Reading mode: Light Dark

D5100 & Nikkor AF-S 55- 300mm f/4.5-5.6G DX ED VR -- Soft focus?

Go to last post
G

GerardHaines

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
498
Solutions
2
Reaction score
136
I hope it's okay to cross-post this here, I posed this question in the lens forum last week but I'm hoping I can get some more respones.

Over the winter I've been noticing soft focus with my 55-300mm on the long end of the lens when I"m shooting it wide open with my D5100. Things tend to sharpen up considerably under 200mm focal length and stopped down to f/8. For example, last week I took these shots @300mm, handheld, VR on:









Upon the request of one responder, I took a few more sample images of one of my Brittanys with it stopped down to f/8 and at various focal lengths under 200mm...in my view, the images are much sharper.



















So my question is: what are the known quirks of the Nikkor 55-300mm? Does it tend to be soft at 300mm with the aperture at f/5.6? Thank you for any insights or advice you can offer.
 
I had the same lens on a D5000. I found the exact same characteristics to be true. Eventually I just stopped using anything over 180mm for critical work. Now I better appreciate why the pros are carrying around that bigger, heavier glass. More complex optical designs and better materials and construction tolerances are required to get that kind of performance wide open at high magnification.
 
Last edited:
Looks quite good I think. Compared to my 70-300VR it´s sharp at 300. NO WAY I could get that sharpness at 300 5,6 with my 70-300 VR.
 
I read comparison reviews between the 55-300 and 70-300 and generally the reviewers gave the edge to the 70-300 for better construction. It's good to see your comments in favor of the lighter, less expensive lens. Maybe there's less difference than people have thought.
 
Don't pretty much all zoom lenses behave this way?

At the minimum & maximum focal lenghts, aperture wide open, they'll be the softest. Isn't this why lots of folks talk about "sweet spots" in lenses which, somewhat obviously, tend to be near the middle of the focal length and have apertures at least 2 stops down from wide open?
 
Nexu1 said:
Nexu1 wrote:

Don't pretty much all zoom lenses behave this way?

At the minimum & maximum focal lenghts, aperture wide open, they'll be the softest. Isn't this why lots of folks talk about "sweet spots" in lenses which, somewhat obviously, tend to be near the middle of the focal length and have apertures at least 2 stops down from wide open?
Click to expand...
That's what I'm trying to nail down -- is it too much to expect a lens with this kind of range to retain sharpness at both ends of its focal lengths and different aperture settings? Being relatively new to digital photography and autofocing (I shot Minolta X700's for 30 years), I don't know what I should realistically expect from this lens and I want to eliminate the possibilty that I just happen to have a bad copy.
 
Last edited:
GerardHaines said:
GerardHaines wrote:
GerardHaines said:
Nexu1 wrote:

Don't pretty much all zoom lenses behave this way?

At the minimum & maximum focal lenghts, aperture wide open, they'll be the softest. Isn't this why lots of folks talk about "sweet spots" in lenses which, somewhat obviously, tend to be near the middle of the focal length and have apertures at least 2 stops down from wide open?
Click to expand...
That's what I'm trying to nail down -- is it too much to expect a lens with this kind of range to retain sharpness at both ends of its focal lengths and different aperture settings? Being relatively new to digital photography and autofocing (I shot Minolta X700's for 30 years), I don't know what I should realistically expect from this lens and I want to eliminate the possibilty that I just happen to have a bad copy.
Click to expand...

OK, good question, and I'm sure there are many here more knowledgable than me that will hopefully throw out some opinions. For the record, my main zoom cameras/lenses (Sony RX100, nikon 18-55 and 55-200 are all soft at max tele).
 
Nexu1 said:
Nexu1 wrote:
Nexu1 said:
GerardHaines wrote:
Nexu1 said:
Nexu1 wrote:

Don't pretty much all zoom lenses behave this way?

At the minimum & maximum focal lenghts, aperture wide open, they'll be the softest. Isn't this why lots of folks talk about "sweet spots" in lenses which, somewhat obviously, tend to be near the middle of the focal length and have apertures at least 2 stops down from wide open?
Click to expand...
That's what I'm trying to nail down -- is it too much to expect a lens with this kind of range to retain sharpness at both ends of its focal lengths and different aperture settings? Being relatively new to digital photography and autofocing (I shot Minolta X700's for 30 years), I don't know what I should realistically expect from this lens and I want to eliminate the possibilty that I just happen to have a bad copy.
Click to expand...
OK, good question, and I'm sure there are many here more knowledgable than me that will hopefully throw out some opinions. For the record, my main zoom cameras/lenses (Sony RX100, nikon 18-55 and 55-200 are all soft at max tele).
Click to expand...
What's confounding to me is when you read consumer reviews on Amazon or where have you, a lot of people talk about this lens' sharpness throughout its focal range...so that either means one of three things: 1) I got a bad copy, 2) The reviewers gushing over the sharpness of this lens got an extraordinary copy, or 3) Those reviewers don't know what they're talking about.

