Are the corners softer than they should be or is it just me?! (Nikon 18-35G)

Son_of_Thor

Son_of_Thor

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,106
Name
Si
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just purchased a Nikon 18-35G. Took a couple of shots and the corners seemed a little soft so set it up on a tripod/took a couple of test shots and they seem soft to me. Question is, am I expecting too much from the lens - is this normal or is this a bad copy? Images below. If you have/had one of these your input would be much appreciated :)

18mm/F8

18-35g test 18mm f8 by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr

24mm/F8

[url=https://flic.kr/p/LehLeL]18-35g test 24mm f8 by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr[/URL]

35mm/F8

18-35g test 35mm f8 by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Why do you want the corners to be anything other than soft? The subject of your picture, whatever it might be, will not be in the corners. Anything that is in the corners is either of secondary interest or of no interest. Either way, it does not need to be sharp.

The barrel distortion would worry me more.
 
Last edited:
john.margetts said:
Why do you want the corners to be anything other than soft? The subject of your picture, whatever it might be, will not be in the corners. Anything that is in the corners is either of secondary interest or of no interest. Either way, it does not need to be sharp.

The barrel distortion would worry me more.
Click to expand...

Reasonable point - I'm just trying to work out if I've bought a decent copy of the lens. These were RAW SooC into Lightroom then exported without even applying the profile correction hence the barrel distortion which is easily corrected...
 
If they're sooc raw files that means they're also unsharpened. Generally, a 'bad' lens will be noticeable straight away in real world examples. Have you shot any actual photos rather than walls?
 
stevelmx5 said:
If they're sooc raw files that means they're also unsharpened. Generally, a 'bad' lens will be noticeable straight away in real world examples. Have you shot any actual photos rather than walls?
Click to expand...

Only one of the dog in the garden so far to get an idea of field of view so far - I only received it yesterday!
 
john.margetts said:
Why do you want the corners to be anything other than soft? The subject of your picture, whatever it might be, will not be in the corners. Anything that is in the corners is either of secondary interest or of no interest. Either way, it does not need to be sharp.

The barrel distortion would worry me more.
Click to expand...
Interesting viewpoint. If I have an 18 x 18 landscape on my wall I would like it sharp all over please.
 
I'd expect a lens to be sharper in the centre than the corners, perhaps not by much with better lenses - I'm just trying to ascertain whether the softness in the corners I'm seeing is normal for this particular lens model.
 
It's difficult to tell as you've only uploaded small files to flickr. My initial thought was that the upper corners look a tad soft on the 35mm shot, but I'd really need to see the full sized files. I can take a similar test shot with my 18-35mm for you to compare with if you'd like? I'm very happy with mine.
 
Hi Snerkler, that'd be much appreciated :) I shot the same thing at 18, 24 and 35mm and wide open through to F11 (although I've only posted the F8 shots). I'll dig through the rest of them later - from memory I think the corners were quite a bit softer wide open.
 
I can't comment on the lens or expected overall results but every lens will be softer in the corners wide open (assuming you mean aperture) because that's a result of shallower depth of field?

Take some more real world shots at settings you would normally use and then make a judgement. Try not to get hung up shooting pictures of walls.
 
I can't tell whether the corners are soft in the first two images as they're twoo small. There is some softness in the final image.

I do agree with Steve.....go out and use the lens on something other than a wall :)
 
Craig20264 said:
Interesting viewpoint. If I have an 18 x 18 landscape on my wall I would like it sharp all over please.
Click to expand...
Why? Sky cannot be sharp. Neither can clouds. Same with water. What would you have in the corners of a landscape that either can be or should be sharp?
 
john.margetts said:
Why? Sky cannot be sharp. Neither can clouds. Same with water. What would you have in the corners of a landscape that either can be or should be sharp?
Click to expand...
To be fair when I shoot landscapes I often compose with things in the corners (such as these) and would like them to be as sharp as possilbe (y) (both shot with the 18-35mm)


Owler Tor Sunset re-edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_7937 by TDG-77, on Flickr




Edit: I forget how much talkphotography over sharpens my images :(
 
Last edited:
The Tamron 15-30 is an unbelievable wide angle zoom

All lenses like this will exhibit softening in. The corners, don't let it bother you
 
Well, I've done some test chart shooting this evening vs. my 24-120 F4 and it's pretty shocking in the corners at 24 and 35mm stopped down to F8. Looks like it'll be going back...
 
