I don't trust my lenses!

FreeloaderJoe

FreeloaderJoe

Messages
510
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
I recently had work done on my SLR (d80) and a 18-200 VR which got battered on a cycling tour resulting in a £500 bill from Nikon.

But anyway...since getting back the lens i can't say i've been blown away by it. It doesn't seem to be very crisp. Or maybe it never was that sharp, and i need to get rid or it because i find it too soft.:thumbsdown:

Its a shame i don't have another nikon body to test in a similar way to check its not my body!

Did a focusing test i found online...http://focustestchart.com/chart.html Test shots all shot with a remote and 100 ISO. Shotin JPEG.

Here are the results:

50mm 1.8D - Used as a control lens as such. Its brand new and never really been used Hence my decision to use it as a test.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2781/4145116388_4b892f51b1_b.jpg (large size)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2781/4145116388_42b77580b8_o.jpg (up close)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2713/4145114932_3e9fdf7127_b.jpg (test 2 Large)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2713/4145114932_86b5a530da_o.jpg (test 2 up close)

Repaired 18-200mm VR

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2692/4144356931_11daa34081_b.jpg (large size)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2692/4144356931_58e0c1f01d_o.jpg (Up close)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2628/4144358169_56c29e7676_b.jpg (test 2 large)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2628/4144358169_4cc94f12fa_o.jpg (test 2 up close)

Does anyone else feel that the 18-200 shots are quite soft? Is this acceptably sharp considering its just been recalibrated. Does anyone see anything else in the pictures which might indicate a lingering problem.

:help: Thanks in advance guys. Its doing my ****ing head in at the moment.
 
Just wondered why the up close shots are of an area which is OOF, you have focused at the centre of the chart and have a narrow DOF. If you are going to do a close up do it from the area in focus. I could be talking out of my backside so ignore me if I am. :D
 
To be honest, I can't see a difference. The only thing that's putting me off is the prime is slightly more exposed than the 18-200. I would expect the 50mm to be ever so slightly sharper at 50mm than the 18-200 anyway? Seeing as it's a prime it's built to perform best at this focal length.

The shocking bit, 500 bill from nikon to repair :eek:. I thought these lens only cost slightly over 500? (shopping around obviously)
 
I had the same issue with a lens that went back to Nikon under warranty with defective IS. When it came back I was never happy with the sharpness. It focused on the right point but it was never as sharp. I just didn’t trust it in the end and traded it in for something else. If you have doubts about it send it back as you will always be unhappy with it.
 
What's the problem? Nothing that I can see. You have had your equipment calibrated for focus accuracy, not sharpness, and that looks pretty good.

I will also say that I hate that test, even though it seems to have worked for you this time. There is a lot wrong with it, in particular it takes most lenses (apart from macros) into very close distances where they will quite likely not be at their best. With some zooms, if you calibrate your focus according to that chart, it can be out at normal range and at different focal lengths. Distance should be 50x focal length as a guide.

AF systems are analogue and work to a tolerance, but that test is hyper-critical and can reveal 'problems' that are actually within acceptable tolerance and are as good as it gets, ie perfectly good at normal range. Plus, being so critical, it is very prone to user error.

And as I say, that is a focus test, not a sharpness test. Shoot a distant target where focus errors are minimised and compare lenses that way, but I kind of doubt that Nikon would return any equipment in anything less than 100% order. Also, human nature being what it is, if you think you've got a potential problem, you will find it one way or another ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top