Ideas for a longer Nikon lens please

[Dave Humphries]

It looks fantastic. I assume it's hand-held? Beautiful.

Cheers,
Rick

Thanks Rick,

Yes it was handheld.

Crop-wise, this was almost as shot; the frame height is uncropped, I just trimmed a little off each side to get a better composition - although that has put the focused upon eye dead centre, anything else just looked like wasted space at one edge or the other. Beyond that, it is a fully PP'd image, so it should look good (I hope).

I have a "pigeon in the tree" test shot too, but I couldn't quite bring myself to post a bad composition here (I chopped off its tail feathers ) maybe I'll just post an unsharpened 100% crop so people can see what it's like.

AF is no better, or worse, than expected - having read quite a few reviews, I was aware that it can 'lose it' on occasion for birds in flight, but it's little, if any, worse than what I am used to with the 18-200mm.

Hopefully I'll get out today (as off work), although it's quite cloudy so far more tonight.

Thanks,

[Dave Humphries]

Here is a test image, taken handheld yesterday in a shady tree, as you can see, the bird was well buried in the foliage and getting a sharp shot with wind blowing leaves in front of it was the first challenge for AF (and my timing). PP examination of focus point placement shows it to be on beak tip, not quite what I was aiming for, but OK.


Nikon D5000 at 800iso, 1/1500 + Nikon 70-300mm at 300mm, wide open at f5.6
Aperture priority, using +1.5 stops EC override on the centre weighted metering.

All pictures have had minimal ACR processing; no NR, no sharpening (small ACR Recovery of 10 was applied).
The full frame shot was reduced to 700px width to display here.
Click link to see full resolution version (Warning: this is 4288 x 2848, almost 2MB jpg download)

This is a 673px crop at 100% from the shot.


OK, it's not a perfect lens, but for a little over £417 and weighing in at about 700g, I'm happy - and it's Nikon, so all the controls work exactly as my other two lenses, so "intuitive use" should come quicker to me.

Thanks for looking/listening,

[Blazing fire]

That's motion blur, dave! It's not the fault of the lens IMO.

I don't know, but if you are going to shoot at the long end almost exclusively, then the 300mm f/4 afs might be a better choice. That's what I'm gathering from your uploads. But don't cry over spilled milk.

Enjoy your lens. Hope it allows to you photograph even better.

[ScoutR]

Here is a test image, taken handheld yesterday in a shady tree, as you can see, the bird was well buried in the foliage and getting a sharp shot with wind blowing leaves in front of it was the first challenge for AF (and my timing). PP examination of focus point placement shows it to be on beak tip, not quite what I was aiming for, but OK.

Nikon D5000 at 800iso, 1/1500 + Nikon 70-300mm at 300mm, wide open at f5.6
Aperture priority, using +1.5 stops EC override on the centre weighted metering.

All pictures have had minimal ACR processing; no NR, no sharpening (small ACR Recovery of 10 was applied).
The full frame shot was reduced to 700px width to display here.

OK, it's not a perfect lens, but for a little over £417 and weighing in at about 700g, I'm happy - and it's Nikon, so all the controls work exactly as my other two lenses, so "intuitive use" should come quicker to me.

Thanks for looking/listening,

Hi Dave: Imagine what you will be able to do when you have some sun.
How does the quality of this lens compare to the 18-200.

Wendy

[hoffstriker]

That's motion blur, dave! It's not the fault of the lens IMO.

.

That shouldn't be motion blur at 1/1500 unless Dave is VERY, VERY, VERY shaky....... And, if you are Dave, please don't take as an insult......

[Blazing fire]

@hoffstriker, You're right!

Upon closer inspection, that picture is OOF IMO. I had this lens once (rented) and no way is it that blur. However, I was using it on a full frame D700 so it demanded resolution from the lens to look sharp.

[Shadowman]

Normally it wouldn't but I think its also caused by the angle he is holding the camera that contributes to the camera shake. When you hold the camera at a high angle the body tends to feel unbalanced and you automatically try to correct your stance.

That shouldn't be motion blur at 1/1500 unless Dave is VERY, VERY, VERY shaky....... And, if you are Dave, please don't take as an insult......

[ScoutR]

That's motion blur, dave! It's not the fault of the lens IMO.

That shouldn't be motion blur at 1/1500 unless Dave is VERY, VERY, VERY shaky.

Normally it wouldn't but I think its also caused by the angle he is holding the camera that contributes to the camera shake. When you hold the camera at a high angle the body tends to feel unbalanced and you automatically try to correct your stance.

I am confused. The only blur that I see is in the leaves and that is due to the wind.
I see noise and it could be sharper, but as Dave mentioned the shot has not had NR or sharpening applied.

