Would you be happy with this?

JerryL

JerryL

Suspended / Banned
Messages
338
Name
Jerry
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all TP'ers

Avoiding the temptation to view the EXIF data, on the attached focus chart below would you say this lens is sharp, soft, focusing correctly?

My thoughts are I'm very unhappy with the results, I'm having variability in different situations so I am attaching some of the results. In all these shots I have used single point focus, Single servo, but it's like the focus is not where it is supposed to be. Could it be a camera issue?









and the lens in question is.....

.
.
.
.
.Nikon 70-200 f2.8 AFS VR2, so would you be happy or am I being too critical?
 
I really don't know Nikon and their lenses, but they do seem very soft. They don't appear to be out of focus to me, but I could be wrong.
 
They seem soft rather than out of focus to me - has camera shake been eliminated? I don't know if they were taken with a tripod (without VR) or handheld (with/without VR?) The focus chart seems OK to my eyes, doesn't seem to be a focus issue there.

I suspect this is my old D300s you have (from MPB?), if so I can say that I never had any focus issues whatsoever with it so you can probably eliminate the camera as the culprit.
 
Taken at f2.8 they will be a bit soft.
If you tried at f4 I bet you'd see a difference......
 
Are they shot in RAW or Jpg?
 
I suspect the lens as my Nikon 18-105 is sharp with the same subjects, and the Sigma 150-500 is also sharp

The yellow flower was taken at:
Exposure Time: 1/8000 sec
F-Number: f/2.8

The poppy
Exposure Time: 1/5000 sec
F-Number: f/2.8

The blackbird was:
Exposure Time: 1/640 sec
F-Number: f/2.8
Exposure Program: Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating: 800
VR was used

Here is the same focus test with the Sigma 150-500, to me the lens is sharper
 
If you want to know if a lens is good or not, the best way is to test it against another lens of know quality. Identical images, same time, place, settings, processing (especially processing) and compare them side by side. Looking at pictures in isolation is almost meaningless.

And that focus test chart can be very misleading, although it looks okay from what you've posted. Unless you always shoot at very close distance with a 200mm lens, there's a good chance that it will not be representative of AF accuracy at normal shooting range.
 
Looks about right to me? You're at the extremes in most cases, so that's pretty much expected. Focus chart seems spot on.
 
HoppyUK said:
If you want to know if a lens is good or not, the best way is to test it against another lens of know quality. Identical images, same time, place, settings, processing (especially processing) and compare them side by side. Looking at pictures in isolation is almost meaningless.
Click to expand...

Have just posted the comparison with Sigma 150-500 done at the same time.
 
The first test shot looks sharper to me.

Add a bit of USM in Photoshop and they would all be fine...........
 
JerryL said:
Have just posted the comparison with Sigma 150-500 done at the same time.
Click to expand...

I see more contrast, but less sharpness and IQ in the Sigma. Might be the beer eyes, but your 70-200 looks fine to me. Go out and use it properly before making up your mind? :thinking:
 
The top one was shot at F2.8 and the bottom one is shot at F6

You would need to do them both at F2.8 to make them relative.

Personally I think the lens looks a little soft though even though it's focul point seems to be spot on.
 
JerryL said:
Have just posted the comparison with Sigma 150-500 done at the same time.
Click to expand...

But they're not the same, and if you're looking for sharpness then you need to look at 100% crops side by side.

Nothing wrong with the focus, from what you've shown.

What's the problem? Have you noticed something consistently wrong in real shooting? Can you replicate that, and do a comparison with another (good) lens?

Unless you can do that you'll never know for sure. And you will always have doubts ;)
 
What started my concerns were the next 2 photo's. I know the general scene is pretty poor, but on both of these the focus point was on the bird and the focus lock was confirmed by the camera, yet they are OOF. In fact I was struggling to see ANY part on these that was in focus.



