Nikon lens question.

Paul pminteriors

Paul pminteriors

Messages
356
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi. I’m shooting with a Nikon d7100. I’m using a 28-300 vr lens as my zoom lens. At 300mm the picture isn’t that sharp probs due to the lowest high f stop possible (f 5.6 I think)

Would I get a much sharper image if I used the holy grail 70-200 f2.8 vr2.

Here is an image at 300mm uncropoed and in edited. This is at about 20-30m away hand held.

IMG_8519.jpg
 
I have both lenses which I use on a D750 and have used on a D7200.

My experience is that at the longest focal lengths with distant subjects the 70-200 is sharper (nothing to do with the aperture though). But it's only 200mm compared to 300mm. It's also bigger, heavier, doesn't go to 28mm at the short end and doesn't focus as close.
 
I appreciate the 28-300 is a better all round. I’ve got a 17-55 f2.8 which could complement the 70-200. But I can only justify the purchase if I’ll get better cropped shots at full focal length.

What I’m considering is to offload a few lenses and have a couple of main lenses. I’ve currently got 7, I’d like to reduce that to 4 ideally. Or 5 if I get into macro more. I do fancy that 200mm macro....
 
Paul pminteriors said:
I’ve got a 17-55 f2.8 which could complement the 70-200. But I can only justify the purchase if I’ll get better cropped shots at full focal length.
Click to expand...
The 70-200 will be better than the 28-300 at full extension. But to be honest, if you're intending to crop because your subjects are too far away you might be better buying something longer than 200 so you don't have to crop. But each to their own.
 
Probably shutter speed is the main problem.
You should be using at least 1/500 but preferably 1/1000 hand held at the long end depending on how good the VR is...
 
Last edited:
f5.6 + 1/250-1/300 shutter speed + handheld is probably the issue.
Sure the 70-200 is a great lens and very sharp but still needs the right settings & skills. :)
 
It’s mainly for fish which don’t sit still lol!

I’m off out shopping so will come back to this thread later.

Thanks for replies so far...
 
Looking at your image I have to agree with Kendo1, looks like shutter speed, the focus point looks good, the area around the subject looks good. If you want to hit a slightly sweeter spot with the lens try f8.
Keep your shutter speed over 1/500 and preferably 1/1000. Use auto iso if needed to make sure the camera allows these settings
 
300mm on an apsc body is “equivalent” to 450mm on full frame. Hand holding and getting a sharp shot at that focal length is not always easy.
For this I would use a minimum of 500 ss. For animal movement you may need to go higher. The salmon was moving quickly?
Also, these variable aperture all in one zooms are never the sharpest, especially at the long end of their focal length.

I have neither lens. Dave’s and Karl’s points are very relevant IMO.
 
definitely some camera movement and fast fish syndrome. I cannot comment on the lens itself apart from the fact that long lenses that are 5.6 or slower are a bit of a handicap for wildlife shooters, ie you can't get the right compromise between shutter speed and ISO as much as you can with f2.8 or f4 and isolating the subject from the background isn't as easy.

I always make the mistake of using too slow shutter speeds, this stands out more on cameras with 20+MP as any movement is accentuated.

Hope you work this out.
 
I was using that same combination in 2018 and had the same disappointments. :(

Shutter speed does make a difference, but it doesn't fix it - the lens is just soft at max zoom (at least mine was). I had the 200 too, so used that instead of the 300 and just cropped a bit. This gave better results TBH.

The camera is great, but I sold the lens in the end and bought a Sigma 150-600 - problem solved. This lens works well on my D810 too which surprised me, so I'll keep this until I find a spare £5-10,000.00 laying around for something better.
 
Cheers for your replies guys. The salmon head and tailed pretty fast.

I’ll have a play about with shutter speeds/iso. I think the aperture is ok at 5.6 but will play about with that too.

I think the image I’m after is like one from the front of a fishing magazine ha! A lot of money for one image to send to my mates for them to glance at on an old iPhone 3!!

My thinking was a faster lens would give a clearer image, but my issue being is I’m not sure where mr salmon will come up next so I’m guessing I’d need the f a bit higher to give a slightly wider focal range....
 
Paul pminteriors said:
My thinking was a faster lens would give a clearer image, but my issue being is I’m not sure where mr salmon will come up next so I’m guessing I’d need the f a bit higher to give a slightly wider focal range....
Click to expand...

The opposite is true.... larger the f number (smaller the aperture) the larger your depth of field i.e what is in focus.

In your scenario, a fast focusing lens would be beneficial - i.e. a lens that can focus faster to help with the unpredictability of the moving fish.

Careful though... it's a slippery slope once you start looking for faster focusing lenses as you'll then look for a body that's faster still and so on and so on....
In your scenario, the 70-200 2.8's do focus faster than the mega zooms - not because they have a larger aperture, but simply, they are made for fast action sports.
 
Paul
I think you have hit the same problem that I did a few years back, you have outgrown the cameras/lens capabilities. Yes you can still get good photos with it but are they what you want to achieve? I upgraded several times, should have made a bigger leap I realised too late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top