Bad Lens, camera or bad photographer?

Astronomersmith · 01-31-2018, 03:01 PM

I've looked at some threads about blurry photos, and learned a good bit. So, this may be an old subject, but I hope it is okay to ask, and it is in the correct forum.

I have a K50, and enjoy it. used it a good bit, although not nearly as much as I would like to!
So, I bought a cheap, very cheap, used Sigma 100-300 lens, have the aperture setting on "A", thinking that means I can set the aperture with the camera.

My problem is, that I cannot get a clear picture to save myself! I've tried to attach a sized down sample, and on this picture I tried focusing on the white sign. There is a range of 100 feet to probably a couple of thousand feet (trees in background), and nothing looks to be in good focus.

The setting was at F10, 1/2000 second. Shake reduction was on, and I was resting the camera on the roof of my car, so it should have been pretty steady? Plus, with that shutter speed, I can't imagine me shaking the camera to blur everything?

Any suggestions, other than chunking the cheap glass...which I haven't totally ruled out...I'd like to see if there is something I didn't do, should have done, or done differently before I just write it off as bad glass.

Scott

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

Na Horuk · 01-31-2018, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Astronomersmith

Plus, with that shutter speed, I can't imagine me shaking the camera to blur everything?

Use 2 sec timer when you place the camera on a tripod or some other platform. 2 sec timer removes another big factor, which is the pressing of the button. When people push the shutter button they often press it really hard, suddenly, which shakes the camera. 2 sec timer will also do Mirror up mode, which removes another factor. When the mirror moves it causes some vibrations. More on some cameras than others. But 2 sec timer is MLU so you don't have to worry about mirror. Oh, and 2 sec timer turns off SR. SR should not be enabled when you are using tripod or something. SR is also not for panorama photos. SR is only for handheld and moving photos.

The photo does not seem super terrible to me. That is about what you get with a cheap telephoto. Of course, I only see a small resized photo. If you want us to see the detail, you need to upload a 100% crop of the in-focus area. There are some threads about how to make a crop like that. Basically you just make a copy of the photo that is cropped down to only some the middle area. Then you save without resizing.

You can do some other things, like post processing. If you shoot raw, you can add sharpness and contrast. If you shoot jpeg, you can change some of the jpeg settings. For example, change the jpeg mode to Film reversal, play with the clarity and sharpness sliders to add a little..

restlesssoul · 01-31-2018, 03:14 PM

Can't comment on the lens but with camera resting on car try turning shake reduction off

victormeldrew · 01-31-2018, 03:28 PM

Yes, the SR would be working against you if you don't have any shake to reduce, it should be off if not handheld.

However, you seem to suggest that all images you take with the lens are equally soft? Are they all tripod/supported shots or does this also happen handheld?

Astronomersmith · 01-31-2018, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Use 2 sec timer when you place the camera on a tripod or some other platform. 2 sec timer removes another big factor, which is the pressing of the button. When people push the shutter button they often press it really hard, suddenly, which shakes the camera. 2 sec timer will also do Mirror up mode, which removes another factor. When the mirror moves it causes some vibrations. More on some cameras than others. But 2 sec timer is MLU so you don't have to worry about mirror. Oh, and 2 sec timer turns off SR. SR should not be enabled when you are using tripod or something. SR is also not for panorama photos. SR is only for handheld and moving photos.

The photo does not seem super terrible to me. That is about what you get with a cheap telephoto. Of course, I only see a small resized photo. If you want us to see the detail, you need to upload a 100% crop of the in-focus area. There are some threads about how to make a crop like that. Basically you just make a copy of the photo that is cropped down to only some the middle area. Then you save without resizing.

You can do some other things, like post processing. If you shoot raw, you can add sharpness and contrast. If you shoot jpeg, you can change some of the jpeg settings. For example, change the jpeg mode to Film reversal, play with the clarity and sharpness sliders to add a little..

