Thanks.
I uploaded some photos to Flickr but I cannot seem to link to them.
Is there a post count restriction? Or is it now that Flickr doesn't want to just be a dumping ground for uploads and restricts links?
Anyhow, here's a link to the album. These are not shots I consider to be great, these are ones that I've hunted out and tried to assess where I feel the focus could be sharper. Some, I'm happy with the overall feel - exposure, contrast, colour balance - it's just the sharpness is missing for me. If you can really be bothered, I've also got some albums on there of photos I took while we had a photography club at work. These were processed in Canon's own software before I got Lightroom.
https://flic.kr/s/aHskpx6ZiQ
Any way, in the example album.
The first two shots are the contentious ones - taken side by side etc etc. I much prefer the feel of the second one (taken by my then 9 year old daughter). Composition is better due to the fact that she couldn't zoom in as much as I could, But even if it was cropped to the same framing, the way the light is handled looks more pleasing to
my eye. It's also this holiday that I realised the Sigma lens produces ugly Bokeh and is very noisy. I don't think I've taken a single shot - even in the brightest sun on a tripod - that doesn't have noise in it. And it's ugly noise too.
The next three (bar scene) were all taken on the Sigma 30mm with flash. On the one with the drinks it looks to me suspiciously like there's nothing in the entire image that's in really sharp focus. Does it actually detract from it viewed at normal size? Probably not. However the following two of my daughter, I think would be better if her eyes had been sharper.
Next one of my niece in church. Again, I focus and composed the shot using her eyes as my focal point, but it looks to be front focussing by a good inch or so.and the front of her hat is sharper than her eyes.
Next is the ski shot. Bright day - possibly over exposed - and shot into the sun, hence the flash. But this, again is nowhere near as sharp as I'd expect.
Next is my daughter against the hedge. Her eyes here seem almost in focus. But nothing seems quite pin sharp.
Next is the Superbock bottle. Taken at night, Ambient light. No tripod, but the camera on a table (or wall - I forget now) very noisy, but at least the noise is prettier than the 18-250 Sigma.
Then the sunset (how cliched) again a lot of noise in the sky.
Then there are a couple I took at Sandhurst as part of my day job. One portrait while we were interviewing an officer, and one detail shot. Both taken mid afternoon in September, so plenty of light. Both lacking that killer sharpness I wanted.
Next is a bubble I took while on holiday. This was with my Canon 50mm and is probably soft because it was shot at 1/40 - due to the lack of light. A flash might have killed this shot anyway, but it would have been sharper with a faster lens. Possibly.
Another one of my daughter. Again, I focussed on her (open) eye. But is seems to have front focussed again and the towel's more in focus than her eye.
One of our cat. Again the focal point was one of his eyes, but this seems to have front focussed again. This is the Sigma lens that I can calibrate however, so this may need redoing.
The Carousel image - this actually looks better viewing in Flckr than it did opening direct from the folder. But I've left it here because I think it's further proof to me that the Canon 18-135 lens produces nicer looking images than the Sigma.
Finally, the last two were just a test I did after I got the 50mm to demonstrate the difference to a guy at work who asked why I need a 50mm prime lens when 50mm was covered off by the 18-135mm. Same location, same lighting (give or take) but the 50mm was way sharper.
Anyway, I hope that explains where I feel my images are lacking.
This (hopefully) won't turn into a critique of composition, but rather if it's something I'm doing wrong in the settings, or if you think "Yes a XXX lens would help there" then I'd love comments.