Yesterday, all shooting was done with the D500 at f8, almost all at ISO1250 and Manual mode. For several minutes the Sun was full and for the next 1/2 hour it would be behind clouds. So I varied shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 1/6000. High shutter speeds were chosen (with VR OFF..... BTW), because most of the shooting was done of gulls, not these two boats:
Regarding the lobster boats here: one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The houses are 0.51 nautical miles distance. So that opposite shore is 1/2 mile away.
The boat underway was shot at or near the 500mm end while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp.
Regarding this 2nd 200-500:
So this lens is VERY acceptable at long distances (I am very impressed!) but apparently not acceptably sharp at close distances when shooting the gulls here. So far at least, I am not impressed with any of the bird shots I took yesterday (the first day field testing it.... and the same day as these two boat images).
AFFT:
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\". BTW....I am wondering: Is there confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity? Two separate things they are . Though one can effect the other.
Just because a long lens\'s auto-focusing point is at zero; i.e. the lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, this does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. And I would think that the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 super tele lens is not nearly as tight as that of a very expensive super tele lens. Would\'t you?
IMAGE SHARPNESS
For me anyway, I have learned to make my \"image-sharpness\" judgements based on what I see on the computer screen only (at 100% enlargement of the image), NOT on the camera\'s LCD (regardless of how much I enlarge that LCD image).
My acid test for image sharpness is only after enlarging the image to 100% on the computer screen and then immediately looking at fine features such as the eye area (all animals) or whiskers (in mammals) or the fine hairs on many plants...and that tested at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative. All lenses have varying degrees of sharpness I think.
It may be that the not-so-good performance of this 2nd lens on birds..... could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt this is true.
Also, it seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good for this second one either. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
Going to check the Photographer\'s Ephemeris for sun information specific to the shooting location.
BTW, it was here on FM Forum that I learned about the Photographer\'s Ephemeris. A superb tool! I love it. Thank you!
Yesterday, all shooting was done with the D500 at f8, almost all at ISO1250 and Manual mode. For several minutes the Sun was full and for the next 1/2 hour it would be behind clouds. So I varied shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 1/6000. High shutter speeds were chosen (with VR OFF..... BTW), because most of the shooting was done of gulls, not these two boats:
Regarding the lobster boats here: one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The houses are 0.51 nautical miles distance. So that opposite shore is 1/2 mile away.
The boat underway was shot at or near the 500mm end while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp.
Regarding this 2nd 200-500:
So this lens is VERY acceptable at long distances (I am very impressed!) but apparently not acceptably sharp at close distances when shooting the gulls here. So far at least, I am not impressed with any of the bird shots I took yesterday (the first day field testing it.... and the same day as these two boat images).
AFFT:
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\". BTW....I am wondering: Is there confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity? Two separate things they are . Though one can effect the other.
Just because a long lens\'s auto-focusing point is at zero; i.e. the lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, this does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. And I would think that the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 super tele lens is not nearly as tight as that of a very expensive super tele lens. Would\'t you?
IMAGE SHARPNESS
For me anyway, I have learned to make my \"image-sharpness\" judgements based on what I see on the computer screen only (at 100% enlargement of the image), NOT on the camera\'s LCD (regardless of how much I enlarge that LCD image).
My acid test for image sharpness is only after enlarging the image to 100% on the computer screen and then immediately looking at fine features such as the eye area (all animals) or whiskers (in mammals) or the fine hairs on many plants...and that tested at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative. All lenses have varying degrees of sharpness I think.
It may be that the not-so-good performance of this 2nd lens on birds..... could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt this is true.
Also, it seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good for this second one either. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
Going to check the Photographer\'s Ephemeris for all sun information today.
BTW, it was here on FM Forum that I learned about the Photographer\'s Ephemeris. A superb tool! I love it. Thank you!
Yesterday, all shooting was done with the D500 at f8, almost all at ISO1250 and Manual mode. For several minutes the Sun was full and for the next 1/2 hour it would be behind clouds. So I varied shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 1/6000. High shutter speeds were chosen (with VR OFF..... BTW), because most of the shooting was done of gulls, not these two boats:
Regarding the lobster boats here: one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The houses are 0.51 nautical miles distance. So that opposite shore is 1/2 mile away.
The boat underway was shot at or near the 500mm end while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp.