I will try to do that soon, but my concern is that nothing in a wide range on this photo is sharp and "in focus", in my opinion? Also, as an addendum...I took pictures of the lunar eclipse last night with this lens. I couldn't get the moon to be clear enough to see any craters, rays, or even mares were barely discernable. I think I deleted all those blurry moons, or I'd send one of them too. On those, I did use the 2 sec delay option, I knew that might help. But it didn't.
On the moon, I gave up on my 300 and put in my original kit lens 70-200 that came with my K50, and while smaller image naturally, at least it was acceptably in focus. That made me think my 100-300 lens is just terrible.

And that is bad, because I was hoping to use it for some bird photography on bright sunny days. I did shoot a red shouldered hawk, and it was slightly blurry too, but I assumed that was because it was a hand held shot. Now, I'm thinking it is just the lens. Thank you for your help!

Scott

pakinjapan · 01-31-2018, 03:54 PM

As many said, SR should be off if you are not handheld the camera.

and I guess you will have to see what is the sweet sport for the zoom you have.
I also have a consumer level tel-zoom which is not very good at its short and long end of the zoom distance.
In my case, it is a FA80-320, and Its sweet spot is at around 150-250.
Like this image I tested it at around 220 mm f5.6, handheld, focus at the white sculpture behine (a larger copy is here)
it looks totally ok, but at 80 or 300-320 mm, same location and light, it is a kind of... crap!
so...may be you want to do more test on a tripod (SR off), 2 sec timmer or remote control in variate distance and f-stop to see what is your lens sweet sport.

dMwBennn · 01-31-2018, 04:48 PM

Can't see clearly from the small pic you have sent, but before you despair try some focus adjustment.. Could be the lens is misfocussing.

I don't know where you will find it in the k50, but if there is an option called AF Microadjust or something like that. It let's you adjust the lens (or camera) for front or back focusing.

Dial a few values in (e.g. +5, - 5, +10, -10) taking a picture after each change, and see if any are better focused. If so there is a problem with focus and you may be able to help with proper adjustment.. Just Google AF microadjust for an actual tutorial (what I describe above is just a quick search for the problem).

randomstuff · 01-31-2018, 05:59 PM - **1 Like**

Photo looks fine to me. It is however focused at infinity (trees) by the loos of it. Was that the goal? It could be back focusing.

Kozlok · 01-31-2018, 06:52 PM

Looks back-focused to me, too. Try focusing in live-view

**ramseybuckeye** · 01-31-2018, 07:29 PM

It could be many things, it's very hard to tell from that photo.. Those older Sigma zooms are not known for their sharpness. I've had a few and there is a huge variance from copy to copy and many seem to do a much better job when the subject is closer. Resting it on the car with SR on would cause shake. Use the timer, or better yet a wireless remote and three second delay when on a tripod or sitting on anything. Try some controlled tests, preferably on a tripod, use autofocus on a clear target with lots of contrast, and also try it with manual focus using focus peaking on live view and magnify that. With the manual method you should be able to get near perfect focus and can see how sharp the lens actually is. Make sure you are shooting at the highest resolution and don't downsize your files for testing.

**Bob 256** · 01-31-2018, 07:59 PM

Your photo doesn't look that bad. It may be accentuating some haze since you have it zoomed in (telephotos tend to bring out haze), but that would be normal. Focus isn't spot on, but not sure what you were focused on. The sign just below center is reasonably sharp. As suggested, try a good solid shot and manually focus using liveview - then check that portion of the image (used for sharp focus) compared with a shot using autofocus.

Moon shots are another question and can be challenging so don't base your judgment on that type of photo. If you have a time exposure of the moon, keep in mind the moon is moving and that can blur an image. The full moon can be exposed the same as a daylight shot with a short shutter speed and would make a better subject than the fully eclipsed moon. Keep experimenting as it will take some time to get a feel for your equipment and ring out any issues that might exist.

