thinks he knows what hes doing... hehe

[UniSonBBS]

Now this could be kind of a no brainer but Im not sure and thats why I am asking I guess. Even though my lens isnt ment for macro, should I be shooting in macro mode when I am focusing near the closest focal range? I just did a quick few shots with it in Macro vs. Normal and dont see much difference, but outside with som real light could possibly make a difference? Please let me know if I should be doing this. The book doesnt say it HAS to be a macro, but I dont get any gain in closeness using macro, but maybe its clarity instead?

Also good question for myself to know.

-- Do you all like to shoot in
a. One Shot Mode
b. AI Focus
c. AI Servo

Ive never used either of the AI's, and maybe the AI Servo maybe a good thing for me? Considering sometimes I take pictures of bird in the air, animals, etc?

[DonCoon]

UniSonBBS wrote:
Now this could be kind of a no brainer but Im not sure and thats why I am asking I guess. Even though my lens isnt ment for macro, should I be shooting in macro mode when I am focusing near the closest focal range? I just did a quick few shots with it in Macro vs. Normal and dont see much difference, but outside with som real light could possibly make a difference? Please let me know if I should be doing this. The book doesnt say it HAS to be a macro, but I dont get any gain in closeness using macro, but maybe its clarity instead?



If you use Macro Mode - actually "Closeup Mode" - you lose control of ISO, White Balance, AF point selection, Metering mode and Flash mode -- plus others. In closeup Mode the camera defaults to ISO = 100, AWB, Auto AF point selection, Evaluative metering and Auto Flash.

I seldom use any of the Basic modes for that reason,

I have my 10D set to center point AF at all times to minimize focusing hassles. ISO, White Balance and metering mode should be set to fit the setting. For example, if you need to shoot at f8 but the light is marginal, try ISO 400. The 10D does very well with ISOs above 100.

Enjoy!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Russell,.

I just went to repeat your experiment,. I was 8 feet from a small split of "knob creek" bourbon on my counter @ f/2.8 on my 70-200mm Sigma mounted to a 10D.


My results look a lot like yours above. Looks fine throught the viewfinder but in fact is 'poopy" on screen. Reducing aperture sharpens things up quite nicely.

I guess despite a thousand or so shgots with this lens I have never tried to shoot so close at 200mm f/2.8 before. So I take back what I said,. I think your lens is "normal"

p.s. I have used this lens with macro extension rings,. and like the results. You do have to stop down to get any depth of feild though.

[MediaMagic]

UniSonBBS wrote:
Hello,

Well I did some minor testing to try to understand what is going on. I guess if I want to take pictures of objects up close with this lens 6-10ft then I should set it to say f/5.6-11ish?

Am I thinking in the right direction?

Yes, this is what should happen. Your shots have cleaned up considerably stepping into the sweet spot of the lens. Now, I think you have shots that can be sharpened in photoshop. When you shoot at full zoom, your shots will be a two step process. You get them as clean as you can out of the camera and then use a software sharpening tool. They are still a tad soft out of the camera but you can enhance them a little more using the Unsharp Mask filter (or some other sharpening method).

You can also use extention tubes or close-up filters to decrease the minimum focus distance but you'll lose infinity focus with close-up attachments.

Your shots should get even cleaner if you drop back to say 175mm.

Good luck,
David


you also might try the in camera sharpening. I've never used it but if you don't want to take the time to sharpen in software, it may give you good results.

[Mark Kemp]

This is why I don't understand what the fuss about f2.8 lenses is all about.

Allegedly 'fast glass' is superior, but its not at its best at wide apertures and the depth of field is virtually zero - see the above images.

So why pay a massive premium for an f2.8 lens?

[Belmondo]

Mark Kemp wrote:
This is why I don't understand what the fuss about f2.8 lenses is all about.

Allegedly 'fast glass' is superior, but its not at its best at wide apertures and the depth of field is virtually zero - see the above images.

So why pay a massive premium for an f2.8 lens?



To impress your friends. That's all.

(When you can't impress them with your pictures, do it with your equipment.)

[Belmondo]

Mark Kemp wrote:
This is why I don't understand what the fuss about f2.8 lenses is all about.

Allegedly 'fast glass' is superior, but its not at its best at wide apertures and the depth of field is virtually zero - see the above images.

So why pay a massive premium for an f2.8 lens?



To impress your friends. That's all.

(When you can't impress them with your pictures, do it with your equipment.)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Mark Kemp wrote:
This is why I don't understand what the fuss about f2.8 lenses is all about.

Allegedly 'fast glass' is superior, but its not at its best at wide apertures and the depth of field is virtually zero - see the above images.

So why pay a massive premium for an f2.8 lens?

It does have it's applications. Clearly using a 200mm telephoto to do Macro shots @ f/2.8 isn't one of them!

I use my 70-200mm @ 200mm f/2.8 often for shooting in a dark theatre. The large aperture is an absolute must,. and you'd be amazed how much better the same lenses images are when you bcak up to 20' or so.

200mm @ f/2.8 800 ISO

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=544771&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[DaveG]

There is something going on with those first soft images. Even a Coke bottle should be sharper than that!

Perhaps there's a bad filter on the lens or maybe a lens element has shifted. As far as that goes, the softness "look" is remarkably like what my Mamiya 145 soft lens yields, and that's achieved by rotating the front element in order to introduce some kind of aberation.

But I can say - without doubt - that my Nikkor 180 f2.8, 300 f2.8 and now my Canon 70- 200 f2.8L are very sharp at f2.8. I shoot a lot of sports and these lenses are excellent wide open. Now at f4 would the 70-200 f4 be sharper than the 70-200 f2.8? Possibly, but now make the f4 a f2.8. That one stop is often critical for shooting sports and the increased shutterspeed will off set the very slight - if any - reduction in sharpness.

[Mark Kemp]

Ok I'm impressed - a depth of field big enough for most of her to be in reasonable focus at f2.8 on a 200mm!!!

I would have guessed that the dof would have been much smaller than that.

Thanks for the demo.