Regarding this 2nd 200-500:
So this lens is VERY acceptable at long distances (I am very impressed!) but apparently not acceptably sharp at close distances when shooting the gulls here. So far at least, I am not impressed with any of the bird shots I took yesterday (the first day field testing it.... and the same day as these two boat images).
AFFT:
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\". BTW....I am wondering: Is there confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity? Two separate things they are . Though one can effect the other.
Just because a long lens\'s auto-focusing point is at zero; i.e. the lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, this does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. And I would think that the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 super tele lens is not nearly as tight as that of a very expensive super tele lens. Would\'t you?
IMAGE SHARPNESS
For me anyway, I have learned to only make my \"image-sharpness\" judgements based on what I see on the computer screen (at 100% enlargement of the image), not on the camera\'s LCD (regardless of how much I enlarge that LCD image) .
My acid test for image sharpness is always the 100% enlarging of the image, whereupon I go right to eye area or whiskers (in mammals)...and that tested at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative. All lenses have varying degrees of sharpness I think.
It may be that the not-so-good performance of this 2nd lens on birds..... could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt it.
Also, it seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good for this second one either. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
Yesterday, all shooting was done with the D500 at f8, almost all at ISO1250 and Manual mode. For several minutes the Sun was full and for the next 1/2 hour it would be behind clouds. So I varied shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 1/6000. High shutter speeds were chosen (with VR OFF..... BTW), because most of the shooting was done of gulls, not these two boats:
Regarding the lobster boats here: one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The houses are 0.51 nautical miles distance. So that opposite shore is 1/2 mile away.
The boat underway was shot at or near the 500mm end while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp.
Regarding this 2nd 200-500:
So this lens is VERY acceptable at long distances (I am very impressed!) but apparently not acceptably sharp at close distances when shooting the gulls here. So far at least, I am not impressed with any of the bird shots I took yesterday (the first day field testing it.... and the same day as these two boat images).
AFFT:
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\". BTW....I am wondering: Is there confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity? Two separate things they are . Though one can effect the other.
Just because a long lens\'s auto-focusing point is at zero; i.e. the lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, this does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. And I would think that the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 super tele lens is not nearly as tight as that of a very expensive super tele lens. Would\'t you?
For me anyway, I have learned to only make my \"image-sharpness\" judgements based on what I see on the computer screen (at 100% enlargement of the image), not on the camera\'s LCD (regardless of how much I enlarge that LCD image) .
My acid test for image sharpness is always the 100% enlarging of the image, whereupon I go right to eye area or whiskers (in mammals)...and that tested at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative. All lenses have varying degrees of sharpness I think.
It may be that the not-so-good performance of this 2nd lens on birds..... could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt it.
Also, it seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good for this second one either. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
D500. Yesterday, all shooting was done at f8, almost all at ISO1250 and Manual mode. For several minutes the Sun was full and for the next 1/2 hour it would be behind clouds. So I varied shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 1/6000. High shutter speeds were chosen (with VR OFF..... BTW), because most of the shooting was done of gulls, not these two boats:
Regarding the lobster boats here: one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The houses are 0.51 nautical miles distance. So that opposite shore is 1/2 mile away.
The boat underway was shot at or near the 500mm end while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp.
Regarding this 2nd 200-500:
So this lens is VERY acceptable at long distances (I am very impressed!) but apparently not acceptably sharp at close distances when shooting the gulls here. So far at least, I am not impressed with any of the bird shots I took yesterday (the first day field testing it.... and the same day as these two boat images).
AFFT:
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\". BTW....I am wondering: Is there confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity? Two separate things they are . Though one can effect the other.
Just because a long lens\'s auto-focusing point is at zero; i.e. the lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, this does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. And I would think that the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 super tele lens is not nearly as tight as that of a very expensive super tele lens. Would\'t you?
For me anyway, I have learned to only make my \"image-sharpness\" judgements based on what I see on the computer screen (at 100% enlargement of the image), not on the camera\'s LCD (regardless of how much I enlarge that LCD image) .
My acid test for image sharpness is always the 100% enlarging of the image, whereupon I go right to eye area or whiskers (in mammals)...and that tested at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative. All lenses have varying degrees of sharpness I think.
It may be that the not-so-good performance of this 2nd lens on birds..... could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt it.
Also, it seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good for this second one either. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
D500. Yesterday, all shooting was done at f8, almost all at ISO1250 and Manual mode. For several minutes the Sun was full and for the next 1/2 hour it would be behind clouds. So I varied shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 1/6000. High shutter speeds were chosen (with VR OFF..... BTW), because most of the shooting was done of gulls, not these two boats:
Regarding the lobster boats here: one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The houses are 0.51 nautical miles distance.