**Bob 256** · 01-31-2018, 08:00 PM

Your photo doesn't look that bad. It may be accentuating some haze since you have it zoomed in (telephotos tend to bring out haze), but that would be normal. Focus isn't spot on, but not sure what you were focused on. The sign just below center is reasonably sharp. As suggested, try a good solid shot and manually focus using liveview - then check that portion of the image (used for sharp focus) compared with a shot using autofocus.

Moon shots are another question and can be challenging so don't base your judgment on that type of photo. If you have a time exposure of the moon, keep in mind the moon is moving and that can blur an image. The full moon can be exposed the same as a daylight shot with a short shutter speed and would make a better subject than the fully eclipsed moon. Keep experimenting as it will take some time to get a feel for your equipment and ring out any issues that might exist.

Ragnarkov · 02-01-2018, 01:39 AM

From the look of it, it looks like the telephone pole to the upper left is fairly in focus.

I agree with others to check into changing focus settings. Might help.

Certainly doesn't look terribly fuzzy... just mainly out of focus for the most part. Which, for half the image, being much closer, would be normal anyways.

**Alex645** · 02-01-2018, 02:08 AM

As others said, no need for SR if the camera is on a stable platform, but at 1/2000" at 300mm, the SR is not to blame.

Itʻs partly that lens and partly the nature of telephoto zooms. You did indicate it was a "cheap, very cheap" lens. Now you know why. But also keep in mind that at 300mm, you are shooting through a lot of atmospheric dust and air perturbation which contributes to the lack of sharpness and color saturation.

Put a modern digital lens on your K-50, even one that is low on the wish list, a Pentax DA 50-200mm, and youʻll see much better results.

dsmithhfx · 02-01-2018, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Astronomersmith

Sigma 100-300 lens

I have this lens, purchased with an SA-7 film camera kit about 15-years ago. It is very, very soft on a good day except when in 'macro' mode, then it is surprisingly good for a very, very soft lens. I last used it about a year ago on the sa-7 (the only body it fits with an sa-mount) at a race track, but never got to see the results because the film failed to rewind, which I did not realize until I opened the back. I suggest you get a fixed-focus long tele and stay way from zooms, unless you are prepared to pay big bucks.

01-31-2018, 03:12 PM	#2
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by Astronomersmith Plus, with that shutter speed, I can't imagine me shaking the camera to blur everything? Use 2 sec timer when you place the camera on a tripod or some other platform. 2 sec timer removes another big factor, which is the pressing of the button. When people push the shutter button they often press it really hard, suddenly, which shakes the camera. 2 sec timer will also do Mirror up mode, which removes another factor. When the mirror moves it causes some vibrations. More on some cameras than others. But 2 sec timer is MLU so you don't have to worry about mirror. Oh, and 2 sec timer turns off SR. SR should not be enabled when you are using tripod or something. SR is also not for panorama photos. SR is only for handheld and moving photos. The photo does not seem super terrible to me. That is about what you get with a cheap telephoto. Of course, I only see a small resized photo. If you want us to see the detail, you need to upload a 100% crop of the in-focus area. There are some threads about how to make a crop like that. Basically you just make a copy of the photo that is cropped down to only some the middle area. Then you save without resizing. You can do some other things, like post processing. If you shoot raw, you can add sharpness and contrast. If you shoot jpeg, you can change some of the jpeg settings. For example, change the jpeg mode to Film reversal, play with the clarity and sharpness sliders to add a little.. Last edited by Na Horuk; 01-31-2018 at 03:18 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Bad camera or bad cards	iClick	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	09-15-2014 11:33 AM
Photographer meets Def Jam exec through Instagram, becomes Ne-Yo's photographer	EarlVonTapia	Photographic Industry and Professionals	4	05-31-2013 02:39 PM
Bad lens or bad polerizer	TRAINUT	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	3	04-30-2012 12:43 PM
Top 10 Signs of a Bad Photographer	RioRico	Photographic Industry and Professionals	56	11-12-2011 08:37 AM
Photographer Photographs Photographer	codiac2600	Post Your Photos!	8	02-13-2009 10:46 AM

01-31-2018, 03:14 PM	#3
restlesssoul Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Bermuda Posts: 41	Can't comment on the lens but with camera resting on car try turning shake reduction off

01-31-2018, 03:28 PM	#4
victormeldrew Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: South West UK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,493	Yes, the SR would be working against you if you don't have any shake to reduce, it should be off if not handheld. However, you seem to suggest that all images you take with the lens are equally soft? Are they all tripod/supported shots or does this also happen handheld?

