Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 24 Jan 2014 (Friday) 13:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 DC HSM driving me mad

 
Xscaper
Hatchling
7 posts
Joined Jan 2014
     
Jan 24, 2014 13:48 |  #1

Hi Guys, New member here and a bit of a newbie in the mad world of photography as well.

I have a 650D and this 2 month old Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 DC HSM is driving me a bit crazy. I concede that i was a little paranoid about getting a "bad" copy even before i purchased one. Maybe it's that or a valid reason but i do not feel completely satisfied with the results i am getting with it. I have put up a few sample images on Flickr.

http://www.flickr.com …5/sets/72157640​117729855/ (external link)

All photos were handheld. The Exif data is included in the links.

Admittedly i was initially using the widest apertures (beach pictures) and later switched to narrower apertures(Cricket match)
I hope someone who's used this lens extensively could look at the images and advise me regarding the IQ. I even took it to the shop i bought it from because i was concerned about the general "softness" of the images. They took a couple of shots of a close object and said it was fine after looking at the LCD :confused:

I am essentially trying to determine if this lens needs to go back to Sigma for calibration or not. Please help! Thanks.

EDIT: Some further testing based on advice received in this thread. A tripod was also used. Please see link below

http://www.flickr.com …5/sets/72157640​314315856/ (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
dpds68
Goldmember
Avatar
1,464 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2008
Location: Trinidad and Tobago W.I.
     
Jan 24, 2014 14:09 |  #2

Do you have a filter on it ?

David


Gripped Canon 7D,20D,XT / Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, Canon 85mm f1.8 , 70-200 2.8L,EF50mm1.8 II,Sigma 150-500mm OS, Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6
Vivitar285Hv x2,Canon430EX,Nissin Di866,CTR-301P Triggers,
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dpds68/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
maverick75
Cream of the Crop
5,717 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 620
Joined May 2012
Location: Riverside,California
     
Jan 24, 2014 14:14 |  #3

Where are you focusing with your AF point?

like in the foreground, middle or background?

The in focus parts looks really good and sharp.


- Alex Corona Sony A7, Canon 7DM2/EOS M, Mamiya 645/67
Flickr (external link) - 500px (external link) - Website (external link)- Feedback -Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dpds68
Goldmember
Avatar
1,464 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2008
Location: Trinidad and Tobago W.I.
     
Jan 24, 2014 14:19 |  #4

^^^^ Ahhh that may be it a ultra wide has so much in view it's important to focus on what you want to highlight in that scene , guess that's why they say with a UW "Get close" .

David


Gripped Canon 7D,20D,XT / Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, Canon 85mm f1.8 , 70-200 2.8L,EF50mm1.8 II,Sigma 150-500mm OS, Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6
Vivitar285Hv x2,Canon430EX,Nissin Di866,CTR-301P Triggers,
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dpds68/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,750 posts
Gallery: 1984 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 12035
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jan 24, 2014 14:53 |  #5

Xscaper wrote in post #16633358 (external link)
Hi Guys, New member here and a bit of a newbie in the mad world of photography as well.

I have a 650D and this 2 month old Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 DC HSM is driving me a bit crazy. I concede that i was a little paranoid about getting a "bad" copy even before i purchased one. Maybe it's that or a valid reason but i do not feel completely satisfied with the results i am getting with it. I have put up a few sample images on Flickr.

http://www.flickr.com …5/sets/72157640​117729855/ (external link)

All photos were handheld. The Exif data is included in the links.

Admittedly i was initially using the widest apertures (beach pictures) and later switched to narrower apertures(Cricket match)
I hope someone who's used this lens extensively could look at the images and advise me regarding the IQ. I even took it to the shop i bought it from because i was concerned about the general "softness" of the images. They took a couple of shots of a close object and said it was fine after looking at the LCD :confused:

I am essentially trying to determine if this lens needs to go back to Sigma for calibration or not. Please help! Thanks.

Heya,

Wide open, it's not going to be as sharp as when stopped down. Focus to infinity. I'm not sure how you achieved focus, but overall, it looks fine to me, but looks a touch soft around the edges (normal) with distortion, and the center areas look the sharpest. If you did not, I would recommend you focus to infinity manually. Do not use autofocus unless you're trying to focus on something in the foreground specifically. For landscape, big scenes, etc, you want to stop down to F8 or F11, manually focus to infinity, and you're good to go.

Looking at all your images, the beach ones, the trees are soft. But other things are sharp. This tells me it's not the lens, but rather, your focusing and the fact that it's wide open aperture, not stopped down.

Looking at the stadium, the center stuff is sharp (antennae, edges of building, etc), but the peripheral stuff is softer. That's probably the lens a bit and that's due to distortion and all, maybe. I'm not positive on this one.

Did you use autofocus, or did you manually focus to infinity? I would suggest you use LiveView, magnification 10x, and manually focus on something distant (tree line, building edge) for sharpness. Call that infinity for your shots. And leave it set to manual so autofocus doesn't change it. If it's still soft, pitch the lens, get something sharper (10-22mm Canon, 14mm Rokinon/Samyang, 11-16mm Tokina, etc).