In this shot the cables and the birdhouse appear focused but the focus point was the bird

 
JerryL said:
I suspect the lens as my Nikon 18-105 is sharp with the same subjects, and the Sigma 150-500 is also sharp

The yellow flower was taken at:
Exposure Time: 1/8000 sec
F-Number: f/2.8

The poppy
Exposure Time: 1/5000 sec
F-Number: f/2.8

The blackbird was:
Exposure Time: 1/640 sec
F-Number: f/2.8
Exposure Program: Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating: 800
VR was used

Here is the same focus test with the Sigma 150-500, to me the lens is sharper
Click to expand...

If VR was used on all photos, this could be your problem, VR can effect image quality at above 1/500, try again without Vr on.
 
The original test shot looks pin-sharp.

The three random images look fine to me; yellow flower is overexposed so it's hard to see what's sharp without some decent detail and contrast. The purple flower is fine. The blackbird is too small in frame to realistically tell the focus.

The siggy shot looks sharp but isn't as contrasty - that can easily fool your eyes, that lack of contrast when compared with the Nikon.

The two bird shots - again, the subjects are too small in frame to realistically see if things are correctly focussed, although the first one looks a bit iffy altogether.... what focus mode and which AF point was active on that one? The second looks like it's focussed on the trees, which is the larger 'object', much larger than a little tit.....

Really, we need to see some shots of larger objects in shot that won't fool the AF.
 
specialman said:
The original test shot looks pin-sharp.

The two bird shots - again, the subjects are too small in frame to realistically see if things are correctly focussed, although the first one looks a bit iffy altogether.... what focus mode and which AF point was active on that one? The second looks like it's focussed on the trees, which is the larger 'object', much larger than a little tit.....
Click to expand...

In these Single Centre Focus Point only, Single servo AF (lens switch in S position)

I agree the first shot I was stunned when I uploaded from the camera, light was low hence shot f2.8 with VR on

I cannot understand why the tree would be more in focus with the single centre focus point being the only one selected.
 
JerryL said:
I cannot understand why the tree would be more in focus with the single centre focus point being the only one selected.
Click to expand...

I can't either, but it's a consideration. :)

the AF points on a D300 are pretty small aren't they, so there shouldn't be much room for error on the camera's part. Have you got wrap switched on?....

Was the camera/lens on a tripod and could there conceivably have been any movement between locking focus and pressing the shutter?
 
specialman said:
Have you got wrap switched on?....
Click to expand...

- wrap is switched off

specialman said:
Was the camera/lens on a tripod and could there conceivably have been any movement between locking focus and pressing the shutter?
Click to expand...

It was handheld, VR ON and I was braced against hide opening lens cradled in my hand. Difficult to say if movement was totally eliminated.
 
Both the bird images are back-focused. Are you using focus-recompose technqiue? When you check the focus point in post processing, it only shows which point was used, not necessarily what it was focused on.

All your images look a bit flat. It's very hard to tell anything meaningful from a few uploaded images but maybe check your post processing regime, or the JPEG paremeters set in camera which are usually transferred and applied to the Raw, unless you change them later.

If have a focus calibration issue, it will always show up consistently. But if you have a user-focus problem that can be harder to nail down ;) Either way, some controlled tests at normal distance range will show it up if it's there.

You clearly have some issues but from what we've seen it could be a lot of variables. You need to go through a process of elimination with comparsion images, step by step.
 
Thanks Hoppy, I'm glad you noticed the flat images, that would be my second complaint with lots of other images I have taken, too many to post here.

I just feel the images lack punch for such an expensive lens. If I am at f2.8 and have to apply +1/3 or +2/3 Exposure comp, images become washed out but thats another issue.

The shop I bought the lens from have agreed to do comparative tests with another lens they have, and as its within the 28 days will exchange if I am unhappy. I'm just gonna drag my laptop in with all the images taken so far with the 70-200 that look c**p, which is probably 90% of them.
 
JerryL said:
I just feel the images lack punch for such an expensive lens. If I am at f2.8 and have to apply +1/3 or +2/3 Exposure comp, images become washed out but thats another issue..
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on this? What is your intended purpose of adding exposure compensation?
 
Why are you using such a high ISO.? some are at 640 some are at 800. Lower the ISO and you might find a difference in the picture quality.
 
Have you sharpened these images (including the calibration shot) after reducing them in size? If you haven't then I suspect that could be your only issue.

Sharpened version of your calibration shot....

4746782157_2fe1e339cd_b.jpg


Looks fine to me.
 
All the images you have taken will probably just confuse things.

If they have another lens you can try, the sort of focusing error you are showing will be seen on the LCD easily enough by just enlarging the images on that. Very easy to make instant comparisons that way. Shoot at f/2.8 obviously. It's miles out on that chaffinch pic for example, no way you won't see that.

Sharpness issues are harder to pin down, but it can be done. If it's a 'good copy' thing, the chances of getting two lenses that are identically bad is remote so again some careful side by side tests should show it.

The most common problem is decentering and that shows up readily with differences in corner sharpness. Focus very carefully on a distant subject to minimise any potential errors there, lock the focus and exposure and shoot five pictures at f/2.8 with the target in the centre of the frame and in each corner. Check the LCD for an equal level of sharpness but don't expect great quality as you won't get it.

This is a tough test and what you are looking for is an equal level of sharpness. If one or more corners are markedly worse, and it will be obvious if there is an problem, then the lens has been badly asembled, or perhaps taken a bash. The central image will show what the lens is capable of. To be certain, repeat the test at short, middle and long ends.

Repeat with the other lens, then compare on the lappy. Take notes, so you know what's what!

Make sure the shutter speed is absolutely shake free, and use IS/VR and ISO to get that. And make sure that all the tests, or at least each group of tests, are conducted under identical light. The difference between sun and cloud in these things is night and day (see what I did there?).

Be methodical, and the truth will out. If you look for problems, you will probably find them even if they're insignificant or not even there! Serious problems are obvious - if you have to look twice and three times, there's probably nothing wrong.

If you do find something amiss, repeat the relevant test. If it's the lens, it will show up again.
 
CT said:
Have you sharpened these images (including the calibration shot) after reducing them in size? If you haven't then I suspect that could be your only issue.

Sharpened version of your calibration shot....

<snip>

Looks fine to me.
Click to expand...

CT is brilliant at that ;) That's what I mean by checking your post processing regime.
 
JerryL said:
What started my concerns were the next 2 photo's. I know the general scene is pretty poor, but on both of these the focus point was on the bird and the focus lock was confirmed by the camera, yet they are OOF. In fact I was struggling to see ANY part on these that was in focus.



In this shot the cables and the birdhouse appear focused but the focus point was the bird

Click to expand...

These are a terrible test for any AF system! If your AF square includes the bird and part of the bg, it doesn't 'know' what it's supposed to focus on.I'm surprised that in this example you obtained a focus lock at all and that the lens didn't just hunt back and forth.

If you're going to use birds for these sort of tests you need to get a lot closer to them, so that the bird is bigger than the AF square at least.

I'd be very surprised if there's anything at all wrong with your Nikon lens- relax and look for some more realistic subjects. :D
 
CT -
All images except the test charts were sharpened before export to 800 width. I left the test charts alone as I was interested to see what they were like straight out of the camera, the instructions never mentioned applying sharpening so I didn't want to influence the charts results.

Thanks for all the responses, it appears that the problems are a mixture of lighting problems, aperture settings and iso and I must not forget - user error.

Many responses concur that the focus charts seem fine, so I'll accept that there appears to be no significant back focus or front focus issues. As for the variability in shots, I will need to try some comparative tests between lenses. I do suspect some VR issue, so as some have suggested I'll try and avoid VR above 1/200 sec and try shooting less wide open at f2.8 unless absolutely necessary.
 
JerryL said:
CT -
All images except the test charts were sharpened before export to 800 width. I left the test charts alone as I was interested to see what they were like straight out of the camera, the instructions never mentioned applying sharpening so I didn't want to influence the charts results.
Click to expand...

All images should be resharpened after being resized for web use :thumbs:
 
While I agree with CT that there is quite likely nothing wrong, and that those are indeed dangerous images on which to base a focus test, if the camera had not locked on to the bird it would have gone to the background or something else nearby. But it hasn't, and it's twice gone to an area a roughly similar distance behind the subject. A long way admittedly.

The fact that the focus appears to be okay at very close distance is not necessarily an indicator that the focus is indeed okay at normal range. Although the discrepency is large, too large for a 'normal tolerance' variantion, if there is something wrong with the lens then strange things can happen.

I'm not saying anything is wrong with the gear, but something isn't right and a bit of controlled testing should identify it easily enough. Perhaps more importantly, it will put the OP's mind at rest over an expensive purchase.
 
Bloody Hell Jerry -I just checked out the price of your .Nikon 70-200 f2.8 AFS VR2! :eek: I'm not having it that this is anything but a cracking lens.

I think there's two things you need to get a good understanding of...

(1) How your AF system works.

You need to fill the AF rectangle with part of your subject which is all in one plane and with enough fine detail/contrast for the AF system to function and lock on to. If you try focusing on a plain wall with no detail at all the AF system will hunt back and forth till the batteries run flat!

If there are two separate planes in the AF area - your subject and something further way or closer to the camera -again the camera will hunt back and forth or lock on to the foreground or background. You need to choose the AF area on your subject very carefully.

(2) Image Sharpening.

You shouldn't necessarily expect pin sharp images when viewing the image at full size. What you should be looking for is images which look good enough to sharpen acceptably at the more realistic reduced sizes you'll be printing at or otherwise outputting them.

Even if an image IS pin sharp at full size, reducing it in size will lose sharpness -it's inevitable! You can't reduce an image from 3 or 4 thousand pixels or more wide, down to 800 pixels and expect it to be sharp - you're trying to pour a gallon into a pint pot. You MUST sharpen an image after reducing it in size ALWAYS.

Hope that helps Jerry.
 
JerryL said:
CT -
All images except the test charts were sharpened before export to 800 width.
Click to expand...
Sorry Jerry I just read this.
Well if you're resizing and sharpening properly at 800 pixels and uploading at that size they should be fine. Some hosting sites do resize your images (if they're oversize) and lose definition in the process, but if there's no resizing involved you shoudn't see a difference.
 
Hi Jerry,

I would take CT's advice on this one. To me, your focus charts look fine and very sharp. I remember when I first got my 70-200 I found the same problem with flowers, my shot's where like your shots. I changed to F4 to give me more depth of field, because the depth of field is so shallow at F2.8 something will be infocus but it's just so small an area you'll have trouble seeing it!

Hope this helps :)
 
SOLVED - Update is I got the lens exchanged and both the shop and myself agreed there was a marked difference in my lens and a new one they got into stock to compare against. No quibble - well done Jacobs photographic:thumbs:

The washed out poor contrast issues have gone and the replacement is streets ahead in terms of sharpness. The shops view was maybe just a body/lens compatibility problem.

Some quick shots in the garden

f2.8


f3.5


f5.6


f8
 
Glad you got a result. Wish I'd read the last post first though :D
 
ryanyboy said:
Glad you got a result. Wish I'd read the last post first though :D
Click to expand...

:agree:

OK, so it's easy for me to be 'wise after the event', but there's no way that any of the first images resembled what's comes out of my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, even on an idiot user day :bonk:! More than just a sharpening issue, I would have said :|.

Anyway, the latest posts look a lot more like it. This lens should be good enough to use wide open in most circumstances, IME.

Good result Jerry, I'm pleased for you :thumbs:!
 
A Big thankyou to all who responded.

I do accept that there is a bit of a learning curve with prime / f2.8 lenses but having had the original VR1 model something didn't add up. I'm learning with more sophisticated kit and accept some of the original pictures were challenging in many ways. The focal tests didn't reveal anything too dramatic but this replacement is just so different, its like witchcraft (LOL)

I think the biggest surprise to me, and the shop was the performance i.e lack of the washed out look. They had similar on their D300s but not their D90.

I am over the moon now, and again just shows Jacobs have good customer service.

Time to delete the old photos and get out and take some good un's to enoy:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top