That opposite shore is 1/2 mile away folks!! This calculation reached by directly overlapping the Google Earth scale with the span I was shooting; it is accurate to within 100+/- feet. So there is no exaggeration at all.
The boat underway was shot at or near the 500mm end while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp.
Regarding this 2nd 200-500:
So this lens is VERY acceptable at long distances (I am very impressed!) but apparently not acceptably sharp at close distances when shooting the gulls here. So far at least, I am not impressed with any of the bird shots I took yesterday (the first day field testing it.... and the same day as these two boat images).
AFFT:
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\". BTW....I am wondering: Is there confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity? Two separate things they are . Though one can effect the other.
Just because a long lens\'s auto-focusing point is at zero; i.e. the lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, this does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. And I would think that the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 super tele lens is not nearly as tight as that of a very expensive super tele lens. Would\'t you?
For me anyway, I have learned to only make my \"image-sharpness\" judgements based on what I see on the computer screen (at 100% enlargement of the image), not on the camera\'s LCD (regardless of how much I enlarge that LCD image) .
My acid test for image sharpness is always the 100% enlarging of the image, whereupon I go right to eye area or whiskers (in mammals)...and that tested at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative. All lenses have varying degrees of sharpness I think.
It may be that the not-so-good performance of this 2nd lens on birds..... could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt it.
Also, it seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good for this second one either. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
D500. Yesterday, all shooting was done at f8, almost all at ISO1250 and Manual mode. For several minutes the Sun was full and for the next 1/2 hour it would be behind clouds. So I varied shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 1/6000. High shutter speeds were chosen (with VR OFF..... BTW), because most of the shooting was done of gulls, not these two boats:
Regarding the lobster boats here: one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The houses are 0.51 nautical miles distance. That is 1/2 mile!! This calculation is within 100+/- feet and by Google Earth. The boat underway was shot at or near the 500mm end while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp.
Regarding this 2nd 200-500:
So this lens is VERY acceptable at long distances (I am very impressed!) but apparently not acceptably sharp at close distances when shooting the gulls here. So far at least, I am not impressed with any of the bird shots I took yesterday (the first day field testing it.... and the same day as these two boat images).
AFFT:
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\". BTW....I am wondering: Is there confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity? Two separate things they are . Though one can effect the other.
Just because a long lens\'s auto-focusing point is at zero; i.e. the lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, this does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. And I would think that the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 super tele lens is not nearly as tight as that of a very expensive super tele lens. Would\'t you?
For me anyway, I have learned to only make my \"image-sharpness\" judgements based on what I see on the computer screen (at 100% enlargement of the image), not on the camera\'s LCD (regardless of how much I enlarge that LCD image) .
My acid test for image sharpness is always the 100% enlarging of the image, whereupon I go right to eye area or whiskers (in mammals)...and that tested at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative. All lenses have varying degrees of sharpness I think.
It may be that the not-so-good performance of this 2nd lens on birds..... could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt it.
Also, it seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good for this second one either. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
D500. Yesterday, all shooting was done at f8, almost all at ISO1250 and Manual mode. For several minutes the Sun was full and for the next 1/2 hour it would be behind clouds. So I varied shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 1/6000. High shutter speeds were chosen (with VR OFF..... BTW), because most of the shooting was done of gulls, not these two boats:
Regarding the lobster boats here: one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The houses are 0.51 nautical miles distance. That is 1/2 mile!! This calculation is within 100+/- feet and by Google Earth. The boat underway was shot at or near the 500mm end while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp.
Regarding this 2nd 200-500:
So this lens is VERY acceptable at long distances (I am very impressed!) but apparently not acceptably sharp at close distances when shooting the gulls here. So far at least, I am not impressed with any of the bird shots I took yesterday (the first day field testing it.... and the same day as these two boat images).
AFFT:
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\". I am wondering: Is there confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity? Two separate things they are . Though one can effect the other. Just because a long lens\'s auto-focusing point is at zero; i.e. the lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. I would think that the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 lens is not nearly as tight as that of a very expensive lens.
For me anyway, I have learned to only make my \"image-sharpness\" judgements based on what I see on the computer screen (at 100% enlargement of the image), not on the camera\'s LCD (regardless of how much I enlarge that LCD image) .
