Unhappy with 16-85 unsure of 16-35 f4

heartyfisher

@spraynpray you mentioned the refresh of the 16-85. Lets dream up some specs :-)

Leave the min at 16 or go better .. say 15?
Vr3?
F4?

I think 16-90 f4 vr3

spraynpray

Good start. There seems to be some impact of going down past 18 that causes a severe limiting of the zoom range unfortunately. It is possible to go 18-300 but as soon as you reduce the minimum fl by a millimeter or two, the max focal length greatly reduces. No doubt a lens designer knows why, but it is a shame. I'm happy enough with 16-85, but VR3 and F4 for sure I would go for, plus a liberal sprinkling of nano coating magic. :P

f2.8? Oh yeah. Something to really make the new DX bodies show what they can do.

TaoTeJared

Can you post some "unsharp" images and point to what/where the issues you see? It's a bit hard to tell what may be the culprit may be. I use to use the 16-85 and it was a great lens. Kind of wish I still had it. The newest VR is better, but to be honest, vr doesn't make much difference when technique isn't as good as it should be. I noticed that in my shots and reflecting where/what I was doing and if I was as steady as I could be. If you shoot in AF-S, and happen to sway towards/away from the subject that will affect it as well. I don't have the steadiest of hands and it's technique that really makes the difference, VR helps, but it is not the end-all. I'm afraid if you are having issues with the 16-85, any other lens wouldn't make much difference.

Just a note, when shooting with a DX body the shutter needs to be 1.5x the focal length due to the crop factor. So shooting at 50mm you should be at 1/80th or above. If you are in hopes to get the sharpest image and you don't have the steadiest hands, you should be at 2x the focal length (or 1/100th with a 50mm.) VR will only help 1-2 stops at most on the long end of a zoom. So on a 50mm lens, you should be at least at 1/80th. 1 stop is 1/40th, 2 stops is 1/20th. I have only seen the 3-4 stops of VR working with tele lenses (100mm+.)

spraynpray

Good point about the swaying - I used to struggle with handheld close-up shots because of that until I set the camera to only release when focused and the AF to continuous.

I'll get some fresh shots later to post. Incidentally, I gather you sold yours Tao, didn't you replace it with the Tokina 17-50 f2.8 OS?

TaoTeJared

I sold it, got a 18-200, sold that, and got the Tamron 17-50 VC for a short time. That was/is a good lens! Actually I liked all three, just kept chasing faster apertures to keep the ISOs low with my D300. The higher the ISO, the less sharp a photo looks as well. Even on my D800 I try not to go above 640. Not that the images are bad above that, but above 640, that is where I can tell the difference from iso 100 with 50% crops. On my D300, that was ISO 400.

The sharpest photos are;
•shot at iso 100 (or native iso),
•a shutter speed at least 2x the focal length,
•F8-16,
•on a solid tripod,
•with flash,
•timed or remote trigger,
•and mirror lock up.

Note that none of that has anything to do with "what lens" was used. When you move any single item, the chance of lack of sharpness creeps in. On a normal day, I might be at F8 but don't have any of those other items. I get lots of borderline sharp images. If you are trying to do handheld close-up shots without a flash, I wouldn't expect much at all. I just went through a set of backyard flower photos that I took with a 105vr all handheld, no flash, just walking around after mowing one day. 300 shots, dumped 260 on the first pass. Flagged 15 to edit, kept 4. Shutter speed was usually over 1/125th of the 15 keepers. Printed the images look great, but pixel peeping I can tell they are not as sharp as I could have done with a tripod. It's not "fun" or sometimes one feels weird/odd/uncomfortable shooting with a flash, but to get really sharp images, you have to - no matter what lens. I found the 1/250th shutter speed to be the "magic" number for sharpness. If my shutter is there, and iso is low, almost every image is nice and sharp. Most of the time that means I have to use fill flash to get there. "Bumming around" I never have my flash - so I have a bunch of just OK sharp images.

One thing I run into with friends asking why their photos aren't sharp, is from the shutter speed going too low, and the iso is going high. You just can't expect images above iso 200 to look crisp sharp. Nor can you expect a shutter speed below 1/60th to be sharp either. That is not going to happen or does so very rarely or with much care. As the ISO rises, the "sharp" drops quickly. Even with VR, if you are shooting below 1/200th a "jerk" will blur an image. Super cropping (>25%) also lowers the sharpness quickly.

