Is it me or is my 10-22mm really soft?

I purchased the 10-22 and the Hoya Pro1 DMC filter from Adorama recently. It came in yesterday. I am generally not a pixel peeper, but after the first few shots from this lens, both outside and indoors, I found the resolution disappointing at 10mm. I went ahead and mounted it on a tripod, testing it at various focal lengths, ISOs and comparing to my 18-55IS kit.

Here's some combinations, I'm sorry I did not upload them to some photo sharing website as I don't know what kind of sharpening resizing they do.

I have shot RAW, then default convert to JPEG at quality 10 in Lightroom 2. No other modifications.

Here's some samples, each file's labeled according to lensname---focal_at_which_shot---randomnumber_may_or_ma​y_not_exist---with_or_without_filter​-serial_number.


Download link: 1022-10-2-with-filter-0989.jpg
Download link: 1022-18-2-with-filter-0990.jpg
Download link: 1022-18-2-without-filter-0997.jpg
Download link: 1855-18-2-0995.jpg
Download link: 1022-10-2-with-filter-0979.jpg
Download link: 1022-10-car-without-filter-0954.jpg

What I noticed:
- At 18mm, the 18-55Is is sharper at f/3.5 than the 10-22 at f/4.5.
- At 10mm, the 10-22 is blurry. No matter how fast the shutter speed or ISO. I have many more samples that I'll post up in some time at various other settings.
- The rest of the factors such as chromatic aberration is well controlled on the 10-22 as opposed to the 18-55. But no matter what, it just doesn't look like it's sharp.

Please comment!

/Flame suit on.

Can you actually put the images in your post?

when you shoot in raw you have to sharpen at some level. that could be a partial cause to the softness..

You can compare test shots using these two lenses at various focal lengths and f-stops here:
http://the-digital-picture.com …&FLI=0&API=0&Le​nsComp=455

It looks to me from the ISO 12233 samples that the 18-55 is sharper than the 10-22 at their shortest focal lengths and wider apertures, which is consistent with your results.

merlin2375 wrote in post #10379370
Can you actually put the images in your post?

I'm sorry, I wanted to do that but wasn't sure of any imaging sharing site that doesn't mess with your photos (like sharpening etc.) If you know a good one please let me know.

canonnoob wrote in post #10379377
when you shoot in raw you have to sharpen at some level. that could be a partial cause to the softness..

I agree, but I'm keeping everything the same here, between both the lenses (or all my lenses for that matter.)

stsva wrote in post #10379423
You can compare test shots using these two lenses at various focal lengths and f-stops here:
http://the-digital-picture.com …&FLI=0&API=0&Le​nsComp=455

It looks to me from the ISO 12233 samples that the 18-55 is sharper than the 10-22 at their shortest focal lengths and wider apertures, which is consistent with your results.

Thanks, I did look at those before buying the lens, but I still think the sharpness at 10mm wide open is not up to snuff. It just looks like it's blurred or shaken or out of focus but it's indeed in focus as I've tested it multiple times with consistent results.

Here's some on Picasa: http://picasaweb.googl​e.com …e12r/Test?feat=​directlink

Don't know if they've been sharpened by Picasa or not.

Rapidshare is awful, have you thought about imgur.com instead?

When conducting lens tests I'd advise to always ditch the filter to establish whether or not the lens is sharp. Once you're happy it is sharp, by all means put the filter back and and see how much it degrades the image.

Also, take some shots using the camera's autofocus (one-shot, centre focus point, don't recompose once you've locked on focus) and some using manual focus and live view.

Keep your shutter speed high and preferably use self timer and tripod.

I notice that some of your pics have a shutter speed of 1/15 of a second. This is way too slow, it's entirely likely that some of the blurriness is down to camera shake.

JoYork: Thanks! Imgur does seem to work much better.

I did some tests with and without the filter. Images included are with and without filter, mounted on a tripod, some high shutter speed, one shot AF. I did not use MF or Live view (since my XTi doesn't have it.)

I used a remote release too.
Sorry I'm at work, I'll add EXIF asap.

All shot's are on the tripod except the car shot.

1022 10mm -with-filter: http://imgur.com/tb74e​.jpg

1022-18mm -with-filter: http://imgur.com/yNyYp​.jpg

1022-18mm -without-filter: http://imgur.com/9VTTc​.jpg

1855-18mm : http://imgur.com/8F3Jk​.jpg

1022 10mm -with-filter : http://imgur.com/XnEiH​.jpg

1022-10mm -without-filter : http://imgur.com/unSmY​.jpg

I have some samples taken at 1/1600 through 1/200-1/400 and its the same results.

powerslave wrote in post #10379824
JoYork: Thanks! Imgur does seem to work much better.

I did some tests with and without the filter. Images included are with and without filter, mounted on a tripod, some high shutter speed, one shot AF. I did not use MF or Live view (since my XTi doesn't have it.)

I used a remote release too.
Sorry I'm at work, I'll add EXIF asap.

All shot's are on the tripod except the car shot.

1022 10mm -with-filter: http://imgur.com/tb74e​.jpg

1022-18mm -with-filter: http://imgur.com/yNyYp​.jpg

1022-18mm -without-filter: http://imgur.com/9VTTc​.jpg

1855-18mm : http://imgur.com/8F3Jk​.jpg

1022 10mm -with-filter : http://imgur.com/XnEiH​.jpg

1022-10mm -without-filter : http://imgur.com/unSmY​.jpg

I have some samples taken at 1/1600 through 1/200-1/400 and its the same results.

I don't see any real evidence of excessive softness in these samples, with the exception of the Honda shot. The interesting thing about that one is that, while the front of the car is soft, the asphalt appears to be sharp starting toward the back of the car, leading me to believe that the focus may have been totally off in that one.

Alright here's one :
EXIF: 10mm f/3.5, 1/1600, ISO100 without the filter.
Please view it at full size and let me know if this is standard 10-22 sharpness in the center.
http://imgur.com/wj7Lr​.jpg

powerslave wrote in post #10380156
Alright here's one :
EXIF: 10mm f/3.5, 1/1600, ISO100 without the filter.
Please view it at full size and let me know if this is standard 10-22 sharpness in the center.
http://imgur.com/wj7Lr​.jpg

That's definitely bad. It looks decentered. The left site is god awful.

That's what I thought. It looks like it's come out of a plastic lens.

Here's another comparison, at 18mm with the 18-55IS:

The 10-22 at 18mm, 1/10 (tripod mounted, remote release), f/4.5, ISO 100:

http://imgur.com/tXaJw​.jpg

The 18-55 at 18mm, 1/10 (tripod mounted, remote release), f/3.5, ISO 100:

http://imgur.com/g7IKa​.jpg

1/10 is in the danger zone for tripod work - unless you use mirror lock up.

Are you doing any capture sharpening?