Pavel
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.167 #8 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR | |
hatch1921 wrote:
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..
Thanks again Lara.
Hatch
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4810/44206740090_292d130175_o.png2018-11-23_2113 by hatch1921, on Flickr
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4808/32151527178_b3f9c85447_o.png2018-11-23_2114 by hatch1921, on Flickr
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4853/45298119464_abcdc065f7_h.jpg2018-11-23_2115 by hatch1921, on Flickr
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4843/45298117634_d669e2048c_o.png2018-11-23_2116 by hatch1921, on Flickr
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4873/45110712625_cf57fc0992_o.png2018-11-23_2117 by hatch1921, on Flickr...Show more →
Lara, does your copy of the lens show the same sort of "glowing" like highlights (residual spherical aberrations, to my eye) if you shoot it under different more subdued light, or if you stop the lens down half a stop? I don't have the exif, nor know how much of a crop that is, but it is the look you get from the old DC soft focus 105 and 135 lenses, with the de-focus set to a high or moderate value. I would notice it on some shots, mostly under the sort of lighting exactly as in your photos, and it would increase and decrease within the same set of photos under the exact same settings. After a lot of testing I concluded that any missed focus showed it much stronger. One has to understand the focusing in SLR's is not exact from one time to another. That is one reason a lot of wildlife or sports photographers use back button focus, always set to continual focus, and fire off a burst as a habit, even for stationary subjects. You will find in a set of five shots, all with the focus point right one a contrasty part of the subject, that there will be focus variances, and the burst should give you one or two perfectly sharp shots.
Some lenses exhibit this as well, not by design, and I find that my copy of the 200-500 is what I would call very sharp, for the fact that it is a zoom with a large focal length range. But as some have pointed out, the 200-500 does have know downsides. Very close to it's max range of 500 and wide open, at infinity, and in my experience, under light conditions with a lot of spectral highlights and lots of contrast - it looks a bit like what you are seeing.
You examples posted however are more than I'm used to. That could be sample variation, or technique. Try going half a stop down. That half a stop makes a substantial difference. Another thing to consider is the atmosphere. One a day with sunshine like that, a lit up portion of ground in front of your subject will create a haze or a shimmer. I don't see direct evidence in your example shots, but it can all add up. I don't have almost any experience shooting birds or wildlife, but I used to shoot a lot of motorsports and the black asphalt can really interfere with IQ all the way from where it's obvious that it's the air between you and the subject, to more subtle degradations that are harder to pin point the culprit or culprits in.
The 200-500 is an amazing lens, especially considering the price. I'm certainly finding it harder to get up to speed with compared to the 300 f 2.8 for example. Good luck.
Note: At the point I wrote this I had not noticed your later tests and thoughts. I was just going to trash the comment before posting, but what the heck, perhaps it may help in some way. I always find it takes me longer to figure out zooms than primes, and have always preferred primes until this zoom came along. I did get a good copy, at least I'm very happy about it, but the 500 end wide open - is not perfect. On the other hand, 450 or so seems to not exhibit any of this, and that is a LOT longer a focal length than the 300. And teleconverters always have a drop in IQ and focus speeds. If I were in your shoes, I'd try another copy or three. That versatility and a constant aperture are sweet.
|
Sadly... it was not. I think Steve Perry mentioned in one of his videos it wasn't until the 3rd lens he was happy with the sharpness. The 300 pf and 500pf are appealing as well... size/weight/ sharpness and faster autofocus. But... you zoom with your feet (not a big deal as I've shot mainly primes over the years) it's just something I need to take into consideration. 
