| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/29/2008 09:02:18 AM · #1 |
I have 24-85 f/2.8-4 that takes excellant photographs. Ran me about $600 a few years back and I get clear crisp focus on the subject. I also have a 17-35 f/2.8 that has outstanding reviews, ran me about $1600 and I can't get the subject to focus like I expect. The files when viewed on the computer screen prior to printing just doesn't have the clarity or crispness I would expect. Even when Tripod mounted. I can't get the 17-35 to shoot sharp subjects. I have a similar issue with a 50mm f/1.8 vs a 50mm f/1.4. The 1.4 costs 6 times the 1.8 and does not take as sharp a photo as the 1.8 (although in this case the 1.4 was bought used).
Is it possible I need to send the 17-35 in to Nikon for some kind of service. Any thoughts appreciated. |
|
|
|
09/29/2008 09:55:32 AM · #2 |
| It's always possible you got a lemon that needs work. Got any example pictures to share? |
|
|
|
09/29/2008 10:54:11 AM · #3 |
| Without an account - no. My attempts to upload an image from a CD are unsuccessful. |
|
|
|
09/29/2008 11:09:16 AM · #4 |
yes / you can send in lenses to check for front/back focus issues
should try to check it yourself /
see //focustestchart.com/chart.html for one method
(check all your lenses !! not just the iffy one .. ...)
|
|
|
|
09/29/2008 11:10:49 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Without an account - no. My attempts to upload an image from a CD are unsuccessful. |
Start yourself a free flickr account. Then simply link to images in that account. |
|
|
|
09/29/2008 11:16:29 AM · #6 |
I'd also be interested in hearing what aperture you shot at. Shooting wide open or stopped right down, you lose a lot of resolution. (usually 1 or 2 stops from full is the best aperture for sharpness but it depends on the lens).
The 1.4 is known to be quite soft by the way. (Really nice for portraits to give the shot that dreamy glamor look though.)
|
|
|
|
09/29/2008 12:21:23 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
I'd also be interested in hearing what aperture you shot at. Shooting wide open or stopped right down, you lose a lot of resolution. (usually 1 or 2 stops from full is the best aperture for sharpness but it depends on the lens).
The 1.4 is known to be quite soft by the way. (Really nice for portraits to give the shot that dreamy glamor look though.) |
F/8 was the latest aperature. I had a chance to shoot the announcement by GM Chairman Rick Wagner regarding the lastest on the Flint Engine Plant for the new Cruze and Volt. Initially was shooting the 17-35 and ultimately swaped to the 24-85 and the 24-85 shots were very nice. Clear and crisp detail on images of the Chairman, Govenor, Mayor, Union officials - etc. The 17-35 images were simply too soft.
Regarding the comments on the 50 f/1.4 - much appreciate it. You have accurately described the sharpess concern I have with that lens. It is exactly like a portrait shot where it is softer in focus. I will now use it exclusively for that task. With 2 50's, I can designate the 1.8 for general purpose and the 1.4 for portrait work. With the cost of the 17-35, I cannot afford for it to be designated for only "soft" photos - besides it is too nice a lens for such a limited role. The above links help. Maybe it is a lens issue with this particular one.
Message edited by author 2008-09-29 12:37:35. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/27/2025 05:42:56 AM EST.
