Ultra Soft - D90 with 18-200mm

Thanks Scott - if you PM me your email address, I will fire the RAW over for you to have a play with.

Cheers, Mark
 
Theres not much point in sharpening loads of noise.

Original, 100%crop posted earlier in thread.
Test_4_100_Crop.jpg


Running NoisewarePro, at default settings (so not extreme at all), followed by USM at 100%,2,3.

Test_4_100_Crop by npurdie2003, on Flickr
 
DavidMartin said:
Learnt something new today, didn't know that raw files were soft.
Click to expand...

yes raws have nothing done what so ever no sharpening no noise reduction no colour profile set no wb set (thats why its raw) and will always need sharpening. and 99% of the time jpegs even need sharpenig dependent on size of print,
 
OK, following advice from Scott, I've attempted a test shoot. Comparing the 18-200 with the only other lens I have here today, the 105Micro.

Firstly, the 18-200mm, Mounted on a tripod, with the VR switched off, set to 105mm, f5.6, ISO200. No sharpening applied in all cases, to test. straight from RAW.

Full Version...
Text_18-300_105mm_200ISO_f5_6_Full.jpg


100% Crop...
Text_18-300_105mm_200ISO_f5_6_100_crop.jpg
 
And, now the 105Micro. The shots are resolved at different sizes, I assume due to the zoom not reaching its full zoom when focused on close items...

Full image...
Text_105Micro_105mm_200ISO_f5_6_Full.jpg


100% Crop...
Text_105Micro_105mm_200ISO_f5_6_100_crop.jpg
 
Looking at the two, I would say that the shots taken with the 105Micro are definitely more sharp than those taken with the 18-200.

Thing is, was it a wasted test, due to the 105 not being fully wide open, whereas the 18-200 was wide open??

Scott, would you say that your shots appear to be sharper to you than mine appear? Subjective perhaps, but they do appear that way to me.

Cheers, Mark
 
Well... I've said this before... I just can't see this as a sharpening (or not) issue as the shots are just too far out.

To me this has to be one of three things...

1. Really bad technique, like using all focus points and recomposing or much too low a shutter speed... but I don't think this is the case.

2. A duff lens.

3. A duff camera.

The way forward is surely to try a different lens or a different camera.

I hope you get is sorted but a superzoom should be capable of much better than this even before we get into the whole sharpening debate.

After looking at the above I'm still not impressed, shots should be sharper than this. Camera?????
 
Last edited:
About 3 months ago I replaced my Nikkor 18 - 55 and 55 - 200 with a Sigma 18 - 200.

I did a lot of tripod mounted comparison shots with all 3 lenses and came to the conclusion (just using the Mk 1 eyeball) that the Sigma was as good as the Nikkors.

However when using the camera for "real", I did find that some of my shots were a little soft. By trying a number of options when using the Sigma I now consistently have shots as sharp as the Nikkors.
I am using the various modes on the camera far more than I did before and paying a little more attention to depth of field and where the prime focus point(s) is/are (either AF or manual).
The lens is heavier than the previous ones, in slightly gloomy light I use a monopod a fair bit now.
A slight change of technique was needed.............

Overall I am quite happy with the Sigma now, I am not for ever swapping lenses like a "one armed paper hanger" - but it did take a bit of getting used to. Quality of photos is well up to what I require when compared to the Nikkors.
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
one thing to remember here to is the 18-200mm is wide open and the 105mm is stopped down and will produce much better pics, try stopping down the 18-200mm
as for the 18-200mm shot, it does look a little smeary almost like slight movement.
Click to expand...

Movement - firstly, there was no movement at all. Camera in all cases as set to timer for the shots. It is mounted on a velbon ultra desktop tripod, with the legs splayed wide and low - it doesn't move at all. What you are seeing in the shots is identical for both lenses.

Will try again, both set to f8, to see what I get, and post the results.
 
woof woof said:
Well... I've said this before... I just can't see this as a sharpening (or not) issue as the shots are just too far out.

To me this has to be one of three things...

1. Really bad technique, like using all focus points and recomposing or much too low a shutter speed... but I don't think this is the case.

2. A duff lens.

3. A duff camera.

The way forward is surely to try a different lens or a different camera.

I hope you get is sorted but a superzoom should be capable of much better than this even before we get into the whole sharpening debate.

