Lack of sharpness on Nikon Kit Lens?

M

Mr Plumb

Suspended / Banned
Messages
36
Name
Elliott
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey guys, just a quick question.

I find that I'm struggling to get razor sharp images with my Nikon 18-55mm lens. I see other peoples photos and they are so sharp with so much detail, its frustrating that i cant get those shots. Yes i know i don't have the best kit in the world but surely its possible to get fairly sharp photos ?

Would the use of a tripod help?

Is it me, the camera or the lens that is at fault? If it is the lens, could anyone recommend a better lens that isnt really pricey?


Thanks people :)
 
I used a D60 most of last year and find the kit lens fine. It would help if you could post a shot your not happy with and make sure it has the exif data.
 
Nikon's kit lenses are surprisingly good.

Test it with higher shutter speeds an no filters and see what you get.
 
At what apertures are you shooting, and what do you consider "sharp"? Are you talking about viewing them at 100% 18 inches away from your monitor? after you've resized down for the web? as a print?

As others have said, post some images demonstrating the issue you're experiencing and then we can be of a bit more help.
 
i have been accused on another forum of oversharpening my images from the studio...I have a D2x & D3x....D2 have 17-55 2.8 and the D3 has 24-80 2.8....they are both crystal clear and beautifully sharp...i would never advise sharpening on any work done in the studio....if shots need sharpening, bin it...aint got any commercial value..

shoot RAW, bridge - camera RAW - jpegs - client viewing - average sales of £600...
 
I would guess that around f8 is probably about the sharpest a kit lens will be, if its around f4.5 then it may not be too sharp. I try to avoid taking pics of people below 1/60 - using 1/40 if I have to, but ideally 1/125 or more is best.

I noticed that my images from a 50mm 1.8 were much better than a kit lens and have now added a good tamron, 70-200 2.8 nikon as well as the wonderful 50mm 1.4 which is where you will find a big improvement.
 
I use both the Nikon kit 18 - 55mm and the 50mm f/1.8. I've never had any problem with either lens. The 50mm is better within its range, but only because it's a prime lens. I've never had a problem with lack of sharpness on the 18 - 55, and it does everything I require of it.

The lens isn't at fault - but it would be helpful if you showed some photos and described your particular circumstances. It is possible to try and push the lens too far, but if you work within its capabilities, you'll find it to be perfectly acceptable.
 
Anyway, to answer the second question, the step up from your kit is one of the 17(ish)-55(ish) constant f2.8 jobs.

The Nikon one (Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 G DX AF-S IF-ED) is considered the best, but the most expensive - about a grand...

Alternatives come from Tamron, Sigma and Tokina, all are more than acceptable and better than what you have now and come in around the 300-400 quid mark.

I personally use the Sigma 18-50, but most consider the Tamron 17-50 to be the best of the bunch, but I found the focusing too slow for moving subjects (static ones, its ace and the colour rendition is, IMHO, better than the Sigma)
 
desantnik said:
The Nikon one (Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 G DX AF-S IF-ED) is considered the best, but the most expensive - about a grand.
Click to expand...
Not quite as wide, but I think I'd rather have the 24-70 f/2.8 over the 17-55, a couple of hundred quid more expensive though.
 
I'd agree the 24-70 probably renders a nicer photo and of course is FX... but on the other hand, its not as wide, which can be an issue. (I love the 24-70, but its not wide enough for things like static cars in pit garages etc on my DX body. Its great for motorcross though!)

That and the fact that you can get pretty much Nikkor 17-55 performance out of the third party lenses for one third of the Nikkor 24-70 price....
 
Mr Plumb said:
Hey guys, just a quick question.

I find that I'm struggling to get razor sharp images with my Nikon 18-55mm lens. I see other peoples photos and they are so sharp with so much detail, its frustrating that i cant get those shots. Yes i know i don't have the best kit in the world but surely its possible to get fairly sharp photos ?

Would the use of a tripod help?

Is it me, the camera or the lens that is at fault? If it is the lens, could anyone recommend a better lens that isnt really pricey?


Thanks people :)
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is nothing wrong with your kit. It is very capable of extremely high quality results. Please don't get the idea that you have to spend a grand on lenses just to get a decent image!

The thing that makes the biggest difference is good light - bright hazy sun is perfect, with a bit of punch and contrast, but not too much. Don't shoot straight into the light, try to keep the sun to one side or behind until you get more confidence. Direct sunlight can give very deep dark shadows but it will certainly be sharp enough.

Shoot with a high shutter speed to avoid shake, low ISO for max quality, focus carefully and use a mid-range f/number like f/5.6 or f/8 where the lens will be absolutely sharpest (but still not bad at other settings). You'll also get a bit of depth of field to cover any small focusing errors.
 
