The lens itself may be fine - just the way it's communicating with the camera may be at fault - on Pro camera we have a means to fine-tune the AF if it's slightly out...
Try again in better light by manually focussing...
50mm or 50mm
- Thread starter Bubby
- Start date
The lens itself may be fine - just the way it's communicating with the camera may be at fault - on Pro camera we have a means to fine-tune the AF if it's slightly out...
Try again in better light by manually focussing...
What are we looking for Rob? What f/number? Check the corners at low f/number.
You'll be hard pressed to see any significant difference in sharpness with any lens in the centre, pretty much at any f/number. That's why I'm sure there's something wrong with DJ's lens - that's a good and conclusive set of direct comparison pictures he posted. Maybe it took a bash in the post or summat. Fixable though
Just an example that at the most-used settings there's no noticable difference between any of them...
These are all at f/7.1...
I couldn't care less about what happens in the corners wide-open to be honest - if little pink elephants appeared in the corners at high magnifications, I'd just cover them with some heavy vignetting...
if you're mad enough to place your subject there, then fine...lol
- Messages
- 382
- Edit My Images
- No
Dont know if this is normal but I did as was suggested and then switched to live view. With the IS on I notice the lens seems like it's swaying slightly until I turn the IS off?
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Groups of people? Architecture? Landscapes?
Doesn't look like a misfocusing issue to me. And that would clear up with the higher f/number shot. It looks terrible, awash with CA. IS mechanism is relatively delicate I guess. That lens has tripod sensing so it shouldn't matter what you've done with the IS.
If there's no sign of damage, my guess is that it's taken a bash in the post or some other similar soft shock.
It's obviously worth testing again to make sure but IMO the technical term for it is fooct.
- Messages
- 382
- Edit My Images
- No
Yeah the lens was in immaculate condition when it arrived, I have spent a good while in the garden in better light and the results are the same no matter what the f stop
Groups of people? Architecture? Landscapes?
Edges maybe, but corners? Nahhh...
Group-shot - wide-open? Never... Tripod, up the ISO but shoot at max aperture? Nope...need the DOF to get 'em all in focus front-to-back.
I'm all about real-world applications - theoretic limitations don't interest me at all... I know based on what I shoot, what works and what doesn't...
Architecture? For money?
I'd rent/buy a new PC-Nikkor lens.
Landscapes? Without people in them they bore me rigid...
I know what I need based on what I shoot. These lenses cover all the bases that I need...
...with filters...
- Messages
- 3,780
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The guy comaplaining about the 17-55 f2.8 is a canon user and that is supposed to be the best non-L that canon make. It gets absolutely rave reviews but I'm still not surprised that when pixel peeping the nifty is sharper.
i know, hence my specifically referring to my lens thus: Nikkor... was also...
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Then why do you spend so much money on high end gear when you'd obviously be thrilled with the cheapest consumer lens out there?
You'll be trying to tell us filters don't make any different to IQ next.
Ah, wait a minute! The penny's dropped. It all makes sense now!
- Messages
- 382
- Edit My Images
- No
Won't post them all up but done tests now with the 17-85 and sigma 18-200 at 50mm and both are sharper than my 17-55 2.8. So not only is my prime sharper but my other zooms are as well. All tested in the same light and on a tripod with cable release.
Just waiting for the seller to contact me now. Gutted.
Just waiting for the seller to contact me now. Gutted.
They don't...and I wouldn't be: cheaper lenses wouldn't stand up to the punishment I mete out, not do they come with the wider apertures I demand.
Also, I have done tests myself to confirm to my own satisfaction that all my lenses are good edge-to-edge at all apertures compared to manufacturers' claims: it's the first thing I do with a new lens when I buy it (with issued kit I don't bother).
The properties of the 17-35; 24-70; 70-200; 50-mil and 85-mil are already well enough documented anyway.
I just can't be arsed to do it all again for your benefit and besides: hand-held living-room tests ultimately prove nothing - too many variables: leave that up to the Lab-Geeks and bench-tests in controlled environments.
All I was doing here was trying to demonstrate that zooms can be as good as primes. I've done that... and you bloody-well agreed...
...you Bloomin' ****-stirrer...
- Messages
- 6,430
- Name
- Sir
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Okay .... Hands up time ... I sold the lens to Danny.
I have told Danny that I will refund his money.
I will obviously get it checked out as soon as it comes back. He has decided not to keep the lens even if the repair centre decide it is all within spec.
I have told Danny that I will refund his money.
I will obviously get it checked out as soon as it comes back. He has decided not to keep the lens even if the repair centre decide it is all within spec.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
They don't...and I wouldn't be: cheaper lenses wouldn't stand up to the punishment I mete out, not do they come with the wider apertures I demand.
Also, I have done tests myself to confirm to my own satisfaction that all my lenses are good edge-to-edge at all apertures compared to manufacturers' claims: it's the first thing I do with a new lens when I buy it (with issued kit I don't bother).
The properties of the 17-35; 24-70; 70-200; 50-mil and 85-mil are already well enough documented anyway.
I just can't be arsed to do it all again for your benefit and besides: hand-held living-room tests ultimately prove nothing - too many variables: leave that up to the Lab-Geeks and bench-tests in controlled environments.
All I was doing here was trying to demonstrate that zooms can be as good as primes. I've done that... and you bloody-well agreed...
...you Bloomin' ****-stirrer...
For my benefit? I didn't ask you to do anything! I wouldn't dare.
I always try very hard to agree with you Rob. It's not easy and I fail regularly, but I do try.
BTW, there's nothing wrong with hand-held living room tests (though I prefer the kitchen) if you know what you're doing. I'm all in favour of real world tests, so long as they're appropriate and well executed.
Good rough science is far better than lab testing pseudo science, like most resultion tests charts and focus targets, many of which are conceived to be clever rather than relevant. Designed by folks that ought to know better, and used by those that believe them. Such is the internet.
Danny's tests were spot on. It would be different is they were checking edge sharpness, or shot very close (as I first thought from the 'cushion' reference) or on a longer lens, but they were right for what was being assessed and, crucially, there was an identical side by side comparison with another lens of known quality. That was pretty conclusive, and was subequently proved.
I digress. Again. Sorry
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Good on you H
In the finest traditions of TP.I'm sure there's nothing that can't be fixed and you should be able to sell the lens on in confidence, and with some warranty.
My view is that once a lens has been through a proper service centre, it is at least as good as new with everything custom calibrated and individually checked
- Messages
- 382
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks hypnotic I feel really bad because it's clearly been looked after but thanks for sorting it out and your a top guy. I've boxed it up well, with loads of additonal wrap and will post it tommorow morning as promised. I put extra wrap inside the canon box as well. I will still be interested to hear what the service center has to say.