I would tend to dismiss the consumer reviews as #3, but professional reviews are all over the map on this lens, so I don't know what to think.
 
Last edited:
GerardHaines said:
GerardHaines wrote:

Over the winter I've been noticing soft focus with my 55-300mm on the long end of the lens when I"m shooting it wide open with my D5100. Things tend to sharpen up considerably under 200mm focal length and stopped down to f/8. For example, last week I took these shots @300mm, handheld, VR on:

So my question is: what are the known quirks of the Nikkor 55-300mm? Does it tend to be soft at 300mm with the aperture at f/5.6? Thank you for any insights or advice you can offer.
Click to expand...
Shooting with a DSLR at 300mm, hand held, and f5.6 actually requires very good technique to get tack sharp results.

The more consistent results you were getting at 200mm make sense because you have both reduced your focal length and stopped the lens down, which changes critical focus somewhat and improves the 'keeper' ratio.

The 55-300 is probably best wide open at full tele, but shooting this way can mean that a small error in focusing (or the exact point in focus) will tend to increase missed shots. The lens has magnificent bokeh shooting this way, but you do have to watch focus and have good technique if hand holding.

Optically it is pretty close to the 70-300vr, certainly close enough as to be considered irrelevant, but the 70-300vr will likely AF a bit better (quicker) which some perceive as better lens sharpness.

The 55-300 is an excellent lens for the price and one of the best compromises out there in my opinion. None of the other 'slow' zooms can match it for bokeh or tele macro performance, but other tele zooms are better for action shots.

My advice would be to develop good hand holding technique and perhaps use a tripod whenever possible, stopping down when suitable and bumping up ISO is are also valid ways to get sharper results at full tele hand held.

Good luck!
 
Thank you, I was hoping that would be the case. I didn't want to have to think about calibration, swapping lenses, etc. if I didn't have to. As I said before, I didn't know if my expectations were realistic or not.
 
GerardHaines said:
GerardHaines wrote:

Thank you, I was hoping that would be the case. I didn't want to have to think about calibration, swapping lenses, etc. if I didn't have to. As I said before, I didn't know if my expectations were realistic or not.
Click to expand...
I had the same feeling when I first got my D5100, it can be difficult to know what to think when you don't have a benchmark to measure against.

Did you post process these shots at all? if they are jpegs out of camera, the sharpening settings can be turned up a bit to get better results.

Careful post sharpening can also bring out much more detail with this lens, especially from RAW.

(I hope I am not talking down to you, I am assuming you have just started with your DSLR?)

The 55-300vr is a really good lens in my opinion, it certainly has its weak points, but I find it works really well as a tele macro and an all purpose landscapes telephoto. The bokeh really is fantastic for a 'slow' lens which also gives it some pretty good portrait ability, especially in good light.
 
Shunda77 said:
Shunda77 wrote:
Shunda77 said:
GerardHaines wrote:

Thank you, I was hoping that would be the case. I didn't want to have to think about calibration, swapping lenses, etc. if I didn't have to. As I said before, I didn't know if my expectations were realistic or not.
Click to expand...
I had the same feeling when I first got my D5100, it can be difficult to know what to think when you don't have a benchmark to measure against.

Did you post process these shots at all? if they are jpegs out of camera, the sharpening settings can be turned up a bit to get better results.

Careful post sharpening can also bring out much more detail with this lens, especially from RAW.

(I hope I am not talking down to you, I am assuming you have just started with your DSLR?)

The 55-300vr is a really good lens in my opinion, it certainly has its weak points, but I find it works really well as a tele macro and an all purpose landscapes telephoto. The bokeh really is fantastic for a 'slow' lens which also gives it some pretty good portrait ability, especially in good light.
Click to expand...

I've had the camera and lens for just over a year, but I'm an old manual-focus SLR film guy and you're right -- I don't have any benchmarks to measure against and no, you're not talking down to me since I'm relatively new with digital/AF and most of you have been doing this for a long time.

Yes, they were shot as jpegs. No, the shots were not post-processed...I believe the camera's sharpening setting was at 5 for the bird images and ditto with the Britt. ViewNX 2 confirmed the focus point was on the bird's head, the focus mode was AF-S, single focus point for all images. I did mess around with sharpening in LR 4 on the bird images for some FB uploads but that's not what you're seeing there.
 
I agree. There is also the fact that VR takes a little time to "settle down" at the long end, so we do need to adopt the discipline of sitting on the shutter that extra second before we finish pushing it and making the picture.

This is especially so when using the lens for what I think is maybe its greatest strength: closeups of things that otherwise might bite or sting you.

It's a dandy lens and can make great photographs, but it does require modification of one's shooting style -- patience with slower focusing and letting the VR stabilize.

(The 55-300 is also beset by out-of-focus artifacts which after research have turned out to be pieces of the execrably poor, utterly flimsy lens hood disassembling itself and sending pieces flying through the field of vision, though this typically happens only once unless the photographer is foolish enough to pay Nikon for a replacement, in which case it will happen twice.)
 
