Softness of Lens?

spraynpray

OK, let's put this focus thing to bed. Put your camera on a tripod and aim it at about 30 degrees downward angle along a tape measure or similar then put the centre focus point on a place middle of the tape measure, open the lens up and take a shot. If none of the marks along the tape are reasonably sharp, it is the probably the lens, if the focus is in front or behind where you expected it to be, that is your problem.

Those images you are posting look like crap to me, but you haven't given me any faith that you have proved it isn't a front focus issue. To me, the grass looks sharper than any part of the deer.

WestEndBoy

OK, let's put this focus thing to bed. Put your camera on a tripod and aim it at about 30 degrees downward angle along a tape measure or similar then put the centre focus point on a place middle of the tape measure, open the lens up and take a shot. If none of the marks along the tape are reasonably sharp, it is the probably the lens, if the focus is in front or behind where you expected it to be, that is your problem.

Those images you are posting look like crap to me, but you haven't given me any faith that you have proved it isn't a front focus issue. To me, the grass looks sharper than any part of the deer.

Agreed on all points.

That will prove it once and for all.

donaldejose

I am beginning to believe it is a bad lens. If the yardstick test doesn't show front or back focus error I think I would just give up and buy another lens. Try the 70-200mm f4. That should be sharp for you.

calengor

I will get the shot you've requested tomorrow to see if it's front or back focusing.
I'm not considering replacing the lens, mostly because I am wanting to go from DX to a D750 in the next couple of months.

spraynpray

If you go for the 70-200 f4, you'll take it with you to FX when you go because it is an FX not DX lens. It will be a sharp lens.

manhattanboy

Can you shoot the same scene using the same focal length, ISO, shutter speed and aperture using the 18-55 versus the 55-200.
It would help to see a sharp photo of the same scene to understand how much of what is being caused is the lens.

calengor

If you go for the 70-200 f4, you'll take it with you to FX when you go because it is an FX not DX lens. It will be a sharp lens.

You make a good point there. I will consider it.

OK, let's put this focus thing to bed. Put your camera on a tripod and aim it at about 30 degrees downward angle along a tape measure or similar then put the centre focus point on a place middle of the tape measure, open the lens up and take a shot. If none of the marks along the tape are reasonably sharp, it is the probably the lens, if the focus is in front or behind where you expected it to be, that is your problem.

Those images you are posting look like crap to me, but you haven't given me any faith that you have proved it isn't a front focus issue. To me, the grass looks sharper than any part of the deer.

I left the tripod elsewhere tonight, so I didn't get the photo I promised, will do tomorrow since I have most of the day off.

Can you shoot the same scene using the same focal length, ISO, shutter speed and aperture using the 18-55 versus the 55-200.
It would help to see a sharp photo of the same scene to understand how much of what is being caused is the lens.

I will do this tomorrow when I do the front/back focusing test, but I'm not sure how illustrative it will be.

calengor

Here are the pics requested by @spraynpray:

Focus on the first two shots is on the zero of "70" and in the rest it was between the 69 and the 70. Single focus point. Fired from tripod at about 30 degrees with remote control shutter release.
No sharpness applied in post, just some contrast.


200mm f/5.6


200mm f/9


135mm f/5


135mm f/9


105mm f/4.5


105mm f/9


85mm f/4.2


85mm f/9


55mm f/4


55mm f/9

I'll get a 55mm (18-55mm) to 55mm (55-200mm) comparison shot later today.

tcole1983

Yeah...that is too bad. At 200 it is pretty bad. The other focal lengths are better. To me the 18-55 is fairly sharp for what it is so I wouldn't be surprised if there is a noticeable difference at the 55 mm range.

People sometimes complained about the 18-200 being a bit soft, but I never had anything like what your 55-200 is showing. Actually I thought mine was pretty sharp...maybe I should have kept it.

donaldejose

Sorry, lens is just soft at 200mm. Don't know it it is all lenses of this type or just yours. Perhaps others here have some experience.

calengor

I mounted the camera on the tripod and shot using the remote, all shots at 55mm:


18-55mm f/5.6


55-200mm f/5.6


18-55mm f/9


55-200mm f/9

No huge differences between the two lenses, but I never get the soft glow seen in the original posts from the 18-55mm one. It's the kit one that came with my D40x that I got around 2007, the autofocus on it doesn't work anymore but I manually focused and used the camera's focus confirmation.

calengor

I'll try out a friend's 55-200mm lens tomorrow when I get together with her to show her some stuff in Lightroom.

calengor

You're not wrong, it's not really worth it to repair it. It's simply disappointing as I am interested in trying out some portraiture and that leaves me with just the 35mm f/1.8 for that for the moment, which doesn't work well for adult faces.

heartyfisher

55-200 should be ok for portraiture .. the "softness" is can be worked into the composition.. The Bokeh is acceptable too..

spraynpray

@calengor: Yup, agreed. Bad lens. Bin it, sell it or get it repaired and move on. Try some others in the shop and see the difference in performance between the price breaks then buy the one that is just a bit more than you want to spend. :P

donaldejose

Replace it with the sharp Nikon 70-200 f4 lens. You can do portraits and wildlife and it is an FX lens for when you want to move to FX. You can use your 35mm f1.8 for low light.

dissent

@calengor: ... You might want to consider the 85/1.8g. It's affordable and extremely sharp. It would work great for portraiture with your camera. The 50/1.8g is even cheaper, and it's a solid performer on a DX camera.

