Advice with 70-300, just not sharp....

[Waldo_O]

I suppose everyone's expectations might be different for a lens in this price range, for myself on a d700, I'm pretty satisfied actually. The VR works well and the range is nice with the FF cameras, though I will say that my copy does not seem to be much sharper than an excellent copy of the 55-200 VR that I have.

As someone else mentioned, the lens is better stopped down, much more noticeable at the longer end of the zoom IMO, so that's how I will be using it if I want better out of camera results.

Here's a typical point & shoot D700 example I just did ( 950 pixel center crop, camera sharpening set to 4), f8, 1/160, 300mm, ISO 1000 handheld. It has been misting on and off today so that might have an effect on the appearance of these crops.



Same basic crop with USM 25, radius 5 applied in NX2.



My motto is when you don't expect much from non-professional lenses, it's easier to be satisfied Also, you might make sure your lens is focussing correctly, those example you provided were not bright or large enough to determine much IMO.

Keith

 

[larsbc]

Ron777 wrote:
[snip]

sharper) I grabbed my old S6000 cam and took some bird shots. They
came out nice and tack sharp right out of the little P&S cam, much
nicer then I was getting with my 70-300vr. Here is the thread showing
the fuji samples.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=31571034

How sharp are the 'out of cam' pics with your 70-300? Any advice on
what I should do? Gus said to 'ask the nikon ninjas' for advice

I don't have any out-of-camera samples to show, since I almost always shoot in NEF mode. However, I did have a look at your thread in the Fuji forum and, imo, those Fuji sample photos you posted at the start of your thread were heavily over-sharpened. I'm not sure if the D40 is capable of that much sharpening but I presume you've tried cranking up the sharpen setting on your camera?

FWIW, I've got a 70-300VR as well as a 70-200VR. Comparing the two together, I find that the 70-300VR performs quite well in comparison to its pricier cousin.

Here's a sample (NEF converted to JPEG) of a shot I took last month. This is the full shot:



And here's a 100% crop with sharpening:



300mm, ISO400, f/8, 1/500 sec

larsbc

 

[mtlr]

Ron, my experience with my 70-300VR has been very positive, sharp results even at 300mm., better if stopped down to 7.1 or 8 (but then you need decent light). but VR is very effective and you can shoot at quite low speeds.

I always shoot JPG and use some PP sharpening, here are a couple of samples so you can compare with your results. both at 300mm. handheld. VR on, f/7.1 and f/8 respectively, cropped about 50%:





If you're not getting this kind od sharpness, probably the lens needs some adjustment.

Good luck!

 

[Ron777]

Looks great processed!
--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Ron777]

I am wondering if you turned off the VR, as this can cause blurred
images if left on while using a tripod. Dave
--
Visit my gallery at http://www.poperotzy.smugmug.com
There is a link for saving 5.OO on your own Smugmug account.

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Ron777]

I took quite a few shots, all seemed to be in focus, lock was fast with both cams. But I can take some in good light also

The lighting was very poor with those samples I wonder if it was too
dark for AF to focus correctly on "fur"? What aperture was used,
since this lens is not at it's best wide open? How about some shots
in good lighting, I bet there will be a difference?
--
Lora
I've been on Dpreview since June 2006. Unfortunately, some posting
history has been lost along the way...

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Ron777]

oh man, that seems such a waste to have a 300 and be limited to 135

It is really excellent from 70-135, quite good from 135-180 and bad
from 180-300. I sent to Nikon for calibrating, but they adjudged that
there is no problem. So, I came to the decision not to use this over
135mm. Sorry for my bad English.

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Ron777]

I have one on... I am going to try it without it. I paid 25 for mine but maybe it's blurring things too.

I have a copy of the 70-300 VR and was very happy with its
performance when using a D70. When I upgraded to a D300 I was less
content. Two things changed that. Firstly I never shoot wide open
unless I have to now. I usually shoot at F8 and secondly I removed
the UV filter I had purchased from the front of the lens ( it was a
cheap filter). This improved the image quality and I enjoy using the
lens again.
clk

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Ron777]

I'm going to do some tests now without the UV filter, man I"ve had that on since the day I bought the lens and never have taken it off.

