Is my Sigma 10-20mm soft?

[fjrabon]

I know it won't be super easy to tell from pictures posted on flickr and then transfered to this forum (especially since it's seemed like the forum has softened pictures recently?!), but I guess we could try:


DSC_0020 by franklinrabon, on Flickr


DSC_0016 by franklinrabon, on Flickr

Both were shot at ISO 200, f/11, at 10mm. The first was shot with 1/100 of a second and the second 1/125 of a second (with -0.67 EC) In both, the focus was set to infinity.

Perhaps I shouldn't have focused at infinity or perhaps f/11 wasn't enough DOF? Or perhaps they're plenty sharp and I'm just imagining a lack of sharpness as some sort of weird buyer's remorse, haha. I guess the fact that a few reviewers have stated that is seems like they got a soft version, I'm a little hyper conscious about this.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

They look pretty decent to me, I don't see soft images.

And just to say sometimes increasing the DOF past F11 is not a good idea for sharpness as diffraction will set in after F8 on todays high res sensors, strangely your photographs may of been sharper at F8 than they will be at F11. On a wide angle it is very hard to get anything out of focus really anyway!

 

[fjrabon]

They look pretty decent to me, I don't see soft images.

And just to say sometimes increasing the DOF past F11 is not a good idea for sharpness as diffraction will set in after F8 on todays high res sensors, strangely your photographs may of been sharper at F8 than they will be at F11. On a wide angle it is very hard to get anything out of focus really anyway!

Yeah, I'm still figuring out the sweet spots with this thing. It is a ton of fun though. after f/15 I noticed diffraction starting to take over.

 

[Derrel]

I would not focus at Infinity on shots like these...instead, focus at the distance you want to be sharpest. If you have the ability to compare shots focused at Infinity, and then say focused at 50 meters, and the treeline is at 50 meters, you'll see that the 50 meter focus brings a little bit better results than Infinity. Depth of field will give "acceptably sharp" images across a range of distances, but the absolute sharpest things will be those located AT THE focus distance. For example, the grass with shadows in the foreground---INfinity focus WILL render that grass as not-quite-perfectly-sharp. "acceptably in-focus" sure, but NOT razor-sharp. However, had you focused at say 14 feet, the grass in the foreground would probably actually look a bit sharper; possible enough sharper that the entire image would appear that it was sharper, and that the lens was better,so to say.

As to these images...ehhh...I know what you mean...TPF has recently been presenting us with images that numerous,numerous people, myself included, with my own images, which are so soft it's hard to tell why the image quality actually is...and at the tiny size of these pics, lens quality and sharpness are impossible to evaluate.

 

[fjrabon]

I would not focus at Infinity on shots like these...instead, focus at the distance you want to be sharpest. If you have the ability to compare shots focused at Infinity, and then say focused at 50 meters, and the treeline is at 50 meters, you'll see that the 50 meter focus brings a little bit better results than Infinity. Depth of field will give "acceptably sharp" images across a range of distances, but the absolute sharpest things will be those located AT THE focus distance. For example, the grass with shadows in the foreground---INfinity focus WILL render that grass as not-quite-perfectly-sharp. "acceptably in-focus" sure, but NOT razor-sharp. However, had you focused at say 14 feet, the grass in the foreground would probably actually look a bit sharper; possible enough sharper that the entire image would appear that it was sharper, and that the lens was better,so to say.

As to these images...ehhh...I know what you mean...TPF has recently been presenting us with images that numerous,numerous people, myself included, with my own images, which are so soft it's hard to tell why the image quality actually is...and at the tiny size of these pics, lens quality and sharpness are impossible to evaluate.

Thanks for the help Derrel! Yeah, its really a shame that this is happening on a photography forum. It's gotten to about the only thing you can evaluate is composition and drastic issues.

 

[Rephargotohp]

I forget the exact number but anything past 4 feet is focused at infinity. I had this lens before I went full frame. It's a good lens, some of my most sucessful images were shot with it.

If you really want to see if it is sharp, Focus on something close like newsprint or a Ruler and then you can see if the image is sharp or not.

Like Derrel said, It depends , If you have a subject in front of the Hyper-focal distance, Focus on that, If you have various subjects around the hyper-focal distance use that, if everything is just in the distance focusing at infinity is fine

What to focus on

 

[shootermcgavin]

I don't get how the forum has softened pictures, they shouldn't have anything to do with it photobucket or whoever is holding them controls the image.

 

[Rephargotohp]

Depends on if the image is being resized and where it is being resized, a lot of forums and even browers resize and the use the "Nearest Neighbor" for a resizing method of interpolation, which well...sucks

 

[fjrabon]

I forget the exact number but anything past 4 feet is focused at infinity. I had this lens before I went full frame. It's a good lens, some of my most sucessful images were shot with it.

If you really want to see if it is sharp, Focus on something close like newsprint or a Ruler and then you can see if the image is sharp or not.

Like Derrel said, It depends , If you have a subject in front of the Hyper-focal distance, Focus on that, If you have various subjects around the hyper-focal distance use that, if everything is just in the distance focusing at infinity is fine

What to focus on

yeah, 'macro' test shots seemed sharp, so I guess it's good. Thanks for easing my mind guys.

 

[tinman84]

I would not focus at Infinity on shots like these...instead, focus at the distance you want to be sharpest. If you have the ability to compare shots focused at Infinity, and then say focused at 50 meters, and the treeline is at 50 meters, you'll see that the 50 meter focus brings a little bit better results than Infinity. Depth of field will give "acceptably sharp" images across a range of distances, but the absolute sharpest things will be those located AT THE focus distance. For example, the grass with shadows in the foreground---INfinity focus WILL render that grass as not-quite-perfectly-sharp. "acceptably in-focus" sure, but NOT razor-sharp. However, had you focused at say 14 feet, the grass in the foreground would probably actually look a bit sharper; possible enough sharper that the entire image would appear that it was sharper, and that the lens was better,so to say.

As to these images...ehhh...I know what you mean...TPF has recently been presenting us with images that numerous,numerous people, myself included, with my own images, which are so soft it's hard to tell why the image quality actually is...and at the tiny size of these pics, lens quality and sharpness are impossible to evaluate.

when we are talking about focus here .. are we talking about the autofocus and selecting one of the dots on the screen or is there any other way to set the focus to infinity or at 14 feet .....

Thanks for the inputs ..

 

[GeorgieGirl]

I have seen sharpness change from my monitor to smugmug to here...I'd take a minute and consider the test reviews on your lens at the aperture you were using. (Oh wait...I have this lens too!) More ofthen than not the test results indicate that the lens is not at its best wide open and the images can be a bit soft.