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WaterVsAnchor
Senior Member
Avatar
372 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2011
Location: Colorado
     
Jan 24, 2014 15:15 |  #6

For hand-held UW shots, I don't see anything wrong with the photos


---------------
-Sam-

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,649 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 382
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Jan 24, 2014 15:17 |  #7

A little soft I think...

Click on this image and then two times at the magnifying glass at the bottom right of the successive images. You'll get a full res photo at 16 mm to compare.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i37.photobucket​.com …MG_8740dc_zpsfe​e3fcfd.jpg (external link)


Keep in mind though, you will never print or show the full res.

Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,750 posts
Gallery: 1984 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 12035
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jan 24, 2014 15:51 |  #8

MakisM1 wrote in post #16633611 (external link)
Keep in mind though, you will never print or show the full res.

I remember when I first got my ultrawide, I instantly thought it was soft when I viewed it at 100% on a monitor. Pooped a little bit at the thought of it being that soft and instantly started getting ready to return it.

Big learning curve going to ultrawide and understanding the sharpness for the perspective or potential format it will be viewed. Good point about the show/print in regards to resolution. Hard lesson to learn for some (myself included).

IMAGE: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2887/12093995785_385305193f_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mwise1023/12093​995785/  (external link)
DPP_0299 (external link) by Mwise1023 (external link), on Flickr

Very best,

My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
h14nha
Goldmember
Avatar
2,086 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 179
Joined Nov 2008
Location: South Wales, UK
     
Jan 24, 2014 16:32 |  #9

I had issues with mine with the Left Hand Side being soft. It didn't always show up in my images though and I doubted myself for a while. I took a few pics tripod mounted of my brick house. Zoomed in showed the differences between LHS and RHS. I took it back and had a replacement lens which is fine..........


Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickr (external link)
My Gear - 7d, / 16-35mm F4 / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / 500/4 :D XT-1 Graphite 18/35/56

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
oxygen45
Member
150 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Jan 2013
     
Jan 24, 2014 18:22 |  #10

Don't see anything concerning, practice more and stop stressing. The way people carry on on the web sometimes you would think every other Sigma lens is soft, they aren't.


Canon 60D ~ Sigma 10-20 | Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS | Canon 55-250 IS II | Sigma 150-600 C

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 213
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Jan 24, 2014 18:43 |  #11

Looks normal. The 10-20 lens is good, but c'mon, there is a reason it is what it is.

I struggled with mine at first, really, you want to shoot f8-12 if you can and either focus on subject, or hyper focal or focus first 3rd or whatever. Once you get used to it, it is a good lens.


Everything is relative.
Gear: 6D, Unholy Trinity:twisted: (24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.
Fuji X-e2, Rokinon 8 2.8 Fisheye II, Fuji 14 2.8, Fuji 18-55, Fuji 23 1.4
FlikR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 213
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Jan 24, 2014 18:51 |  #12

Here you go, When I first got it I had some pics like yours, if you click on this set, I am pretty sure every picture in this set was taken with that lens, and MOST all with a rebel Xsi

http://www.flickr.com …r/sets/72157630​521901650/ (external link)


Everything is relative.
Gear: 6D, Unholy Trinity:twisted: (24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.
Fuji X-e2, Rokinon 8 2.8 Fisheye II, Fuji 14 2.8, Fuji 18-55, Fuji 23 1.4
FlikR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,377 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 3240
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jan 24, 2014 19:45 |  #13

it looks a littlesoft to me...but i do wonder if you have a filter on it as well...especially with the double flare in the first cricket shots...also stopping it down to about f8 should be the sweet spot

you do want to make sure you know where you are focusing, i typically focus about 4 feet in front of me, and with the large DOF everything else is in focus as well...if you point it to the other side of the stadium you're not going to get the best shot sometimes, or if you are shooting at f4, and aim too close you won't have the DOF extend all the way to infinity

i do agree with others that you don't want to over-analyze at 100%


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GoHokiesGo
Senior Member
Avatar
783 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 66
Joined Feb 2007
Location: N. Virginia
     
Jan 24, 2014 20:02 |  #14

It does take some practice to get used to the UWA, as with any lens. Out of my lenses, I think I've printed more photos and dramatic scenes from my 10-20mm than any other of my lenses; its a great lens.

I noticed on a few of your shots you were shooting wide open, but also at like 1/4000s shutter and iso1600. You could probably stop it down some and drop your iso, while keep plenty decent shutter speeds. The nice thing about an UWA is that you dont need a very high shutter to keep things sharp. You were missing exif info on flickr for quite a few, but I'd recommend stopping down, dropping the iso and not using such a fast shutter.


~Jason
Canon 6D -¤- Canon 60D
Canon16-35/4LIS -¤- Canon 24-105/4LIS -¤- Canon 135/2L -¤- Canon 70-200/4L
Canon 50/1.8 STM -¤- Sigma 30/1.4 EX -¤- Samyang 14/2.8
Travel Website - Jason Peacott Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Xscaper
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
7 posts
Joined Jan 2014
     
Jan 24, 2014 23:05 |  #15

dpds68 wrote in post #16633412 (external link)
Do you have a filter on it ?

David

Yes, a UV Filter which wasn't there for the beach shots but present for the cricket.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,256 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 DC HSM driving me mad
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is theweddingmoments
869 guests, 191 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.