p.166 #8 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Hi all,
Question... when you first shot with the lens... was it soft at 500mm and did you AF fine tune it? If so, were the results much better? I'm going to shoot charts tomorrow and give the AF fine tune a try. Shooting with the D850.
I'm shooting AF-C with the center point as the main point.
The images below are 100% crops from the other images. If you follow those to Flickr, you can see the original/high-res images.
In Lightroom... the sharpening is 82% ...radius 1px. These are really soft and this is holding true for 95% of the shots I've taken at 500mm... even 400mm. Very disappointed in the end results.
p.166 #9 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Thank you Lara for suggesting I give ViewNX-I a try to show the focal points and where the lens was
/is hitting. Going over the photos...my technique isn't all that great but I also don't believe the focal point was landing where it was. I know in a number of shots... I had the point on the bird. Many of the shots were of a stationary bird.
The last shot is what I'm seeing a lot of....
Even the ones where I'm on the bird/target... the images are very soft..
p.166 #10 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I find the best results using this lens are from close distance... this Kestrel was probably about 10-15 meters away.... I'll have to try a few from long distance....
p.166 #11 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
hatch1921 wrote:
Hi all,
Question... when you first shot with the lens... was it soft at 500mm and did you AF fine tune it? If so, were the results much better? I'm going to shoot charts tomorrow and give the AF fine tune a try. Shooting with the D850.
I'm shooting AF-C with the center point as the main point.
The images below are 100% crops from the other images. If you follow those to Flickr, you can see the original/high-res images.
In Lightroom... the sharpening is 82% ...radius 1px. These are really soft and this is holding true for 95% of the shots I've taken at 500mm... even 400mm. Very disappointed in the end results.
If you look at the last image it seems your lens is front-focussing. The stones in front of the bird are sharper.
As what David said, this lens is at its best at close distance.
p.166 #12 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Chris Dees wrote:
If you look at the last image it seems your lens is front-focussing. The stones in front of the bird are sharper.
As what David said, this lens is at its best at close distance.
Thanks for the comments. I'm going to test it today.. a proper test with Lens Align. I'll post my findings later this evening. I would think it should perform well at any range. I know the Canon 100-400L is more expensive than this lens, that being said...I never had soft shots right out of the box and especially after it was dialed in, not bashing the Nikon lens... I just wonder if I got a soft copy or am I expecting too much from the lens? I've seen the amazing shots you all are producing with it...I just want a sharp copy. If the shots come out poorly, at least I know it will be my technique to blame and not the performance of the lens.
p.166 #13 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
My comment is not very useful, but at this price, not every lens could be a tack sharp one. Another problem in addition to distance is also heat distortion.
p.166 #14 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Where to start?
1. Subject distance. 30 m is pushing it for dove-sized birds, with any lens. Try shooting these at 5 to 10 m. I actually think that in favorable conditions the lens makes good images at long distances (20 to 60 m), provided you don't look too closely. Here's one of my more popular hawk images, shot at 56 m. Soft? Sure, but people love it anyway.
2. Heat haze. Try shooting in conditions that give you at least a decent physical chance of getting good results, which is to say, not at midday over hot ground. In the desert, it's often game over an hour past sunrise. A cheap zoom will be even more vulnerable to a turbulent atmosphere than a prime, but I doubt the results here would have been all that different.
3. Fine tuning. Whatever minor AF tolerances might exist should be covered by the DOF of an f/5.6 lens. That's likely not your problem here.
p.166 #16 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Thank you all for taking the time to comment. I'm about to go test the lens.. I'll post some thoughts this evening. I agree... heat haze could be an issue... but... for the quail shots, I wouldn't think so. I was about 25m away while taking the images and it's pretty cool this time of year vs 110-117 we see in the summers.
Time to test... if it's still off and the results are the same...I'm going to send it back to B&H and try another copy. If that doesn't work... maybe the 300 pf is an option?
Thanks again for the comments and great images... gives me hope I can dial this in or get a sharp copy.
p.166 #17 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
It's going back... it's mush at distance. Lens Align at 82ft wide open... I ran through all the AF Fine tuning on the lens... it appears to be front focusing. If I shoot within 20-30 ft... looks acceptable... but... I can do that with a 70-200 and get better results.
So... round two
I'm thinking of just going for the 300 pf with a TC and calling it a day. My luck with zooms over the years has been abysmal at best. The 300pf is about is much as I want to go for the time I'm going to use the lens. No need to invest in the bigger/faster lenses as I'm only shooting as a hobby.
Or, should I try one more time with the 200-500? Hmmmm
p.166 #18 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
hatch1921 wrote:
It's going back... it's mush at distance. Lens Align at 82ft wide open... I ran through all the AF Fine tuning on the lens... it appears to be front focusing. If I shoot within 20-30 ft... looks acceptable... but... I can do that with a 70-200 and get better results.
So... round two
I'm thinking of just going for the 300 pf with a TC and calling it a day. My luck with zooms over the years has been abysmal at best. The 300pf is about is much as I want to go for the time I'm going to use the lens. No need to invest in the bigger/faster lenses as I'm only shooting as a hobby.
Or, should I try one more time with the 200-500? Hmmmm
If you like the versatility of the 200-500, maybe try another copy. I find the lens to generally be acceptably sharp throughout the range wide open. I do feel like it performs better close than at further distances in general though. The 300 does seem to be an excellent lens and takes the 1.4 TC well, so you can’t really go wrong with it.
The 300pf is about is much as I want to go for the time I'm going to use the lens. No need to invest in the bigger/faster lenses as I'm only shooting as a hobby. 