Canon EOS photos not sharp enough to my liking

[avz10]

I have a Canon EOS 450D that I have used for more than a year with the 18 to 55 mm lens.I usually use the Av setting and the picture size is set on Large. I normally finalize my photos with Photoshop, using levels as well as unsharp mask-( settings approximately: Amount 200%; Radius 0.8-1.0 and Threshold 0. The sharpness on the camera is set quite high.


I bought a Sigma 28-300 and am a bit disappointed. The photos are not always sharp and when I correct them on Photoshop, the radius needs to be nearly 2. The image would then look good on the PC but too sharp on Facebook, where my son downloaded it to.

[URL="http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/10.jpg%5b/IMG"]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/10.jpg[/IMG[/URL]]
[IMG][URL="http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/11.jpg%5b/IMG"]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/11.jpg[/IMG[/URL]]
[IMG][URL="http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/12.jpg%5b/IMG"]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/12.jpg[/IMG[/URL]]
[IMG][URL="http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/20.jpg%5b/IMG"]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/20.jpg[/IMG[/URL]]
[IMG][URL="http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/21.jpg%5b/IMG"]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/21.jpg[/IMG[/URL]]
[IMG][URL="http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/22.jpg%5b/IMG"]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/22.jpg[/IMG[/URL]]
[IMG][URL="http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/30.jpg%5b/IMG"]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/30.jpg[/IMG[/URL]]
[IMG][URL="http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/31.jpg%5b/IMG"]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/31.jpg[/IMG[/URL]]
[IMG][URL="http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/32.jpg%5b/IMG"]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/32.jpg[/IMG[/URL]]
[IMG][URL="http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/40.jpg%5b/IMG"]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/40.jpg[/IMG[/URL]]
[IMG][URL="http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/41.jpg%5b/IMG"]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/41.jpg[/IMG[/URL]]
[IMG][URL="http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/42.jpg%5b/IMG"]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/42.jpg[/IMG[/URL]]

[IMG]http://[IMG]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii62/avz10/10.jpg

Any advice, please?

Is there any way in which I can change the URL's to actual pictures?

 

[Forkie]

You need 5 posts before you can post pictures. Just put 5 responses here and then post them. Your links don't work, by the way.

 

[ryeder]

Just an idea if you haven't done so but turn off the vibration reduction and use a tripod and cable release...

 

[PJL]

Those really wide range telephotos sometimes have a problem with softness, especially on the extreme end of the zoom range; it's also not a completely uncommon problem with third party "budget" glass manufacturers. Also, you say you're shooting in Av mode; are you shooting wide open most of the time? Most lenses are not their sharpest when shot at their widest aperture.

If you google reviews of the lens, you'll see that softness is a common complaint.

Took a look at some of your samples. A few just seem generally out of focus. For example, the group shot of the 4 boys, the most in-focus part of the picture is their shoes. In the group of six shot, the boy on the left and the boy third from the left's hair, and the leaves from the bush on the very far left seem to be the most in-focus. Very hard to tell the focal point on either of those pictures. Something like that isn't lens softness.

 

[bigtwinky]

I dont think it's the camera the issue, probably the lens. The lens plays such a critical role in the image quality. A kit lens (18-55) is entry level/low end and the third party lenses like Sigma and Tamron are often not as optically sharp as the Canon or Nikon. Basically, you get what you pay for.

The issue could be how you focus as well. Are you letting the camera chose the auto focus point? I had an XSI and I would highly suggest using the center point only. It is the only sensitive focus point, the others pretty much suck. Hold the center point over what you want in focus (the eyes of a subject), half push the shutter button to lock the focus, then move the camera to recompose the shot.

And as suggested, try taking an image of a book or something in decent light using a tripod. If you dont have a cable release, then use the 2 second timer on your camera to avoid camera shake from hitting the shutter. If you are not able to get a crisp image of the book doing this, then it's an issue with the lens.