01-31-2018, 03:31 PM	#5
Astronomersmith Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 58 Original Poster	Originally posted by Na Horuk Use 2 sec timer when you place the camera on a tripod or some other platform. 2 sec timer removes another big factor, which is the pressing of the button. When people push the shutter button they often press it really hard, suddenly, which shakes the camera. 2 sec timer will also do Mirror up mode, which removes another factor. When the mirror moves it causes some vibrations. More on some cameras than others. But 2 sec timer is MLU so you don't have to worry about mirror. Oh, and 2 sec timer turns off SR. SR should not be enabled when you are using tripod or something. SR is also not for panorama photos. SR is only for handheld and moving photos. The photo does not seem super terrible to me. That is about what you get with a cheap telephoto. Of course, I only see a small resized photo. If you want us to see the detail, you need to upload a 100% crop of the in-focus area. There are some threads about how to make a crop like that. Basically you just make a copy of the photo that is cropped down to only some the middle area. Then you save without resizing. You can do some other things, like post processing. If you shoot raw, you can add sharpness and contrast. If you shoot jpeg, you can change some of the jpeg settings. For example, change the jpeg mode to Film reversal, play with the clarity and sharpness sliders to add a little.. I will try to do that soon, but my concern is that nothing in a wide range on this photo is sharp and "in focus", in my opinion? Also, as an addendum...I took pictures of the lunar eclipse last night with this lens. I couldn't get the moon to be clear enough to see any craters, rays, or even mares were barely discernable. I think I deleted all those blurry moons, or I'd send one of them too. On those, I did use the 2 sec delay option, I knew that might help. But it didn't. On the moon, I gave up on my 300 and put in my original kit lens 70-200 that came with my K50, and while smaller image naturally, at least it was acceptably in focus. That made me think my 100-300 lens is just terrible. And that is bad, because I was hoping to use it for some bird photography on bright sunny days. I did shoot a red shouldered hawk, and it was slightly blurry too, but I assumed that was because it was a hand held shot. Now, I'm thinking it is just the lens. Thank you for your help! Scott

01-31-2018, 03:54 PM	#6
pakinjapan Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,041	As many said, SR should be off if you are not handheld the camera. and I guess you will have to see what is the sweet sport for the zoom you have. I also have a consumer level tel-zoom which is not very good at its short and long end of the zoom distance. In my case, it is a FA80-320, and Its sweet spot is at around 150-250. Like this image I tested it at around 220 mm f5.6, handheld, focus at the white sculpture behine (a larger copy is here) it looks totally ok, but at 80 or 300-320 mm, same location and light, it is a kind of... crap! so...may be you want to do more test on a tripod (SR off), 2 sec timmer or remote control in variate distance and f-stop to see what is your lens sweet sport.

01-31-2018, 04:48 PM	#7
dMwBennn New Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 17	Can't see clearly from the small pic you have sent, but before you despair try some focus adjustment.. Could be the lens is misfocussing. I don't know where you will find it in the k50, but if there is an option called AF Microadjust or something like that. It let's you adjust the lens (or camera) for front or back focusing. Dial a few values in (e.g. +5, - 5, +10, -10) taking a picture after each change, and see if any are better focused. If so there is a problem with focus and you may be able to help with proper adjustment.. Just Google AF microadjust for an actual tutorial (what I describe above is just a quick search for the problem).

01-31-2018, 05:59 PM - 1 Like	#8
randomstuff Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 37	Photo looks fine to me. It is however focused at infinity (trees) by the loos of it. Was that the goal? It could be back focusing.