For lenses, the "sharpest" is 90% BS pixel peeping fluff that fills pages with words. I can pick out the difference between a kit zoom and a macro, cheap sigma and Nikkor (like the 16-85) but I couldn't between a 18-200, 16-85, 17-50vc or the like between 24mm and 70mm if it is stopped down one or two clicks. Also realize that some photographers really hyper sharpen their images in post as well. To that point, you can take almost any lens and sharpen the image in post to the "next level" of lens with care.

I just picked up a new 24-120 f4 vr and this weekend I will be tripod & flash shooting some "junk" on a table, to get my "base line" of sharpness between f4-f22. Then I'll remove the tripod and turn the VR on and hand hold with flash to see where my limit is hand holding. Then I will shoot more with the flashes off, and see where the limit is. I can tell you now, I don't expect to have tack sharp images with the lens at 120mm and below 1/100th shutter. But they may be good enough. We will see.

ISo 100 • 105vr •1/200 • D800 • Edits LR 5

spraynpray

That is great info Tao, thanks, and wow, that is a sharp image!

So in churches when the vicar will not allow flash life gets tough eh? 1600 ISO 1/15th sec f4 is common for me then.

Photobug

Love that photo TTj. Really sharp.

Lots of good info on how you shoot and clearly identify the optimum picture quality for each piece of equipment. Most amateurs just don't do this. Thanks for sharing the wealth of learning's.

TaoTeJared

That is great info Tao, thanks, and wow, that is a sharp image!

So in churches when the vicar will not allow flash life gets tough eh? 1600 ISO 1/15th sec f4 is common for me then.

Thanks!

Yeah 1600 is above where I would not expect "sharp" for a D7000. You can't really expect sharp as what I shot above iso 400 on any system. 1/15th is really low, you are fighting not just your own movement, but any movement by your subject and even a breeze from a ceiling fan (like on flowers.) For people, I keep my shutter above 1/80th (no flash) but with flash you can get away with 1/15th (some of the time.) Churches are not easy at all. Not sure why they would block flash though. I do not like using a flash on camera and usually will put one off to the side on a stand or clamp one to something overhead like a rail. Even shooting one from a balcony from 60ft away can add a stop or two. At slow shutter speeds, what a flash does is to really freeze motion. It makes a world of difference.


As a reference: D800 • iso6400 • 28mm @ F2.8 • 1/25th - that is what I would consider "sharp" at those settings.

Crop

spraynpray

This is all good info for a lot of people I'm sure and your level of sharpness approximately reflects my experience too, except that your ISO 6400 D800 shot mirrors my ISO 1000 D7000's shots! As you said, if flash is OK, I have no issues with sharpness. Some vicars and priests can be firm about no flash, and I have to warn affected couples that the vicar has limited the quality of the shots they will get, but having said that, they are always pleased with the shots they get even if I'm not so pleased. It's a pain that the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 has an inconsistent focusing issue - I can't risk missed focus or do any lens changes during the ceremony in church. Having said all that, with the downward trend for people going to church these days, the 'managements' attitudes are getting more flexible though.

I compared my D7K's low light performance to my friends 7D and found mine to be better for noise and sharper too which made me feel better about waiting for a refresh of my 16-85 or until I can afford a new body. I think the D7100 with its vastly improved low light focusing and 2 stops better hi ISO is in my future when the next body is out and the prices drop.

TaoTeJared

One issue to keep in mind especially for "church" stuff, it your DOF, I find I am almost always at f4-8 to get everyone in focus. That may be getting you as well. I see people shooting too shallow way too often to get the shutter speed up. As a rule, you would rather have the ISO rise, then the DOF miss on getting everyone in focus. Some can get away shooting at 1.4-2.8 but those are really stylized shots - and generally I only see 1 or 2 of them on their website so I know it was more luck than skillfully planned. Some do it though.