+1

The 85/1.8 is pretty darn nice. I picked up a 50/1.8 recently and I think it's starting to grow on me.

calengor

Will definitely consider both the 85 and 50 f/1.8s. My wish (hope) is to get into a D750 and a lens with Christmas cash gifts before going to Colombia in February on vacation / my birthday.

Here's a portrait I took about a month ago with the soft 55-200mm:

135mm | f/5.0 | ISO 100 | 1/320 sec

heartyfisher

The thing with "weaker" lenses is that to get good images you have less options for distance, aperture, environment and light conditions. That is one of the reasons pros pay so much for expensive glass, it gives them more options. Learn what your limitations are and more importantly the strengths of our gear. ALL gear however expensive have limitations and strengths. For your picture above here are a few suggestions..I am sure the more experienced portrait photographers can suggest more.

1) include more of the shoulders. maybe a bit side on or tilted head. Talk to her. Get a rapport going. She is obviously posing, get her out of that. Ask her to tell a joke. or you can tell the joke. Ask her real questions as if you are talking and drinking coffee etc.
2) use higher F number your lense performs best at F11, so use at least F8 to F11.
3) bec of the high F number and increased DOF stand the model much much further from the wall. Look for lighting and background.
4) lighting was good ! may be try off camera low power fill flash for a a bit of catch light in the eye for a bit of sparkle or more "shaping" of the face.
5) check your white balance.
6) sharpness is not the issue...

7) mix with other photographers .. you get to learn lots from helpful experienced photographers .. real photographers love their craft and many enjoy sharing what they know.

eg: impromptu portrait workshop :-)

calengor

@heartyfisher thank you very much for your tips. I will keep them in mind the next time. I have a hard time photographing people, probably due to shyness / the feeling that I'm wasting their time.

Some explanation / rationalization - I cut off her shoulders because she had a camera strap around her neck that I didn't want to show. It really does feel super posed, I agree. I realize now I could have shot it stopped down without losing too much shutter speed to hand hold while keeping it at ISO 100. The day was actually very sunny, to sunny to shoot in direct light since it was around 1300 and the sun was high in the sky. So I put her next to the wall because it had shade while getting diffused light from everywhere else. I don't currently have an off-camera flash, but it's on my list of things to get. I wasn't too sure about the white balance and color of the picture, here's a version as it came out of the camera before I messed with that:


Here's another shot from that day where I included more of her upper body:


I do have to get over my shyness and interact with other photographers in real life, I'm the only person I know who is into photography this much.

Again, thank you for your input! I have a lot to learn about portraits.

calengor

Last night I got to compare my version of the 55-200mm vs. my friend's and they both exhibit the same kind of softness at longer focal lenghts, so it seems to just be the lens type, which is what I suspected.

PB_PM

The reality is that these kit lenses just don't have the sharpness to keep up with modern DSLR's. Once the cameras started pushing 16+ MP they didn't stand a chance.

tcole1983

@calengor I don't see anything wrong really with your two edited pictures...the first one and then the one where you included more of her body. White balance looks fine also. Lighting could possibly be better or it seems a bit dark to me on the first but looks pretty good on the second.

My words of wisdom...I never interact with other photographers. I however do try different things and read some stuff at least on this forum and sometimes other articles or photography magazines. As for portraits they have always been my weak spot...especially once you get multiple people it is hard to make them great pictures...at least for me. Solo or couple portraits are probably the easiest, especially if they are older and can listen. I had a heck of a time the first time we went to take pictures of my daughter who wouldn't sit still or do anything I wanted. I learned from that time and got some great pictures the second time where we basically just let her be herself and they did have a more candid look. It might not hurt to try with the 35 F1.8...it is really basically a 50mm lens equivalent for FX which is a popular length. Get a little distance between the subject and background and it will require you to be a big closer to get a picture like you shot above, but it is doable. I never particularly liked my 35 f1.8...I prefer to shoot with my 105 F2.8 (or as you have done a longer lens). I don't really like to get in peoples face. I shoot my 17-55 F2.8 sometimes, but almost exclusively at 55mm unless I had to include more people. I vote for the 85 F1.8 if you are contemplating....if I didn't have my 105 F2.8 I would have the 85 already.

manhattanboy

@calengor I don't see anything wrong really with your two edited pictures...

What is "sharp" is subjective to some extent. The 70-300 is sharper than the 55-200, but then neither of them are sharp when compared to the tele primes LOL.

My advice is to really think hard about how "sharp" you want your photos to be versus how much money you really want to spend. The problem with buying a sharp lens is that it is tough to go backwards, and to some extent that is exactly what you are experiencing with your current zoom versus prime experience.

There is an excellent series on Digital Rev TV (www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom) where they challenge some pro photags to shoot using the most ridiculously bad cameras/lens to see what they can produce. It just reinforces that understanding how to use the tool to make excellent photographs is often just as important as the tool itself.

The easy way out is to just buy good glass and sell/gift your soft lens to someone else. But you probably in the long run will benefit more from keeping the lens for a short while and pushing what it can and can't do to the extreme to improve your photographs.

spraynpray

I will not speak of my photography, but when it comes to hunting, I use the same shotgun that was made to my requirements 35 years ago using the stock measurements arrived at using the Boss 'try gun' at the Holland and Holland shooting ground. I do not 'upgrade', the sidelock side-by-side 12G shotgun is the ultimate design in terms of fitness for purpose for the sport. The point of all that is that I can shoot in the dark with that gun, it touches my face, goes off and I collect the game. I can shoot ok with guns that are cheaper or not made to measure, but the results aren't the same and that where the parallel lies with photography. A competent photographer can get great results with average gear, but an average photographer will only get technically better average photos using excellent gear.