Lens help - flawed?

[Snap_Happy]

Guys, I'm not after critique here - these were quick snaps I took in the park trying to convince myself that I hadn't bought a crappy lens 3 years ago and just never noticed. Sadly, I'm not convinced, and think I might just be a mug.

The following images were all taken at high shutter speed [to eliminate blur], but nothing higher than 400 ISO [I've only got an EOS 350D, so it's pants above that...].

I am guilty of sharpening them to buggery to try and get something workable out of it, but can easily enough upload some originals, or [:eek:] e-mail the RAW files. [click to pixel-peep...]

Can someone please confirm that there's nothing else I could be missing? :shrug:
[BTW: I have tried doing manual focus, but still get the same issues, and OOF would show up in a lot of these photos, as there is something at nearly every distance!

Cheers guys!

#1 - 1/160, f8.0, 263mm, ISO 400 [OK - maybe a little slow, and VERY over-sharpened...]
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/3713833113_c0c7bdda88.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/npd_1979/3713833113/sizes/l/in/set-72157621225771069/)

#2 - 1/1000, f8.0, 263 mm, ISO400 [No such issues here - again sharpened, but check out the large size...]
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3054/3714625368_2b6db507c7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/npd_1979/3714625368/sizes/o/in/set-72157621225771069/)

#3 - 1/800, f8.0, 263 mm, ISO400
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3533/3714611432_4ed6ecdef9.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/npd_1979/3714611432/sizes/o/in/set-72157621225771069/)

Any thoughts that say I didn't throw £100 quick down the drain a few years back? :shrug:

[puddleduck]

Guys, I'm not after critique here - these were quick snaps I took in the park trying to convince myself that I hadn't bought a crappy lens 3 years ago and just never noticed. Sadly, I'm not convinced, and think I might just be a mug.

Any thoughts that say I didn't throw £100 quick down the drain a few years back? :shrug:



Thats 9p a day over 3 years. Don't worry about it.

Can't tell anything from such small pics anyhow.

[Snap_Happy]

Thats 9p a day over 3 years. Don't worry about it.

Can't tell anything from such small pics anyhow.

:lol: I'd not thought about it that way!

Regarding the small pics, the detail can be seen if you just click on the pics - it'll load up "original" size on flickr, so you can pixel peep away.

If this is abnormal, I can probably set up some 100% crops? :shrug:

[HoppyUK]

Do you drink a lot of coffee? There's camera shake in all of them. Those specular highlights off the water are all skewed into the same shape - dead giveaway.

With a lens at that length, on a crop body, it's unusual, though quite possible. But are these images crops? They look like it, in which case the effective magnification could be huge and you're asking for trouble.

[Snap_Happy]

Do you drink a lot of coffee? There's camera shake in all of them. Those specular highlights off the water are all skewed into the same shape - dead giveaway.

With a lens at that length, on a crop body, it's unusual, though quite possible. But are these images crops? They look like it, in which case the effective magnification could be huge and you're asking for trouble.

Yes - that is what it looks like isn't it... The only problem is that I can mount my camera on a tripod, ramp up the shutter speed and STILL get the same thing! (check out my cricket "action" shots on Flickr - I'll post some this evening) :shrug:

[StewartR]

#1 is camera shake.

#2 and #3 are harder to diagnose. Nothing seems to be in focus when I look at the large versions. But is that because of camera shake? Missed focus? Or simply a poor lens? It's impossible to tell.

[HoppyUK]

Yes - that is what it looks like isn't it... The only problem is that I can mount my camera on a tripod, ramp up the shutter speed and STILL get the same thing! (check out my cricket "action" shots on Flickr - I'll post some this evening) :shrug:

Are they crops? What does the entire frame look like? C'mon, own up :D

[fletch5]

what lens is it?

[Snap_Happy]

Are they crops? What does the entire frame look like? C'mon, own up :D

I'll post full frame of all pics this evening, as the only one I know is that the top duck is uncropped...

As for the lens, it's the 70-300 specified in my siggy - Sigma DG 70-300 f4.5-6.3.

[HoppyUK]

what lens is it?

Edit: sorry, crossed post with the OP.

Lens is presumably Sigma 70-300 as per the OP's sig.