My acid test for image sharpness is always the 100% enlarging of the image, whereupon I go right to eye area or whiskers (in mammals)...and that tested at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative. All lenses have varying degrees of sharpness I think.
It may be that the not-so-good performance of this 2nd lens on birds..... could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt it.
Also, it seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good for this second one either. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
D500. I did all my shooting yesterday at f8, almost all at ISO1250 and Manual mode. For several minutes the Sun was full and for the next 1/2 hour it would be behind clouds. So I varied shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 1/6000. High shutter speed were chosen (with VR OFF BTW), because most of the shooting was done of gulls, not these two boats:
A couple of lobster boats here, one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The houses are at about 1/4-1/3 mile distance. The boat underway was shot at or near the 500mm end while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp.
Regarding this 2nd 200-500:
So this lens is VERY acceptable at long distances (I am very impressed!) but apparently not acceptably sharp at close distances when shooting the gulls here. So far at least, I am not impressed with any of the bird shots I took yesterday (the first day field testing it.... and the same day as these two boat images).
AFFT:
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\". I am wondering: Is there confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity? Two separate things they are . Though one can effect the other. Just because a long lens\'s auto-focusing point is at zero; i.e. the lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. I would think that the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 lens is not nearly as tight as that of a very expensive lens.
For me anyway, I have learned to only make my \"image-sharpness\" judgements based on what I see on the computer screen (at 100% enlargement of the image), not on the camera\'s LCD (regardless of how much I enlarge that LCD image) .
My acid test for image sharpness is always the 100% enlarging of the image, whereupon I go right to eye area or whiskers (in mammals)...and that tested at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative. All lenses have varying degrees of sharpness I think.
It may be that the not-so-good performance of this 2nd lens on birds..... could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt it.
Also, it seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good for this second one either. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
D500. I did all my shooting yesterday at f8, almost all at ISO1250 and Manual mode. For several minutes the Sun was full and for the next 1/2 hour it would be behind clouds. So I varied shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 1/6000. High shutter speed were chosen (with VR OFF BTW), because most of the shooting was done of gulls, not these two boats:
A couple of lobster boats here, one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The houses behind the boat underway are at about 1/4-1/3 mile distance. The boat underway was shot at or near the 500mm end while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp.
Regarding this 2nd 200-500:
So this lens is VERY acceptable at long distances (I am very impressed!) but apparently not acceptably sharp at close distances when shooting the gulls here. So far at least, I am not impressed with any of the bird shots I took yesterday (the first day field testing it.... and the same day as these two boat images).
AFFT:
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\". I am wondering: Is there confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity? Two separate things they are . Though one can effect the other. Just because a long lens\'s auto-focusing point is at zero; i.e. the lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. I would think that the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 lens is not nearly as tight as that of a very expensive lens.
For me anyway, I have learned to only make my \"image-sharpness\" judgements based on what I see on the computer screen (at 100% enlargement of the image), not on the camera\'s LCD (regardless of how much I enlarge that LCD image) .
My acid test for image sharpness is always the 100% enlarging of the image, whereupon I go right to eye area or whiskers (in mammals)...and that tested at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative. All lenses have varying degrees of sharpness I think.
It may be that the not-so-good performance of this 2nd lens on birds..... could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt it.
Also, it seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good for this second one either. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
D500. A couple of lobster boats, one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The boat underway was shot at or near the 500mm end while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp.
Regarding this 2nd 200-500:
This lens is very acceptable at long distance but apparently not acceptably sharp at close distances when shooting the gulls here. So far at least, I am not impressed with any of the bird shots I took yesterday (the first day field testing it.... and the same day as these two boat images).
AFFT:
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\". I am wondering: Is there confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity? Two separate things they are . Though one can effect the other. Just because a long lens\'s auto-focusing point is at zero; i.e. the lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. I would think that the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 lens is not nearly as tight as that of a very expensive lens.
For me anyway, I have learned to only make my \"image-sharpness\" judgements based on what I see on the computer screen (at 100% enlargement of the image), not on the camera\'s LCD (regardless of how much I enlarge that LCD image) .
My acid test for image sharpness is always the 100% enlarging of the image, whereupon I go right to eye area or whiskers (in mammals)...and that tested at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative. All lenses have varying degrees of sharpness I think.
It may be that the not-so-good performance of this 2nd lens on birds..... could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt it.