I find that optically this lens is on a par with the crappy plastic mount old 70-300 F4.5-5.6 G at 300mm for sharpness (not a good thing) but with a lot less purple fringing - it`d take a pretty bad copy of the 70-300VR to be as bad as this - 70-300VRs DO vary however so you never know , the ones I`ve had have been sharp (though the Tamron is sharper) . one thing I do find good in the 55-300 is the VR at 300mm, once its settled (which takes ages) I find it more effective than the 70-300`s VR . the Tamron 70-300VC wins on all counts though, optically and IS wise... at 55mm even wideopen the 55-300 is prime sharp and it can be had for a very good price if you don`t mind grey market.

I only got this lens because I don`t use consumer XX-300 telezooms enough to even warrant the Tamron`s bargain price and I got this mint used sample for the same price used 55-200VRs go for - up to 200mm it`s the same as the 55-200VR but with infinately better VR and better handling so a no lose scenario.

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **
 
Last edited:
One thing I forgot to mention (and for me, the lenses saving grace) is that it`s pin sharp wideopen at 300mm at close range, this makes it superb for wedding candids as well as telemacros - for the usual telezoom + better beamer trick shooting at the venue during the speeches , I`d say it beats both the Tamron and 70-300VR ..

No one wants to lug heavy F2.8s for this kind of stuff and 300mm is better than 200mm (less cropping) so I like these kind of lenses for this work and this cheapo excels at it

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **
 
Last edited:
Adam-T said:
AdamT wrote:

One thing I forgot to mention (and for me, the lenses saving grace) is that it`s pin sharp wideopen at 300mm at close range, this makes it superb for wedding candids as well as telemacros - for the usual telezoom + better beamer trick shooting at the venue during the speeches , I`d say it beats both the Tamron and 70-300VR ..

No one wants to lug heavy F2.8s for this kind of stuff and 300mm is better than 200mm (less cropping) so I like these kind of lenses for this work and this cheapo excels at it
Click to expand...
 
Adam-T said:
AdamT wrote:

I find that optically this lens is on a par with the crappy plastic mount old 70-300 F4.5-5.6 G at 300mm for sharpness (not a good thing) but with a lot less purple fringing - it`d take a pretty bad copy of the 70-300VR to be as bad as this -
Click to expand...
I find that pretty hard to believe, the ED version is waaaay softer than the 55-300vr at full tele wide open, in fact, I would say that lens is unusable wide open at 300mm.

The 55-300vr optically is much closer to the 70-300vr than both of the old 70-300 nikon lenses.
 
The old Nikon 70-300s do vary drastically from sample to sample (moreso than the 55-300) also most had them before AF fine tune was invented . I fine tuned a plastic mount 70-300G and at INFINITY sharpness wise was the same as the 55-300 but with less contrast and more CA / PF , it didn`t have the close range performance. All 55-300s I`ve seen perform much the same as mine and that of the OP (great at close range, poor at infinity at 300 - prime sharp everywhere at 55mm F4.5)

A good copy of the 70-300VR (they vary from sample to sample) is second only to the Tamron 70-300VR & canon 70-300 L for shooting wideopen at infinity at 300 from my experience..
 
I think you`ll find it razor sharp across a large room with flash - mine would have been dumped ages ago and replaced with a Tamron if it wasn`t for this .. I prefer the useful wide end, size and weight of the 55-300 and that it did`t cost much for the little use it gets.
 
Adam-T said:
AdamT wrote:

I find that optically this lens is on a par with the crappy plastic mount old 70-300 F4.5-5.6 G at 300mm for sharpness (not a good thing) but with a lot less purple fringing - it`d take a pretty bad copy of the 70-300VR to be as bad as this - 70-300VRs DO vary however so you never know , the ones I`ve had have been sharp (though the Tamron is sharper) . one thing I do find good in the 55-300 is the VR at 300mm, once its settled (which takes ages) I find it more effective than the 70-300`s VR . the Tamron 70-300VC wins on all counts though, optically and IS wise... at 55mm even wideopen the 55-300 is prime sharp and it can be had for a very good price if you don`t mind grey market.

I only got this lens because I don`t use consumer XX-300 telezooms enough to even warrant the Tamron`s bargain price and I got this mint used sample for the same price used 55-200VRs go for - up to 200mm it`s the same as the 55-200VR but with infinately better VR and better handling so a no lose scenario.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
  • Question Question
Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G VR Hood indicator
Replies
3
Views
1K
monte12345
M
H
Shots are not sharp when shooting at a long focal length with the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
8K
ajr images
A
shidan
  • User review User review
Sigma 16-300mm f3,5-6,7 (vs Tamron and Sony Zooms)
Replies
2
Views
27K
shidan
shidan
studio460
Nikon Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S:
Replies
16
Views
2K
studio460
studio460
G
  • Question Question
Used SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD G2 or Nikkor 70-200mm f4 for Nikon D850
Replies
10
Views
2K
GeorgeMac
G

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