 

[Robin Usagani]

 

[Village Idiot]

Just an idea if you haven't done so but turn off the vibration reduction and use a tripod and cable release...

LOL WUT?

 

[Big Mike]

I bought a Sigma 28-300 and am a bit disappointed.

Your expectations were too high for this lens. It's a 10x zoom...and to design a lens like that, without making it really big or really expensive, there have to be compromises with the image quality.

 

[Zrock]

I have no problems getting sharp pictures with my canon equivilant lens. Just need to remember the farther you soom out the steadier you have to hold that camera every little movment increases the farther you zoom out. To get a good example of this go grab a camcorder or point and shoot with one of those 300x zooms on it zoom it all the way out and try to hold the camera steady its almost imposible. I would use teh sigma lens more for outdoor shooting instead of portrates go back and use your other lens for that. Im not sure if its the diffrance in camera bodies or not but my pictures are so sharp that i can sit and count the hairs on my babys head. Sometimes i find it quite anoying as i have to flatten them out a bit sometimes

 

[786soul]

I'm in sales and I see people come and complain about this a lot. Even with point and shoots. Here's the thing, not to be blunt, but there's a reason why some lenses cost you $2000, and some cost $200. Whether design, build quality, resultant image quality, there's a reason someone can justify that 2000. A lot of pictures you see in print will be those expensive pro-lens shot images. Just an SLR isn't the reason you'll have a tack sharp image.

Not to discount the fact that SOME lenses can provide quite sharp pictures, I've seen a gorgeous shot of the moon with a EFS55-250 which was tack sharp. Mind you that was on a tripod, long shutter speed, low ISO, remote shutter release, sandbags for stability and no wind.

I'm not defending canon, I've had Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus...all complaining.

 

[LBPhotog]

did anyone mention that all of those images are shot at appertures lower than 5.6 and that one of them was taken through water .... even with the sharpest glass, f/4.0 and 5.6 are going to be a touch soft ...

 

[gsgary]

did anyone mention that all of those images are shot at appertures lower than 5.6 and that one of them was taken through water .... even with the sharpest glass, f/4.0 and 5.6 are going to be a touch soft ...

No they are not, i can shot at F2.8 with my Canon 300mm and it is not soft

 

[LBPhotog]

I'm not saying that I don't believe you gary, but, we do have to take into consideration here the f/ stop that these images were taken at ... I'll agree that on the point of focus 2.8 can be sharp; but, not much around that point of focus will be just due to the DOF that 2.8 doesn't give you.

 

[bigtwinky]

First image is f/7.1, so thats not an issue

Second and Third are f/4, which considering that all the kids seem to be on the same plane in the image, it shouldnt be an issue to get them all in focus

So I dont think the aperture used is an issue in these

 

[Overread16 4]

Typically most lenses are not their sharpest when shot wide open (at their widest aperture/smallest f number), though most should produce a decent result. In the case of superzooms the further away you go in focal length from the short end the more (generally speaking) the image will degrade as you keep the aperture wide open. Stopping down by one or two stops of aperture can help a lot in restoring the image quality and getting a better result.

The image would then look good on the PC but too sharp on Facebook, where my son downloaded it to.

I'm wondering - when your son uploads to facebook are the photos being uploaded fullsized versions or are they already resized for the internet and for facebook? If they are resized by facebook its a strong chance that the softness is the normal softness that results when resize an image and don't perform sharpening after. Resizing loses data and most shots will soften as a result. Sharpening before and after resizing helps a lot in preserving the overall sharpness of a photo.
Furthermore if you've started with large images (eg 3500pixels on the longest side) then if you resize in stages (eg resize to 2000 - sharpen - resize to 1000 - sharpen) you'll most times get a better quality out at the end.

The amount of sharpening at each stage will differ and if you do it in a few stages the final sharpening will be very small indeed - more a touch up than a major sharpen.