Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX Soft Focus

[Tjaltz]

I just purchased a Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX lens (from B&H) and I have to admit I am a little disappointed. All of the images that I have gotten so far seem a little soft, and nothing near the tack sharp quality that I have read this lens is capable of. Many of my shots have been indoors so far, both with and without a flash (SB800) and they all seem to show the same softness. I am using it on a D200 with sharpening set to normal at ISO 200. I have read numerous post on different sites about focusing problems, but was wondering if that was related to initial versions of the lens when it first came out, or if it is still occurring with new production models. Thanks.

 

[David Grabowski]

I just purchased a Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX lens (from B&H) and I have to
admit I am a little disappointed. All of the images that I have
gotten so far seem a little soft, and nothing near the tack sharp
quality that I have read this lens is capable of. Many of my shots
have been indoors so far, both with and without a flash (SB800) and
they all seem to show the same softness. I am using it on a D200
with sharpening set to normal at ISO 200. I have read numerous post
on different sites about focusing problems, but was wondering if
that was related to initial versions of the lens when it first came
out, or if it is still occurring with new production models. Thanks.

I was one of the first people on the forum to get the 17-55DX, it's been tack sharp for me. My complaint ( though it doesn't really apply to the situations I normally shoot in ) is CA. You wouldn't think a lens in this category would display any CA, mine will in certain conditions. It really is tack sharp though.

I don't know about later versions. I can tell you though to zoom in in PS and look around the image area and see if you can find any specific area that seems sharper than others. Also, that high resolution photos sometimes need zooming in to see the quality, as the screen can't handle all the info of the large subject area of 10 and 12 and 14 MP cameras. You also mihgt try printing a couple of photos and see what you think from print.

David

 

[monte12345]

Don't rely on "screen peeps" to evaluate sharpness unless you've "calibrated" your eye by comparing the reults to a known "tack sharp" lens that you own. It's a simple fact that those "peeps" your looking at are equivalent to a 20x30, or larger, image. BTW, as camera resolution goes up, so does the net magnification of those "screen peeps". Which means that "peeps" from a D2x will look about 33% softer than similar "peeps" from a D70. Increase the resolution by 1.4 and you also increase the magnification by that exact same amount.

My suggestion, MAKE SOME PRINTS! Then use those to evaluate whether you lens is "sharp enough". BTW, it's very simple to make a cropped print that will give you an idea of how your image would look in a 20x30 inch print. Take you image file and "up-sample" it to a 20x30 inch, 300 dpi, image file. Then set your crop parameters to a 8x10.5 inch area. BTW, after the "up sampling", it's completely fair to also re-sharpen the image. After all, if you were making an actual 20x30 inch print, you'd tweak it to dispay it's maximum quality, wouldn't you? Pick an area in your image to crop and then print it. now hold it at arms length and see if you think it looks sharp. Now do a series starting with 16x24, 11x17, and 8x12 image sizes. That will give you an idea of what size prints you can make and get "tack sharp" results.

PS, if you post a 100% crop "showing' your problem I'll probably tell you the sharpness is typical. I will then proceed to "critique" your crop like it was an actual image posting. WARNING, if you post a crop that is not graphically interesting, I WILL NOT show any mercy. I am getting tired of screen peeps and plan on evaluating them like any other image posted. If they have lousy composition, lack any interesting subject detail, I will call it as I see it.

Bottomline, start making some prints you can share with your family and friends, it's what photography is all about. The only time you should be "peeping" is when your prints don't look good, otherwise it's a complete waste of time.

 

[PrimeUser]

When I went from Pentax primes to the 17-55 I was a little disappointed too, from a > $1000 zoom I expected near prime quality, but once I stopped taking pictures of brick walls and viewing at 100% it's been good enough for me to keep. It's almost like the perfect lens does not exist, I love the 17-55 range, and quality is pretty good if your not pixel peeping.
Do you have samples? Are yours worse then mine?
100% crops.
Here is the 17-55 at 17mm, f2.8



17mm at f11



And a 35/2.0 at f2



Normal size 17-55 at 17mm, f2.8

I just purchased a Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX lens (from B&H) and I have to
admit I am a little disappointed. All of the images that I have
gotten so far seem a little soft, and nothing near the tack sharp
quality that I have read this lens is capable of. Many of my shots
have been indoors so far, both with and without a flash (SB800) and
they all seem to show the same softness. I am using it on a D200
with sharpening set to normal at ISO 200. I have read numerous post
on different sites about focusing problems, but was wondering if
that was related to initial versions of the lens when it first came
out, or if it is still occurring with new production models. Thanks.

--



D50 site
http://home.comcast.net/~nikon-d50/
Yellowstone-Teton Trip
http://home.comcast.net/~recentphotos/
Pentax istD Site
http://home.comcast.net/~pentax-istd/