What am I missing here? I know I don't have a good eye for this kind of stuff, so your help will be appreciated.

Wendy

[Blazing fire]

Initially, I saw a 45 degree (clockwise from the North) motion blur when I saw the eye of the bird. But upon closer inspection, it appears as though it was OOF or the lens is simply soft. More often than not, unsharp images are due to motion blue and poor focusing, not the lens. Hence, motion blue came immediately to mind.

@Scout, why do you say that there is motion blue in the leaves? I personally can't tell if there is mild motion blur in OOF areas, like in Dave's picture.

The smearing effect at the edges are probably due to the aspherical lens elements (not too sure), not motion blue to my thinking... Is this what made you think there is motion blur?

[ScoutR]

@Scout, why do you say that there is motion blue in the leaves? I personally can't tell if there is mild motion blur in OOF areas, like in Dave's picture.

I didn't say motion blur, I don't know if it is motion blur. I said "the only blur that I see is in the leaves." I thought it was due to the wind, but you are right the blurred leaves are probably due to DOF.

[Philjam10]

Hi: Another good reason for the 70-300. I went out to try and find the Redstart again and wondered why it was so quiet. First A hawk was cruising, and after he left I found my birds to try again, then quiet again (no Boomer with me) and when I turned around I had company. I' m trying in photoshop to to get a decent photo. The cub is out of focus and mom needs sharpening, but these guys don't take to kodak moments or orders about where they should stand, so maybe you and all your photoshop experts could try and help me here. I've taken the cub out, but then the photo lacks the danger element. I'm attaching just a crop and resize. I tried to get both of them in the photo and maybe that's the error, but that's a female and the cub is a male which she keeps with her until he can fend off other males, even Dad. Feel free to move the photo to another thread.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Phil,

The biggest problem I see is the lens is focused several metres too close - check out the rocks on the track in the foreground.

The focus error on the bears is probably too great for a PP fix to achieve a worth while improvement (that's a cue for someone to prove me wrong)

So, after looking round and finding them, what happens next: run, or stand veeery, veeery still?

Thankfully not I problem I face here in England.

Cheers,

[Dave Humphries]

Regarding the discussions of the 100% crop:

It was windy so the leaves could be blurred for that reason, the bird was also moving about a bit, I could have moved a bit too, given my stance looking up at say 55-60 degrees - I would have thought the fast shutter speed (and possibly the VR for my movement) would have minimised those effects, but maybe not completely at 100%. (No offence taken Chris)

It was AF under tricky conditions, so yes, there could be an OOF error, as I said, the focus point is on the beak, which does seem a tad sharper than the eye.

Is it just soft? - may be - but for £400, 700g and a largely plastic construction, I am not expecting "L class" optical performance.

I am happy with my decision and purchase, having taken it out to an old haunt and got pictures I couldn't with the 18-200.

I do notice the difference of 700+g vs 600g of the shorter lens, but am really glad I didn't go for the 300/f4, as I am certain it would not have got as much use due to the weight being 1440g.

A bit like there being no point owning a posh car if it stays in the garage for fear of getting scratched by some jealous s*d with a key in their hand as they walk past it. I think the extra weight would have put me off lugging a faster lens around so often.

Obviously YMMV

Thanks,

[Dave Humphries]

How does the quality of this lens compare to the 18-200.

Hi Wendy,

In terms of build, neither have the feel of say a Leica lens - they're both plastic construction and sound a bit hollow when you clonk the zoom end stop.
It is different from the 18-200 we both own, but I wouldn't say it is better or worse for build quality.

The extra magnification does make tracking birds that bit harder; i.e. keeping the focus point on them while panning.

For less mobile subjects, I think the AF is a shade more accurate, or the lens is just a bit sharper, I seem to have a higher hit rate of sharp pics compared to what I got before - so that pleases me. Too late to PP now, maybe in a day or so.

CA, on a limited number of shots, seems to be of the yellow/blue variety, with blue on the outside.

Before you ask: I haven't used the macro lens beyond a few test shots just to prove it wasn't faulty out of the box (it isn't).

More to follow in due course,

[Shadowman]

With the Nikon AF system you have four settings and for a continuously moving subject you want to use AF-C where the camera continuously follows the subject's movement. With AF-S mode the camera locks on the subject, and with AF-A mode the camera switches between both single and continous depending on whether the subject is moving.

Wendy,

In Dave's photo the areas of focus appear to be in a linear position, directly in the middle of the frame.

I am confused. The only blur that I see is in the leaves and that is due to the wind.
I see noise and it could be sharper, but as Dave mentioned the shot has not had NR or sharpening applied.

What am I missing here? I know I don't have a good eye for this kind of stuff, so your help will be appreciated.

Wendy