It's so hard to tell from these low res shots, but I've seen worse.

The 16-35 and 18-35 are at their worst at 35mm.

But for comparison, my 16-35 is sharp in the corners from 18-30mm or so.
 
I've updated the images with much bigger versions. Full size versions are in my Flickr account. I'll upload the test chart images later. Any input would be appreciated...
 
Simon I've just tested my 18-35mm, and also tested the 24-120mm for comparison. All were shot on a tripod and using liveview to focus to eliminate any focus issues. I shot the 18-35mm at 18mm, 24mm and 35mm each wide open and at f8. I did the same with the 24-120mm F4 at 24mm and 35mm. Surprisingly the 24-120mm is a touch sharper in the corners, however across the rest of the frame there's no comparison, the 18-35mm is way sharper. The files are too big to upload here, so here's a dropbox link to the files. Please let me know when you've downloaded/viewed them and then I can delete them. I've left the EXIF in tact so you can see which is which. However, the order of shots is 18mm WO, 18mm f8, 24mm WO, 24mm f8, 35mm WO, 35mm f8, then 24-120mm 24mm WO, 24mm f8, 35mm WO, 35mm f8. They are SOOC RAW exported from lightroom with just the default sharpening (+25 IIRC) as I forgot LR adds a touch of sharpening on import :oops: :$


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vzopfm3n3efxq1i/AABU6LhLEdddHuqNJgfsNka0a?dl=0


Edit for a quick analysis here's 18mm f8
DSC_3593_zpset1sdzhv.jpg


and 35mm f8
DSC_3597_zpsfvgbnupk.jpg
 
Last edited:
Snerkler, many thanks for taking the time to do this for me :) I've downloaded the zip and I'll have a look later when I'm at home/have access to a decent screen. Initially though it looks to me like your copy of much sharper in the corners. I've dropped MPB a line to ask about exchange/refund
 
I had the 18 to 35. I was never that impessed with it. I swopped at the time for the older 20 to 35 d lens. Pin sharp. The 18 to 35 was only consumer grade if I recall the right version. I had the G.
 
Last edited:
BlackCloud said:
I had the 18 to 35. I was never that km pressed with it. I stopped at the time for the older 20 to 35 d lens. Pin sharp. The 18 to 35 was only consumer grade if I recall the right version.
Click to expand...

There 'D' and 'G' variants of the lens - this is the 'G' which is supposed to be pretty decent, I steered clear of the 'D' after reading a few reviews. That said, I'd expect a wide-angle lens that retails for over £500 to be pretty sharp!
 
BlackCloud said:
I had the 18 to 35. I was never that impessed with it. I swopped at the time for the older 20 to 35 d lens. Pin sharp. The 18 to 35 was only consumer grade if I recall the right version. I had the G.
Click to expand...

BlackCloud said:
Mine was a G, but I had it around 2010. Best send yours back and move on.
Click to expand...
Must've been a bad copy as every review and test I've seen score it very highly, better than the higher end 16-35mm too.
 
It does seem that there is significant variation across different copies - so frustrating! Glad I didn't just bag it up until later in the month when I'll get a chance to use it out and about...
 
But have you taken any real pictures to decide if you're happy? The best way to know if you're happy with it is to shoot.
 
I have as it goes. The local council have been planting wildflowers on some of the local verges, example below:

18-35 flowers 35mm f8 by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr

The bottom corners aren't too bad but the top corners seem smeary to me
 
Last edited:
Simon Lund said:
So here's a test card shot with the 18-35G @ 35mm/F8:

18-35 test card 35mm f8 by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr

The same with my 24-120 F4 kit lens:

24-120 f4 test card 35mm f8 by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Bizarrely the EXIF on flickr show that both these are taken with the 18-35mm :confused: The corners are worse on the first for sure, but then they were worse on my lens compared to the 24-120mm.

