Reading mode: Light Dark

------------>Lens sharpness acceptability, [1] poll

Go to last post
Y

Yasir

Well-known member
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Location
London, UK
Is this acceptable to you, the sharpness at 2.8 at 200mm with 70-200VR



There was no post processing except for resizing and converting to high quality jpg. I keep feeling that its just way too blurry compared to what else ive seen but this was a "good" one at 2.8, flash fired both under same conditions etc.

im considering sending it to get calibrated but i want to know if this is common?

please post:

sharp - yes
not good enough - no

thank you...
 
Was this taken handheld or was this taken on a tripod? What was shutter speed on this picture and may be we should take a picture of a stationary subject? We need to make sure it's not your subject's movement as well right?
--
Steven
Time to put all these gears to work and focus on my photography.
 
they were both at 1/250" handheld with VR on, and the subject was still, since they were both taken with the same conditions i thought you could compare. I mean for a lens that cost me over £1K this is unacceptable for myself, just wondering if anyone else was in the same situation, and what they thought of the sharpness.

If i send it back could it actually be fixed?
 
could this be the glowy effect that causes softness that other people were describing before?
 
Hi,

if you want to test sharpness then you have to eliminate all disturbing factors.

Tripod, MLU, VR Off and a really non-moving target.

My 70-200VR had to be calibrated before it yield the results I expected. If you have a warranty then send it to Nikon. It can only get better or stay the same...
--
Visit http://www.voider.net
 
ok thanks ill do the tests, btw did the lens have back/front focussing issues that you sent to get calibrated?
 
How did you get so close with a 70-200? Or is this a 400 percent crop or something?
--
Nikon D2x, Nikon Lenses 10.5, 12-24, 28-70 2.8, 70-200 VR, 85 1.4 Sigma 30 1.4
Tamron 28-75 2.8, Fuji S3, SB800, Quantum T4d, & More.
 
the f/2.8 pic lacks contrast, though
 
it was within focus distance 100% crop

you think its sharp? look near the bottom of the eye and compare with 5.6 theres a massive difference,but some people seem to experience this, others dont. im thinking of sending it back to nikon uk for calibration, just to be sure.
 
actually, the problem could be that it caught focus on the upper eyelash in the first pic, just did a wall test and it seems fine to be perfectly honest, but at f/4 it seems perfect.
 
It looks about average. If I were critical of sharpness then I would say no. I would expect much more from one of Nikon's more reputable lenses.
-----------------------
Aroundomaha
http://aroundomaha.smugmug.com
 
At 5 feet f/2.8 your DOF is 1/10 of an inch.

I have used the eye as sharpness indicator before and under normal conditions hand held it would be hit or miss.

Regardless of shutter speed I think you need to control the conditions using a tripod. If for no reason than to hit focus point.

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“If you have something to add don’t be intimidated by the forum bullies. That way they win.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPn3BD1SYcaiM

Coupon code for $5.00 off at Smugmug.com of course you can then link to your photos from here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top