Nikon 16-85 - Poor Focus / DoF

[Matt3400]

Hi guys,

I recently picked up a second hand 16-85mm but I suspect there is an issue with it. Over the last week I've been out testing it and have found almost all of the images are unacceptably soft or out of focus. The below image is a typical result.

50mm, 1/80, F5, ISO 200 - Single focus point set was on the flowers center of the image.



At 100% crop nothing in the image is sharp. The softness gets worse as the focal length increases. 85mm is blurry or mis-focused every time without fail. I've been trying different shutter speeds, VR on and off and different focus points with no improvements.

At 16mm there seems to be an issue with both softness and Dof.

16mm, 1/30, F8, ISO 800 - Single focus point on the foreground flowers.



The some of the flowers and grass are sharp but nothing else is. The Dof seems very shallow for F8. Oddly, I have managed some acceptable results at 16-30mm (very few!).

16mm, 1/25, F10, ISO 180



I have been shooting with 10-20, 18-55 & 70-300 AFP lenses (on D3400) and have not experienced anything like this. I suspect it's an AF issue and the amount of poor images seems too high to be user error. Is it worth sending it to Nikon service or shall I just return it?

Cheers

Matt

 

[66GTO]

If it was mine, I would return it and look for another that focuses with your body.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Did you follow the lens guidance, assuming the instruction manual came with the lens?

Mine (from the era of a 150 page printed manual) came with a caution AF may not work well with subjects consisting of fine detail like flowers in a field.

The lens guidance advises manual focus for subjects like the first 2 shots below

Single focus point set was on the flowers center of the image



Single focus point on the foreground flowers.



The some of the flowers and grass are sharp but nothing else is. The Dof seems very shallow for F8. Oddly, I have managed some acceptable results at 16-30mm (very few!).

16mm, 1/25, F10, ISO 180

You have not said where you aimed the focus point on the boat shot. There are several parts of the image where your camera manual explains AF may not be accurate.

As you have some shots sharp my speculation is the lens is good

Maybe the issue is you have to accept you may need to use manual focus more often than you expected with the type of images you have posted when shooting at wide focal lengths.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than the equipment being used.

 

[rpps]

I bought the D5600 with the kit Lens 18-55 AF-P, but I wanted something a little longer and a bit wider so I got a new 16-85 as it was a good sharp lens on my previous D300. What a disappointment the photos were soft and just not that clear but not near as bad as the ones you posted. I ended up selling the D5600 and lenses out of frustration and decided to concentrate on using prime lenses with my other camera the D750.

I even tried two Sigma Lenses the 18-50 and the 17-70 and they were much worse than my 16-85 as nothing was sharp at any focal length a bit like the photos you posted. One thing I didn't try when using the 16-85 was taking the cheap UV filter off that I had fitted to it, apparently a poor quality filter can make for some pretty soft out of focus photos, it would be worth a try if you use one

My opinion is that these new 24 MPX sensors out resolve the older lenses like the 16-85, this lens was quiet a good performer on the 12M PX D300 and D90 I use to own.

Stick with your little 18-55 AF-P lens is very good and a very underrated little gem of a lens, is just as sharp as my Tamron 24-70 lens which cost $1200

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

My opinion is that these new 24 MPX sensors out resolve the older lenses like the 16-85,

This is unfortunately an often repeated but untrue internet myth.

The basic optical physics are that every lens at every aperture produces more image resolution when a higher MP body is used.

Going back in time (though still current time for some) there is also more image resolution when using a higher resolving film.

 

[rpps]

My opinion is that these new 24 MPX sensors out resolve the older lenses like the 16-85,

This is unfortunately an often repeated but untrue internet myth.

The basic optical physics are that every lens at every aperture produces more image resolution when a higher MP body is used.

Going back in time (though still current time for some) there is also more image resolution when using a higher resolving film.

 

[Matt3400]

Thanks very much for the input guys. Leonard, you were 100% right regarding the auto-focus performance on fine lines. I took the lens out tonight to test it on a different subject and manual focusing. The results are clearly much better.

50mm



85mm



I guess I was expecting this to behave similar to the AF-P lenses. Next time, I will read the manual!

Cheers

Matt

 

[jshen808]

Thanks very much for the input guys. Leonard, you were 100% right regarding the auto-focus performance on fine lines. I took the lens out tonight to test it on a different subject and manual focusing. The results are clearly much better.

50mm



85mm



I guess I was expecting this to behave similar to the AF-P lenses. Next time, I will read the manual!

Cheers

Matt

..so, guess you will only use your 16-85mm lens to take pictures of wet rocks, and not the grasslands.. (joking of course).. ;-)

..in my collection, I also have the 16-85mm lens, and tried my copy with these cameras..