Simon Lund said:
I have as it goes. The local council have been planting wildflowers on some of the local verges, example below:

18-35 flowers 35mm f8 by Simon Lundbeck, on Flickr

The bottom corners aren't too bad but the top corners seem smeary to me
Click to expand...
The upper corners aren't great, but without knowing the scene or focus point it's hard to say if it's not made worse by DOF, as the whole image looks as though it's gradually getting softer towards the top of the frame and then this would be exaggerated by the corners.

At the end of the day if you're not happy with the lens I would recommend just returning it as you're never going to be happy with it and will always be looking for faults (y)
 
To be honest, the lens looks fine to me, it might not be the best copy in the world but within what I would expect, don't forget field curvature might be having an effect too.

Softness at the top of the shot of the flowers isn't anything to do with corner softness, that's out of focus, if you look at the bottom the flowers look nice and sharp - could probably have got it all in focus by focussing the correct distance into the shot.

But.

snerkler said:
At the end of the day if you're not happy with the lens I would recommend just returning it as you're never going to be happy with it and will always be looking for faults (y)
Click to expand...
 
snerkler said:
Bizarrely the EXIF on flickr show that both these are taken with the 18-35mm :confused: The corners are worse on the first for sure, but then they were worse on my lens compared to the 24-120mm.


The upper corners aren't great, but without knowing the scene or focus point it's hard to say if it's not made worse by DOF, as the whole image looks as though it's gradually getting softer towards the top of the frame and then this would be exaggerated by the corners.

At the end of the day if you're not happy with the lens I would recommend just returning it as you're never going to be happy with it and will always be looking for faults (y)
Click to expand...

Ahem, hangs head in shame :coat: now corrected and not showing much difference between the two! This is what you get for constantly being in a rush.. Focus point on the flower shot was the darker pink flower pretty much dead centre of frame. This was a quick test shot really and I didn't focus far enough into the frame to get it all sharp, again rushing as usual so the top of the shot isn't in focus

So much for my testing method too - there's more in it from the point of view of user error than actual difference between the lenses. The 24-120 IS sharper, but not by a lot. Just goes to show what pixel peeping rather than actually using a lens in the real world does for you (as several folks have already pointed out!) Fair point about field curvature too - so tomorrow nights task is to get a real-world shot or two that's in focus across the frame so I can make a final decision...

Many thanks to all that have contributed for their insight and sense (or lack thereof) checking :)
 
Last edited:
Simon Lund said:
Ahem, hangs head in shame :coat: now corrected and not showing much difference between the two! This is what you get for constantly being in a rush.. Focus point on the flower shot was the darker pink flower pretty much dead centre of frame. This was a quick test shot really and I didn't focus far enough into the frame to get it all sharp, again rushing as usual so the top of the shot isn't in focus

So much for my testing method too - there's more in it from the point of view of user error than actual difference between the lenses. The 24-120 IS sharper, but not by a lot. Just goes to show what pixel peeping rather than actually using a lens in the real world does for you (as several folks have already pointed out!) Fair point about field curvature too - so tomorrow nights task is to get a real-world shot or two that's in focus across the frame so I can make a final decision...

Many thanks to all that have contributed for their insight and sense (or lack thereof) checking :)
Click to expand...
I assume when you say the 24-120 is sharper but not by much you mean in the corners? Also when you do the charts is it using liveview to rule out focus errors?
 
Yes, I was meaning in the corners - I originally started using AF for the charts then switched to centre focus point/zoomed in live view/manual focus. Having realised I'm causing more sharpness issues myself than the lens I'm goin to start from scratch tomorrow :)
 
Last edited:
The flower photo looks fine and does seem like DOF in the top part.

Haven't seen it mentioned, it maybe worth trying to fine tune the lens to the body to check for back or front focusing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top