Also, it seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good for this second one either. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
D500. A couple of lobster boats, one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The boat underway was shot at or near the 500mm end while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp.
Regarding this 2nd 200-500:
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\".
This lens is very acceptable at long distance but apparently not at close distances when shooting the gulls here.
I am not impressed with any of the bird shots I took yesterday (same day as these two boat images).
For me, I have learned to only make my \"image-sharpness\" judgements based on what I see on the computer screen (at 100% enlargement of the image), not on the camera\'s LCD (regardless of how much I enlarge that LCD image)
My acid test for image sharpness is always the 100% enlarging of the image, whereupon I go right to eye area or whiskers (in mammals)...and that tested at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative. All lenses have varying degrees of sharpness I think.
It may be that the not-so-good performance of this 2nd lens on birds..... could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt it.
Also, it seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
I am wondering: Is there confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity? Two separate things they are . Just because a long lens\'s auto-focusing point is at zero; i.e. the lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. Oh yes. And surely the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 lens is not nearly as tight as that of an expensive lens.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good for this second one either. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
D500. A couple of lobster boats, one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The boat underway was shot at or near the 500mm end while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp.
Regarding this 2nd 200-500:
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\".
This lens is very acceptable at long distance but apparently not at close distances when shooting the gulls here.
I am not impressed with any of the bird shots I took yesterday (same day as these two boat images).
I have learned to only make my \"image-sharpness\" decisions based on what I see on the computer screen, not on the camera\'s LCD. They are not the same. My acid test is always the 100% enlarging of the image and then go right to eye area or whiskers (in mammals)...and that at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative.
But the not-so-good performance of this 2nd lens on birds..... could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt it.
Also, it seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
I am wondering: Is there confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity? Two separate things they are . Just because a lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. Oh yes. Surely the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 lens is not nearly as tight as that of an expensive lens.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
D500. A couple of lobster boats, one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The boat underway was shot at 500mm, while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp.
Regarding this 2nd 200-500:
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\".
This lens is very acceptable at long distance but apparently not at close distances when shooting the gulls here.
I am not impressed with any of the bird shots I took yesterday (same day as these two boat images).
I have learned to only make my \"image-sharpness\" decisions based on what I see on the computer screen, not on the camera\'s LCD. They are not the same. My acid test is always the 100% enlarging of the image and then go right to eye area or whiskers (in mammals)...and that at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative.
But the not-so-good performance of this 2nd lens on birds..... could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt it.
Also, it seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
I am wondering: Is there confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity? Two separate things they are . Just because a lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. Oh yes. Surely the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 lens is not nearly as tight as that of an expensive lens.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
D500. A couple of lobster boats, one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. The boat underway was shot at 500mm, while I had to pull the zoom all the way back to fit in the moored boat.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. I no longer have the first lens as it was not sharp. This second one is very acceptable at long distance but apparently not at close distances when shooting the gulls here. I am not impressed with any of the bird shots. But this could also be due to poor lighting, though I doubt it. It seems that gulls are all I can shoot now, since the migrants have all left this spot.
Right out of the box....the AFFT was just about dead center; i.e. \"0\".
I think there might be confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity. Two separate things they are . Just because a lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. Surely the manufacturing tolerances of a $1500 lens is not nearly as tight as that of an expensive lens.
My acid test is always the 100% enlarging of the eye area or whiskers (in mammals)...and that at all focal lengths. And it\'s all relative.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
D500. A couple of lobster boats, one moored and the other returning from a day of fishing. About 1/4 mile away. Nonesuch River.
This is the second 200-500 I am in the process of testing. The first one was not sharp and is gone. This second one is very acceptable at long distance but apparently not at close distances on the gulls I have been shooting here. It seems that may be all I can shoot since the migrants have all left it.
The AFFT is just about dead center; i.e. \"0\". I think there might be confusion about AFFT and sharpness or acuity. Two separate things they are . Just because a lens is autofocusing at the exact point that I am autofocusing on, does not mean that the lens is going to be sharp. It can be inherently soft. The 100% enlarging of the eye area or whiskers (in mammals) is my acid test.
Have to do more testing, but it does not look good. Yesterday the light was not direct on virtually all of the several hundred gulls I shot; i.e. mostly cloudy. Today I hope to be in direct sunlight.
So I varied shutter speeds from 1/2000 to 1/6000. High shutter speeds were chosen (with VR OFF..... BTW), because most of the shooting was done of gulls, not these two boats: 
. Though one can effect the other.