01-31-2018, 06:52 PM	#9
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	Looks back-focused to me, too. Try focusing in live-view

01-31-2018, 07:29 PM	#10
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,292	It could be many things, it's very hard to tell from that photo.. Those older Sigma zooms are not known for their sharpness. I've had a few and there is a huge variance from copy to copy and many seem to do a much better job when the subject is closer. Resting it on the car with SR on would cause shake. Use the timer, or better yet a wireless remote and three second delay when on a tripod or sitting on anything. Try some controlled tests, preferably on a tripod, use autofocus on a clear target with lots of contrast, and also try it with manual focus using focus peaking on live view and magnify that. With the manual method you should be able to get near perfect focus and can see how sharp the lens actually is. Make sure you are shooting at the highest resolution and don't downsize your files for testing.

01-31-2018, 07:59 PM	#11
Bob 256 Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Your photo doesn't look that bad. It may be accentuating some haze since you have it zoomed in (telephotos tend to bring out haze), but that would be normal. Focus isn't spot on, but not sure what you were focused on. The sign just below center is reasonably sharp. As suggested, try a good solid shot and manually focus using liveview - then check that portion of the image (used for sharp focus) compared with a shot using autofocus. Moon shots are another question and can be challenging so don't base your judgment on that type of photo. If you have a time exposure of the moon, keep in mind the moon is moving and that can blur an image. The full moon can be exposed the same as a daylight shot with a short shutter speed and would make a better subject than the fully eclipsed moon. Keep experimenting as it will take some time to get a feel for your equipment and ring out any issues that might exist.

01-31-2018, 08:00 PM	#12
Bob 256 Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Your photo doesn't look that bad. It may be accentuating some haze since you have it zoomed in (telephotos tend to bring out haze), but that would be normal. Focus isn't spot on, but not sure what you were focused on. The sign just below center is reasonably sharp. As suggested, try a good solid shot and manually focus using liveview - then check that portion of the image (used for sharp focus) compared with a shot using autofocus. Moon shots are another question and can be challenging so don't base your judgment on that type of photo. If you have a time exposure of the moon, keep in mind the moon is moving and that can blur an image. The full moon can be exposed the same as a daylight shot with a short shutter speed and would make a better subject than the fully eclipsed moon. Keep experimenting as it will take some time to get a feel for your equipment and ring out any issues that might exist.

02-01-2018, 01:39 AM	#13
Ragnarkov Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maple Ridge, BC Photos: Albums Posts: 45	From the look of it, it looks like the telephone pole to the upper left is fairly in focus. I agree with others to check into changing focus settings. Might help. Certainly doesn't look terribly fuzzy... just mainly out of focus for the most part. Which, for half the image, being much closer, would be normal anyways.

02-01-2018, 02:08 AM	#14
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,526	As others said, no need for SR if the camera is on a stable platform, but at 1/2000" at 300mm, the SR is not to blame. Itʻs partly that lens and partly the nature of telephoto zooms. You did indicate it was a "cheap, very cheap" lens. Now you know why. But also keep in mind that at 300mm, you are shooting through a lot of atmospheric dust and air perturbation which contributes to the lack of sharpness and color saturation. Put a modern digital lens on your K-50, even one that is low on the wish list, a Pentax DA 50-200mm, and youʻll see much better results.

02-01-2018, 08:25 AM	#15
dsmithhfx Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Toronto Posts: 5,146	Originally posted by Astronomersmith Sigma 100-300 lens I have this lens, purchased with an SA-7 film camera kit about 15-years ago. It is very, very soft on a good day except when in 'macro' mode, then it is surprisingly good for a very, very soft lens. I last used it about a year ago on the sa-7 (the only body it fits with an sa-mount) at a race track, but never got to see the results because the film failed to rewind, which I did not realize until I opened the back. I suggest you get a fixed-focus long tele and stay way from zooms, unless you are prepared to pay big bucks.