Interesting to hear that on the Sigma. I don't follow the DX glass anymore but it doesn't surprise me. At those apertures it is really pushing lens design and I don't see the point honestly. At that wide you can shoot at really low speeds anyway. To stop motion, you need flash or a shutter above 1/200th. 1 stop of gain over 2.8 is really not that wonderful on ultra wides and I find it hard to believe it would be sharp until f4 anyway.

One thing you might think about trying with the vicars and priests, is putting a 400-1000 watt flash in the back (or in a balcony) pointed at the ceiling to bounce it all over and flag the front so it doesn't spill in people's eyes. I have seen some wedding photgs do this to great effect and it is about the least noticeable I have seen. After a couple of shots, most don't notice it or become accustom to it. They may think it is ok then since the flash is not blasting away in people's faces. You might also try a continuous light as well like what people use for video camera's. From what you are saying, you really need to get your shutter to at least 1/60th (ideally 1/80th) and the iso below 800. Basically you need the DF It is these types of situations where I find myself wanting a D4 and now the DF, even keeping my eye on D3s bodies. I had to back out of a Zoo reception shoot due to no flash and testing the quality a few weeks before, it just could not be there. Really hard to justify an outpouring for the random event though.

You might keep an eye out on the D700 and even the D600 prices. They will be at $1,000 here soon. Depending on how the year goes, I'll either end up with a DF or a D7oo as a second body. A D700 would get you almost all the way to what you need. D3s/D4/DF would for sure.

spraynpray

Don't re-awaken the D610 monster again please Tao! The low ISO on that sensor is very,very nice but I then go from buying an actually adequate hi ISO D7100 body at £739 to £1549 + 24-120VR = £2359! I gain one stop for the extra £1600.

Typically the DoF is enough on DX at f2.8 for alter work if you have a cooperative vicar who steps aside at the vital moments. BTW the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is supposedly pretty good wide open. The bright viewfinder is nice, shame about the focusing issues or I would have bought one. Have a glimpse of the reviews.

henrik1963

@TaoTeJared: Your shot at iso 6400 shows that as long as you do not view your shots pixel by pixel you can get away with crazy iso settings like that.

As for getting sharp shots I have found that using AFON+AFC+single AF point helps a lot when shooting people at F2.8. As others have said if you move just a little you will be out of focus if you use AFS.

Photobug

I have seen several D700 below a $1,000. A few days ago the Nikon Store USA had refurbished ones at a low low price.

tcole1983

If you are going for DX still I love my 17-55 F2.8 even without VR. I really find mostly in the range the lens covers VR isn't as important as with a longer lens. At first I was a bit weary going from my 18-200, but it didn't take too long for me to fall in love.

On the other hand my friend shoots the 16-35 on his D800E and he seems to like it and has done pretty well with it. I might be bias but I just feel better using any of my gold ring lenses...it just seems like they do better no matter what the charts and numbers say.

spraynpray

I am intrigued by your lens collection @tcole1983! You have the 17-55 zoom, the 35, then the 105 and finally the 300. I, on the other hand have the 11-16, 16-85, 70-300, a 50 and a 60. I struggled with the 18-105 having a 2mm gap between it and the 11-16 so I sold it and yet your collection is made up of huge gaps! Shows the difference in our styles I suppose. I really missed that 2mm!

Anyway, I have been really closely watching that lens on ebay recently, used they go for £420-£460 but it was the lack of VR that put me off. I realise that it is less important than on a tele, but then I used to be able to pan racing motorcycles with a 200mm tele at 1/60th and get nice sharp pics. Age happened and now I struggle to hold a wide angle still at 1/60th stationary! Like Tao said, 2 x the fl is good to avoid movement, but these days, VR helps me too. The full story is above, but I need great low light hi ISO performance, great low light focusing from the body, and VR on fast glass. The D7100 gives me most of that with the sigma 18-35, but the range of that lens isn't great enough, and it doesn't have VR. Nevertheless, that is prolly what I will end up with for low light unless I find the comments about inconsistent focusing by the Sigma to be true. If that is the case, I will go for the 17-55 f2.8.

tcole1983

Spray...it did make me change my shooting a little bit. The 18-200 was so convenient to shoot whatever whenever and never change a lens. So after I got the 17-55 I struggled to realize unless I want to change my lens I am stuck at 55 on the long end...which is usually my problem. But I don't really find myself worried about the gaps. If I want a bit longer or portraits I use my 105..if it is animals or something even further away I put my 300 on...and it is almost macroish so I use it a bit like that too. I also got some pretty blurry shots when I first went to the non-vr lenses. It makes me pay attention to shutter speed a bit more. Personally that range from 17-55 is my most used range anyway and can go from a landscape to a portrait so it is fairly useful. Obviously for other shots I have to switch to the more specializes lenses. I hardly use my 35 but keep it handy for the f1.8 and a light walk around lens.