Are you using any filters by any chance as I had the same problem on the kit lens recently. I entered the world of dslr's not so long ago and bought a D5000, slapped on a cheap uv filter from 7dayshop to protect the lens from my exploring child and kept it on ever since.

Having noticed the images were not that sharp I removed the filter and the quality instantly improved.. as they say "you pay for whay you get"!
 
Kaouthia said:
That's why they make a 14-24mm f/2.8 ;)
Click to expand...

from 18-55 to 14-24 and 24-70, that's one upgrade :D

I'm sure the 18-55 will do what you need for now, certainly until you know for sure what other lenses you might like to add. For example, in the short term you might decide you'd be best adding a 35/1.8 instead of replacing the 18-55.
 
Pictures as mentioned earlier would be useful, however instead o fall the expnesive upgrades, (OP's request was could anyone recommend a better lens that isnt really pricey), the Nikon 18-70mm is a really great lens, very sharp and not at all expensive.
 
If you are seeing peoples shots on the web, then forget trying to judge sharpness. You are seeing less than 1 megapixel downsampled / pixel-binned images with edge enhancement.

Do they look good printed - try an A3. If it looks good A3 size (double page mag spread) its sharp enough.
 
Thanks for all the replys guys!

Regarding jpeg and RAW. These sample photos were shot as jpeg. I constantly shoot in raw now but havent noticed much of a difference to be honest.

Also, filter wise i have an £8 CPL Filter from ebay, seemed to work wonders when taking a photo of a car in the day and i leave it on, should i take it off?

Sorry i havent uploaded any pics i have been at work all day! Heres a few i picked quickly that im not happy with.

(The GTR was before i had a CPL)

DSC_1682.jpg

DSC_2033.jpg
 
f22 and a 3 sec exposure and exposure bias -1 for the second shot:thinking:. can you explain why you chose these settings and what you were trying to achieve.
 
The fiesta shoot was a very very quick one, just took a few shots and changed the settings untill i was happy then kept shooting with these settings, iirc it was a good 8 months ago i did that.
 
The first shot seems sharp to me, although front-focused. There is a lot of structure on the ground.

The second ... well, don't expect wonders at f/22.
 
This was shot with the same lens on a D60 using a tripod and a remote

 
You asked if a tripod would help ?

With that in mind - did you hand hold the 3 second f/22 shot ?
 
foggy4ever said:
This was shot with the same lens on a D60 using a tripod and a remote
Click to expand...

Ok i hate you now lol, lovely shot by the way :)

Also i bought a genuine Nikon remote 4 days ago, so i'm hoping that will help too to cut down camera shack when i press the shutter. I did experiment with using the time delay aswell.

dinners said:
You asked if a tripod would help ?

With that in mind - did you hand hold the 3 second f/22 shot ?
Click to expand...

No was all tripod that shoot.
 
I had a D50 with the kit 18-55 - Not got that many examples from back then to hand but both these were at the 18mm end at f8 and f11 which seemed to give decent results.

4387668351_6d6d50b5ac_b.jpg


1691752009_f5e43a342b.jpg
 
I really think i need to be sticking F8 or 9 and see how i get on, thanks for your help guys, will go out tomorrow and see what i can achieve :)

Thanks again for the help :)
 
Mr Plumb said:
I really think i need to be sticking F8 or 9 and see how i get on, thanks for your help guys, will go out tomorrow and see what i can achieve :)

Thanks again for the help :)
Click to expand...

Give it a bash - you will probably find your 'sharpest' results will come between f8 and f11 at a guess - providing of course you have the light to use sensible shutter speeds with those apertures. If it's just for the purpose of testing image quality - leave the ISO down at 100, get the tripod out and use your timer or remote. :thumbs:
 
Mr Plumb said:
<snip>

Also, filter wise i have an £8 CPL Filter from ebay, seemed to work wonders when taking a photo of a car in the day and i leave it on, should i take it off?

<snip>
Click to expand...

Looks like technique issues, easily sorted as I described earlier. But get rid of that cheapo polariser for sure. Polarsiers are great, but good ones are not cheap.

I'm local to you, and I've seen a black GTR in town. Get me a test drive in that and I'll show you how it's done ;)

PS Fine landscape Phil (dinners).
 
An £8 polariser...?
Do they come that cheap...? Window glass is more expensive than that...surely...?

My CP cost about £150 I think...
 
By your command...
 
Mr Plumb said:
What do you mean by this? So i can rectify it for next time
Click to expand...
Sorry, should have mentioned this straight away. At very small aperatures refraction takes its toll and reduces sharpness. Generally this happens at aperatures smaller than f/8 or f/11.

edit: indeed, diffraction. Although it's bascially the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top