..D3300 (24mp dx), D7500 (20mp dx), D7000 (16mp dx), D3100 (14mp dx)..

..out of which, the 16-85mm lens worked the best with the D3100 14mp dx camera..

..you can try this with your D3400 24mp dx camera..

..set the camera to medium resolution mode (13.5mp dx), and take some pictures using the 16-85mm lens, and see what results you get..

..the 16-85mm is a fine lens, and I plan to use it with the cameras that are 14mp dx or less..

..so my recommendation for you..

..is to return the 16-85mm lens..

..and get the 18-140mm lens which has the resolving capability for your D3400 24mp dx cameras sensor..

..the above is just my opinions, from my personal experiences..

..others may differ..

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
[YI M1 camera, Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens, firmware 3.0]

 

[jshen808]

I bought the D5600 with the kit Lens 18-55 AF-P, but I wanted something a little longer and a bit wider so I got a new 16-85 as it was a good sharp lens on my previous D300. What a disappointment the photos were soft and just not that clear but not near as bad as the ones you posted. I ended up selling the D5600 and lenses out of frustration and decided to concentrate on using prime lenses with my other camera the D750.

I even tried two Sigma Lenses the 18-50 and the 17-70 and they were much worse than my 16-85 as nothing was sharp at any focal length a bit like the photos you posted. One thing I didn't try when using the 16-85 was taking the cheap UV filter off that I had fitted to it, apparently a poor quality filter can make for some pretty soft out of focus photos, it would be worth a try if you use one

My opinion is that these new 24 MPX sensors out resolve the older lenses like the 16-85, this lens was quiet a good performer on the 12M PX D300 and D90 I use to own.

Stick with your little 18-55 AF-P lens is very good and a very underrated little gem of a lens, is just as sharp as my Tamron 24-70 lens which cost $1200

..Yes, the UV filter can play a role in the image qualities of lenses..

..for testing purposes, best to leave them off the lens.. ;-)

..Cheers..

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Yes, the UV filter can play a role in the image qualities of lenses..

A poor quality filter (the OP mentioned a low cost one) can significantly degrade image quality.

As digital sensors and modern lenses remove problematical UV, UV filters are best not used at all.

A decent quality clear filter (maybe a Nikon NC) if there is a special need for front element protection is the only filter I recommend apart from occasional use of a pol when lighting conditions are right for a good pol effect.

 

[jshen808]

Yes, the UV filter can play a role in the image qualities of lenses..

A poor quality filter (the OP mentioned a low cost one) can significantly degrade image quality.

As digital sensors and modern lenses remove problematical UV, UV filters are best not used at all.

A decent quality clear filter (maybe a Nikon NC) if there is a special need for front element protection is the only filter I recommend apart from occasional use of a pol when lighting conditions are right for a good pol effect.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than the equipment being used.

..agreed..

..Nikon's NC filters is something I'm interested in trying, suppose to not cause any bad effects on the lenses optics..

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
[YI M1 camera, Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens, firmware 3.0]

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

..Nikon's NC filters is something I'm interested in trying,

In the UK Canon clear filters can be cheaper than Nikon. Hoya and others also make clear filters.

 

[rpps]

I will now be taking off all my UV filters after reading these replies, I only put them on my lenses to protect them from scrathes and accidental damage.It's a habit I have done for years and didn't realize how they could degrade yor image capture.
Most of my lenses have Hoya UV filters but on the 16-85 lens I stuck on a cheap $20 Inca brand filter.
I ended up selling all my DX gear and concentrating mainly on my D750. The reason buying the DX Camera and lenses was to have a smaller lighter system but I can achieve that with my D750 and primes. I have now the 24,35,and 50 1.8 G lenses to compliment my Tamron 24-70.

 

[jshen808]

..Nikon's NC filters is something I'm interested in trying,

In the UK Canon clear filters can be cheaper than Nikon. Hoya and others also make clear filters.

 

[jshen808]

I will now be taking off all my UV filters after reading these replies, I only put them on my lenses to protect them from scrathes and accidental damage.It's a habit I have done for years and didn't realize how they could degrade yor image capture.
Most of my lenses have Hoya UV filters but on the 16-85 lens I stuck on a cheap $20 Inca brand filter.
I ended up selling all my DX gear and concentrating mainly on my D750. The reason buying the DX Camera and lenses was to have a smaller lighter system but I can achieve that with my D750 and primes. I have now the 24,35,and 50 1.8 G lenses to compliment my Tamron 24-70.

..Yes, I think most would like some sort of lens protection, to 'protect' our investments..

..but often, the cheaper filters, causes more bad than good..