I try to shoot at F8 as much as I can. And oddly, even with diffraction, my lens is sharpest at F11 @ 300.

On the hand holding, what's odd is the Fuji S6000 bridge cam has no image stabilization and at 200mm I get sharp shots, but with my 70-300VR at 200 with VR on, it's still not as sharp. That's why I used a tripod for those tests to try and filter out the shakes. But, the UV filter thing gives me hope!

I think that is really good advice clk. I was just about to post a
reply in similar terms.

The 70-300mmVR is not perfectly sharp wide open, so you need to make
sure the light is sufficient for your shot, and if not, then increase
the iso. I agree the lens is at its sharpest around f8.

Your advice about the filter is SPOT ON. Putting a cheap filter on a
lens is a terrible beginner's mistake (and is one that I have made
myself in the past). A cheap filter can turn a great lens into a
poor one.

Best to test with the filter removed.

Thirdly, I would add that it is difficult to hand hold shots with any
lens past 135mm. Even VR will not remove all hand shake - it will
merely reduce how much you notice it. Past 135mm, you cannot take
hand-held shots reliably even with VR at less than 1/200 sec. So for
test purposes, you should defintely use a tripod and switch off the
VR.

S.
--
Wait, watch, listen, then pounce !

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Ron777]

The heron looks pretty sharp though?
--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Ron777]

I think those samples you posted look good, but then I wonder if there was a humming bird sitting on the bike tire, how much detail would it show?
--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Ron777]

wow that eagle is SHARP!!!

Those fuji pics were 'out of the cam jpegs' so those looked too sharp to you?

And yes, I tried setting my D40 on max sharp. I do shoot in raw but usually use capture nx to process raw so it will mimic the in camera settings.

I'm going to try another test, same subject but outside, better light, no UV filter, F8 and tripod with VR off. I'll post the results here so we all can see if it helped at all.

Thanks everyone for all the help, very cool of you guys

Ron
--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Ron777]

man, I never have gotten anything out of cam even close to that sharp. Thanks for posting those!

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Ron777]

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Waldo_O]

I think those samples you posted look good, but then I wonder if
there was a humming bird sitting on the bike tire, how much detail
would it show?
--

probably not much Remember those images were full crops on a day with some light rain, motion blur etc, plus you'll have 50% more magnification with your D40. Here's the uncropped file, I'm wondering why the neighbors leave their bikes outside in the rain btw, maybe their garage is even more of a mess than mine is...



I haven't tried the lens on a D50 or D90 yet, I'll attempt that this week with better light and if I get noticeably different results, I'll look you up. I do see your point about sending the lens in with the possibility of Nikon claiming that it falls within their specs, so not sure what to recommend there. Can you try another one from a local shop possibly? Also, not sure you've noticed but there have been claims on this forum that the lens is better with the 12 mp FF sensors, for whatever that's worth.

Keith

 

[mtlr]

Thanks, Ron. And I forgot to mention the 70-300VR had a Hoya Pro1 UV filter on and used a D300.

 

[Ron777]

oh wow so a good UV then, mines a 'Promaster', ever heard of those?

I just did some test shots with no UV, about to process the NEF's and post em
--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Ron777]

oh ok, then that is sharp and detailed, thanks!
--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Ron777]

OH man I can't beleive this, over a year suffering, I never considered the UV filter. It looks so clean and nice to the neked eye but...
the results speak for themselves. It's like I got a new lens!!!!

Thanks so much for the suggestion on that!!

check this out!!

200mm F8



300mm F8



300mm F8



300mm F5.6 !!!!!!



300mm F5.6 also



I cannot believe this, I'm happy and ticked I suffered so long. Mostly glad my lens actually is ok though!!

Thanks again so very much!

--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/

 

[Snapshott]

A lot of us have made the filter mistake. I usually don't use a filter but I purchased a used Nikon 85mm f 1.8 once and thought it was soft until notice the Tiffen UV filter on it.
--
Snapshott