I can't find any cricket pics on Flikr, but having reviewed your entire family history ;) as a general comment everything looks a bit dark. Underexposure, if that's what it is, coupled with flat lighting, always makes sharpness look worse than perhaps it is.

Anyway, the main problem is still camera shake in those duck pics. Using a tripod is, in itself, no guarantee of shake-free images. Can even make it worse in extreme circumstances.

[Snap_Happy]

OK - I have finally done it... I have taken a few more snaps. These snaps have my camera sitting solid on a table [that should cut out camera shake!], operated by shutter release, but at the two utmost extremes of aperture. Each is the shot, followed by a crop - details are in the borders [I've finally decided to start making use of the very good scripts I cribbed from the lovely members here! :clap:]

#1 - f5.6, Full
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3644/3731427581_0b134fa1d2_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/npd_1979/3731427581/)

#2 - f5.6, Cropped
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2485/3732226558_c404b964ee_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/npd_1979/3732226558/)

#3 - f32, Full
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2580/3731427829_56b1506949_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/npd_1979/3731427829/)

#4 - f32, Cropped
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3481/3731427947_3541740faf_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/npd_1979/3731427947/)

As I see it, this does wonders for the sharpness, but I still don't quite get why the first one isn't sharp? Any ideas please? :shrug:

[HoppyUK]

OK - I have finally done it... I have taken a few more snaps. These snaps have my camera sitting solid on a table [that should cut out camera shake!], operated by shutter release, but at the two utmost extremes of aperture. Each is the shot, followed by a crop - details are in the borders [I've finally decided to start making use of the very good scripts I cribbed from the lovely members here! :clap:]

#1 - f5.6, Full

#2 - f5.6, Cropped

#3 - f32, Full

#4 - f32, Cropped

As I see it, this does wonders for the sharpness, but I still don't quite get why the first one isn't sharp? Any ideas please? :shrug:

I'm sorry to say that what you see in your test photos is pretty much what you would expect from a frankly cheap zoom. It's a £100 lens, whereas a Canon 70-200 for example could cost you ten times that much, and doesn't even manage 300mm.

The first image is soft, because all cheap long zooms are, especially at maximum focal length. Loads of CA in out of focus areas is typical.

The f/32 image looks better because raising the f/number reduces aberrations dramatically, while increasing depth of field at the same time. I suspect you will find that this lens is sharpest around f/8 to f/11, which is where cheaper zooms tend to peak. Sharpness goes off after that due to diffraction, which is an optical characteristic common to all lenses at high f/numbers, not just your Sigma.

If you want sharper images, first thing to do is hone your hand holding technqiue - steady, relaxed, and hold your eblows closer together - comfortably mind - so that your biceps are resting on the side of your chest. It's the left hand that does most of the supporting, cupping the barrel underneath.

Then you would benefit from a sharper lens and I'm afraid they cost money, but some of them also have Image Stabilization which will transform your hand holding capability. For £200, Canon EFS 55-250 IS is amazingly good for the money. If you can stretch to £400 or so, Canon EF 70-300 IS is a class lens by any standard.

Cheers :)

Edit: it won't have helped that you shot these test pictures at very close range, which is probably well outside the lens's sweet spot. It will almost certainly perform better than that at duck distance, but the point is still valid.

[coldpenguin]

re: the highlights being an odd shape.
When you are taking the photos, are you trying to hold your breath? Try and take at the end of an exhale. When on the tripod, obviously this isn't quite so important.
Also I know it is difficult with the small button, but try to hold it half down first, then gently roll the finger to take the shot. It looks to me like the camera has jabbed up as the shot it taken, which could be caused by pressing the button too firmly. For darker areas this won't be so noticable, but for burnt out bits like the reflections, it could account for the V shapes. This will be more prevalent of course at longer focal length as well, so may not have been noticed previously.
Have you tried a cheap IR remote?

[Snap_Happy]

Thanks guys - to be honest, this confirms what I already thought, and gives me more fuel to blowing the entirety of my bonus [and the rest...] on a 100-400L :D

That said, I'm still unsure as to whether it might be worth that tiny bit(!) extra for the 70-200 f2.8 :shrug:

Ah well - this lens served its purpose, and I think it's now time to upgrade it... Anyone fancy buying a used Siggy 70-300? IQ is crap, but it generally does the job! ;) :naughty: