bad copy of lens? - DPChallenge Forums

02/02/2013 03:12:39 PM · #28

Ok, it's pretty cold out and I'm a wimp, but I went out for a quick test where I have a small strip of brick on the wall by my garage. This strip is narrow so I set up as close as I could, using a tripod. The front of the lens was about 7.5" from the wall (and I had my B+W UV filter on this time, rather than the polarizer). I was curious to test a few other lenses--like my 24-70 F2.8, but although it says it's 26 out, it was pretty cold (wasn't wearing gloves, so I bagged it after 5-6 minutes!

Here's the results in FULL size (need to click view full size image). All I've done is export from LR with it set not to sharpen.

For these three, I had to turn the camera to portrait mode since the strip was so narrow. I wasn't able to completely be sure it was level...I was cold and didn't think of using the built in leveling indicator. But I used my hotshoe bubble level (I still use that out of habit). These are at 29mm

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 ED VR

02/02/2013 04:14:56 PM · #29

Honestly, I think both Neil and Lanndon's (and Bear's, too, for that matter) lenses are quite sharp. About equal to what my 17-35 does on the D800, better than either of the two 20mm primes I own.

My DPC portfolio is at capacity right now, so I don't have room to upload any full size pictures of brick walls. Anyone keeping score would like to know that my 17mm brick wall pictures are ever so slightly less sharp than Neil's (roughly the same as Lanndon's) but the barrel distortion is noticeably better.

In any case, we're splitting hairs. None of the sharpness issues in any of the lenses we're talking about is likely to show up in any actual photographic usage. The image I have in the free study this week is blurry as hell at pixel peeping distances, but oohh-ahhhhh-wow sharp in an 8x10 print. It's sharp enough for a 16x20 print, too, although given the subject matter, a 16x20 print would be a little frightening.

LanndonKane

Nikon D800

02/03/2013 12:21:23 AM · #30

thanks for the responses, guys, and those shots as well. I believe I
will be taking in the lens to the place I bought it Monday,
where they said they could run a test on it to check
for decentering (skeptical).

if there is a problem, i won't be able to deal
with it until June unfortunately, and it'll have to be
through the Nikon standard 5 year warranty

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 ED VR

02/03/2013 08:45:55 PM · #31

If you want a questionable lens, try one of the new 24-85 VR's that are floating around. I got hold of one cheap from someone who just bought a D600. I was hoping to use it as a lighweight mid zoom for travel. Even with the D800, it's sharp enough taking careful test pictures of a brick wall, but in real life shooting, it doesn't seem to be able to get sharp focus on more than about 1 shot in 5. There seems to be camera shake in nearly every shot. Very annoying. Back to my Tamron 28-75 for now.

LanndonKane

Nikon D800

02/03/2013 08:58:08 PM · #32

Originally posted by Ann:

yeah, i read reviews of that one. not many pretty things.

there really aren't any good, decently priced full frame zooms made by nikon. At 1300 bucks, the 16-35 vr is supposed to be one of the best. anything cheaper is awfu;, and even things more expensive are supposed to be kind of crappy (like the 24-120 f4). then you gotta dish out at least 1800 bucks for the proper zooms, like the 27-70 f2.8

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

02/03/2013 09:53:55 PM · #33

Originally posted by Ann:

Actually, I have that lens and like it. But I did notice that I got enough motion blur shots that I questioned whether the VR was working. I did some tests though, and indeed the VR works. So I don't know what the problem is. But I was really happy with it's performance otherwise--in the field.

My first day out with it and my D600, I shot about 80% with the 24-85 VR.

//nrshapiro.com/p776194578#h4e2ce93a

02/04/2013 12:43:02 PM · #34

Originally posted by Neil:

Originally posted by Ann:
If you want a questionable lens, try one of the new 24-85 VR's that are floating around. I got hold of one cheap from someone who just bought a D600. I was hoping to use it as a lighweight mid zoom for travel. Even with the D800, it's sharp enough taking careful test pictures of a brick wall, but in real life shooting, it doesn't seem to be able to get sharp focus on more than about 1 shot in 5. There seems to be camera shake in nearly every shot. Very annoying. Back to my Tamron 28-75 for now.

Actually, I have that lens and like it. But I did notice that I got enough motion blur shots that I questioned whether the VR was working. I did some tests though, and indeed the VR works. So I don't know what the problem is. But I was really happy with it's performance otherwise--in the field.

My first day out with it and my D600, I shot about 80% with the 24-85 VR.

//nrshapiro.com/p776194578#h4e2ce93a

I was questioning whether or not the VR was a bit hyperactive. When I didn't have motion blur, I got some nice sharp images.

Motion blur isn't a problem I typically have, so I'm not sure what to make of this lens.

My main trip this year is an African safari, so I'll have the long end covered (70-200 f/4 and 300 f/4 with teleconverters). Normal and wide are kind of an afterthought, so I'm willing to make some compromises to keep the weight down, but I still need to get the shot. I don't really want to take my 17-35 because of the weight. But I'm starting to think that the 17-35 and a fast 50 might be the thing to do.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

02/04/2013 12:58:54 PM · #35

Originally posted by Ann:

I was questioning whether or not the VR was a bit hyperactive. When I didn't have motion blur, I got some nice sharp images. Motion blur isn't a problem I typically have, so I'm not sure what to make of this lens.

My main trip this year is an African safari, so I'll have the long end covered (70-200 f/4 and 300 f/4 with teleconverters). Normal and wide are kind of an afterthought, so I'm willing to make some compromises to keep the weight down, but I still need to get the shot. I don't really want to take my 17-35 because of the weight. But I'm starting to think that the 17-35 and a fast 50 might be the thing to do.

There's an easy workaround with the 24-85...use a high enough shutter speed that you don't have to worry about blur! Essentially treat it as a non-VR lens. The D800 and the D600 have great high ISO performance...so why worry about shutter speed! Except under special circumstances, I almost always use a minimum of 1/125 now (which is more than enough for 85mm). It also helps with real-life scene shots because the world doesn't hold still!

I'm not sure you always "need to do this", but it would give you the guarantee you need.

I also have the 28-300 which is very good but HEAVY! I prefer the very light 24-85 (though the range is, of course, not even close). I miss my 18-200 from my APS-C camera--it was the best of all worlds...light, not too big, and good range! My favorite all purpose lens.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 ED VR

02/04/2013 01:21:19 PM · #36

Originally posted by Neil:

Originally posted by Ann:

I was questioning whether or not the VR was a bit hyperactive. When I didn't have motion blur, I got some nice sharp images. Motion blur isn't a problem I typically have, so I'm not sure what to make of this lens.

My main trip this year is an African safari, so I'll have the long end covered (70-200 f/4 and 300 f/4 with teleconverters). Normal and wide are kind of an afterthought, so I'm willing to make some compromises to keep the weight down, but I still need to get the shot. I don't really want to take my 17-35 because of the weight. But I'm starting to think that the 17-35 and a fast 50 might be the thing to do.

There's an easy workaround with the 24-85...use a high enough shutter speed that you don't have to worry about blur! Essentially treat it as a non-VR lens. The D800 and the D600 have great high ISO performance...so why worry about shutter speed! Except under special circumstances, I almost always use a minimum of 1/125 now (which is more than enough for 85mm). It also helps with real-life scene shots because the world doesn't hold still!

I'm not sure you always "need to do this", but it would give you the guarantee you need.

I also have the 28-300 which is very good but HEAVY! I prefer the very light 24-85 (though the range is, of course, not even close). I miss my 18-200 from my APS-C camera--it was the best of all worlds...light, not too big, and good range! My favorite all purpose lens.

Indeed, turning off VR is probably the solution. I use auto-ISO with the max ISO set to 800 when I'm walking around anyway. Even as cloudy and dark as it was yesterday, I think there were only a couple of times when the shutter speed got down into the range where VR would have been helpful. And those times, coincidentally(or not?) were the times when I didn't have problems with motion blur.

It's times like this that I miss the 18-200.

LanndonKane

Nikon D800

02/04/2013 05:23:08 PM · #37

took it back to the camera place. as i suspected, they were clowns (dumb). the manager kept saying it could be the d800 left focus issue, even after i explained to him what a focus plane was.

anyway, they said i could send it back in june, when i return from NZ. so we'll just see i guess.

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100