But I don't regret any of my current lens purchases. I think they all perform top notch (not looking at numbers and just from actual use). I had some focus issues on my 18-200 and I never have a problem with my current lens lineup.

tcole1983

I will add though that I shot the heck out of my 18-200 and I still thought it did a great job. So I don't really totally think just the lens will make a picture awesome. I think the "pro" gold ring lenses really give pictures that little something (hard to explain), but I wouldn't count out any other lens either.


All these with the 18-200

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@spraynpray & really, everyone :-)

Age happened

I use a carbon fiber tripod that is light enough to carry and use anywhere I go. The argument is that heavy is better isn't lost on me - heavier tripods mean steadier images in nearly all cases - but lighter tripods can be carried in many precarious circumstances by unstable old men with shaky hands and with a cable release and old tricks can produce sharp images in all but windy and weather beaten conditions, and even then 'old tricks' still win out.

My best,

Mike

spraynpray

It is between the 18-35/1.8 Sigma and the 17-55/2.8 Nikkor at the moment for me. Neither have VR, the 1.8 has a restricted zoom range, but has DxO figures that are WAY above the Nikon offerings. The 17-55 bridges the important (for me) 24 to 35mm lens change area so they are difficult to choose between. Another important consideration is that they are both DX lenses and I wanted to build an FX collection so this means a commitment to DX. 'Sigh', I wish Nikon had a better range of lenses for their DX bodies. Now, with the quality of the newest bodies, such a poor selection of top quality lenses is quite an oversight IMHO.

spraynpray

@MikeGunter: I love my CF tripod too! I had a slightly heavier tripod before that was great in big blows, but it was a nightmare to carry all day. Trouble with tripods and VR is they don't stop subject movement so good hi ISO performance and fast lenses become important.

tcole1983

Gosh I hate to spread my bias opinion, but when in doubt...buy the Nikon

17-55 F2.8 and possible only stabilization I used is a monopod.

spraynpray

There is no doubting the quality of the 17-55, it is simply the lack of VR that bothers me.

I am now considering the Tamron SP 17-50mm F/2.8 Di II XR VC LD Aspherical IF as it has 'VC'.

Anybody have any views? It seems to out-score the Nikon (if that means anything 8-| ).

tcole1983

I at one point purchased the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 with optical stabilization. I actually like the lens, but returned it shortly after because of some expenses that came up. I thought it felt much better than the Tamron counterpart. It had a nice smooth zoom and focused quickly and quietly. I thought it was very sharp also. I didn't buy my 17-55 F2.8 until much down the road after having a couple more Nikon lenses and then I decided to just stick with Nikon.

It is a bit of a disappointment that Nikon hasn't updated some of these lenses with VR while some lenses are on their 2nd version with it.

TaoTeJared

There is no doubting the quality of the 17-55, it is simply the lack of VR that bothers me.

I am now considering the Tamron SP 17-50mm F/2.8 Di II XR VC LD Aspherical IF as it has 'VC'.

Anybody have any views? It seems to out-score the Nikon (if that means anything 8-| ).

Reading down, I was about to ask what about the Tamron. The Tamron is a good lens, I used it enough to make it a keeper. I only dumped it when I decided and went FX. Built well, great images. I have seen a bunch of used one's going fro $200 off - at that price I have been tempted to get one for my IR converted D50 rig and one could re-sell it for what you paid for it.

spraynpray

@TaoTeJared: It seems such a good buy - even new - that I could get it just for low light use if there is a problem with edge softness or whatever. As a bonus, I see LR and PS support lens corrections for Tamron too - that was a strong reason for buying Nikon before.

I'll see what I can find....