..as mentioned, the Hoya brand is reputable..

..still, I had an experience with a marginal optics lens, had placed an expensive Hoya HD3 UV filter on it, and noticed the image quality suffered..

..probably a good idea to test a lens, both with and without a lens filter, if plan to use one, and compare the results..

..Cheers..

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

..Yes, I think most would like some sort of lens protection, to 'protect' our investments..

Lens hoods and insurance generally do this better at less cost than filters; without potential problems.

Which to choose is personal choice though, as you suggest, if choosing a filter check for image degradation.

 

[jshen808]

..Yes, I think most would like some sort of lens protection, to 'protect' our investments..

Lens hoods and insurance generally do this better at less cost than filters; without potential problems.

Which to choose is personal choice though, as you suggest, if choosing a filter check for image degradation.

 

[Matt3400]

Thanks very much for the input guys. Leonard, you were 100% right regarding the auto-focus performance on fine lines. I took the lens out tonight to test it on a different subject and manual focusing. The results are clearly much better.

50mm



85mm



I guess I was expecting this to behave similar to the AF-P lenses. Next time, I will read the manual!

Cheers

Matt

..so, guess you will only use your 16-85mm lens to take pictures of wet rocks, and not the grasslands.. (joking of course).. ;-)

..in my collection, I also have the 16-85mm lens, and tried my copy with these cameras..

..D3300 (24mp dx), D7500 (20mp dx), D7000 (16mp dx), D3100 (14mp dx)..

..out of which, the 16-85mm lens worked the best with the D3100 14mp dx camera..

..you can try this with your D3400 24mp dx camera..

..set the camera to medium resolution mode (13.5mp dx), and take some pictures using the 16-85mm lens, and see what results you get..

..the 16-85mm is a fine lens, and I plan to use it with the cameras that are 14mp dx or less..

..so my recommendation for you..

..is to return the 16-85mm lens..

..and get the 18-140mm lens which has the resolving capability for your D3400 24mp dx cameras sensor..

..the above is just my opinions, from my personal experiences..

..others may differ..

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
[YI M1 camera, Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens, firmware 3.0]

Ha ha, no not just wet rocks, I’ve been testing the lens on quite a few different subjects. Now I understand the AF limitations, I’m getting better results.

I’ll give it a go on 14mp, see what the results are like. Really, I bought this lens as a versatile holiday walk around so 14mp should be fine, if that’s the sweet spot for the lens. I will still be carrying my afp lenses too for the important shots.

Cheers

Matt

 

[BasilG]

Did you follow the lens guidance, assuming the instruction manual came with the lens?

Mine (from the era of a 150 page printed manual) came with a caution AF may not work well with subjects consisting of fine detail like flowers in a field.

The lens guidance advises manual focus for subjects like the first 2 shots below

Thousands and thousands and thousands of people use AF for subjects like these all the time. The lens is very clearly defective (even if it can be focused on some subjects some of the time).

 

[jshen808]

Thanks very much for the input guys. Leonard, you were 100% right regarding the auto-focus performance on fine lines. I took the lens out tonight to test it on a different subject and manual focusing. The results are clearly much better.

50mm



85mm



I guess I was expecting this to behave similar to the AF-P lenses. Next time, I will read the manual!

Cheers

Matt

..so, guess you will only use your 16-85mm lens to take pictures of wet rocks, and not the grasslands.. (joking of course).. ;-)

..in my collection, I also have the 16-85mm lens, and tried my copy with these cameras..

..D3300 (24mp dx), D7500 (20mp dx), D7000 (16mp dx), D3100 (14mp dx)..

..out of which, the 16-85mm lens worked the best with the D3100 14mp dx camera..

..you can try this with your D3400 24mp dx camera..

..set the camera to medium resolution mode (13.5mp dx), and take some pictures using the 16-85mm lens, and see what results you get..

..the 16-85mm is a fine lens, and I plan to use it with the cameras that are 14mp dx or less..

..so my recommendation for you..

..is to return the 16-85mm lens..

..and get the 18-140mm lens which has the resolving capability for your D3400 24mp dx cameras sensor..

..the above is just my opinions, from my personal experiences..

..others may differ..

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
[YI M1 camera, Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens, firmware 3.0]

Ha ha, no not just wet rocks, I’ve been testing the lens on quite a few different subjects. Now I understand the AF limitations, I’m getting better results.

I’ll give it a go on 14mp, see what the results are like. Really, I bought this lens as a versatile holiday walk around so 14mp should be fine, if that’s the sweet spot for the lens. I will still be carrying my afp lenses too for the important shots.

Cheers

Matt

..Everything sounds good, Matt..

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
[YI M1 camera, Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens, firmware 3.0]