After looking at the above I'm still not impressed, shots should be sharper than this. Camera?????
Click to expand...
what even when shooting raw(please explain)
as the way i understand it raw has no sharpening so that means it will need it doing regardless of what lens.
 
OK, here goes with the book again - all at f8 now.

First up, the 18-200, 105mm f8 ISO200

Full image...
f8_Text_18-300_105mm_200ISO_f8_Full.jpg


100% Crop...
f8_Text_18-300_105mm_200ISO_f8_100_crop.jpg
 
Mark

If the 105Micro wasn't sharper, I would be wanting my money back on that. It is a prime lens, stopped down a bit. From the tests above, it is also showing only 80%ish of the image from the 18-200.

There realy is no comparison. The only thing you will do is convince yourself the 18-200 is crap, when it is just a bit of a compromise between carrying 2 or 3 lenses or 1.

I had a Sigma 18-200 OS and the results were similar to yours. Prety good if processed and no pixel peeping.
 
Last edited:
So, even stopped down to f8 on both lenses, and into the area the 18-200mm should definitely be sharp at, looking at the comparison, the 18-200mm definitely appears to me to be a lot softer than the 105Micro.

So, the question now is, what on earth do I do about it?

Also, Woof Woof, you mentioned that both sets of images did not look as sharp as you were expecting - so, do you think I have an unsharp lens, and an issue with the D90 also? Cannot check with the D700, as that's at work at present, to see how it resolves the 105Micro as a comparison.
 
singlespeed said:
Mark

If the 105Micro wasn't sharper, I would be wanting my money back on that. It is a prime lens, stopped down a bit. From the tests above, it is also showing only 80%ish of the image from the 18-200.

There realy is no comparison. The only thing you will do is convince yourself the 18-200 is crap, when it is just a bit of a compromise between carrying 2 or 3 lenses or 1.

I had a Sigma 18-200 OS and the results were similar to yours. Prety good if processed and no pixel peeping.
Click to expand...

Hi Neil, yeah, I see where you are coming from. It's the only other lens I have with me for comparison at present. It is perhaps a slightly unfair comparison.

Earlier in the thread mjjiva (post 7) hinted that the 18-200 was not as sharp as he wished at f5.6 or under. The above shots to me show that it is also not as sharp as could be at f8 - if you compare the f5.6 and f8 shots from this lens alone, they dont appear to be much different, to be honest.
 
scottthehat said:
mark the 105mm is a prime lens also its a macro and will produce awsome images close up like it has.
Click to expand...

Noted and understood - that's why I bought it!

Do you not feel that there should be an improvement going from f5.6 to f8 on the 18-200mm though? There does not appear to be any improvement however.

Agree with your earlier post regarding the crops not being "real world" - point taken, but should not the point of focus on the lens actually be in focus - especially at f8, as in the last examples?

If I am considered to be barking mad, please feel free to say so!
 
braddersmd said:
Also, Woof Woof, you mentioned that both sets of images did not look as sharp as you were expecting - so, do you think I have an unsharp lens, and an issue with the D90 also? Cannot check with the D700, as that's at work at present, to see how it resolves the 105Micro as a comparison.
Click to expand...

Even the macro shot doesn't look too great to me considering that it's taken with a lens that should impress. So what's left? The camera? I think that you really need yet another lens or another camera to sort this out.

All I can suggest is that you get hold of that other camera from work or trot along to a friendly camera shop and pretend you're interested in a D7000 or something or just be honest and see if they'll let you take a few shots in the shop. JPEG's will do as I believe that you should be getting better than what you've posted here.
 
Last edited:
braddersmd said:
Noted and understood - that's why I bought it!

Do you not feel that there should be an improvement going from f5.6 to f8 on the 18-200mm though? There does not appear to be any improvement however.

Agree with your earlier post regarding the crops not being "real world" - point taken, but should not the point of focus on the lens actually be in focus - especially at f8, as in the last examples?

If I am considered to be barking mad, please feel free to say so!
Click to expand...
mark, my ones sweet spot is f10 i use mine for studio work,
i think the only wa to be sure is test another one, f8 doesnt look much different, also looks like it suffers from vinetting(which is weired)
 
scottthehat said:
mark, my ones sweet spot is f10 i use mine for studio work,
i think the only wa to be sure is test another one, f8 doesnt look much different, also looks like it suffers from vinetting(which is weired)
Click to expand...

Agree, the vignetting is very odd, and all the more pronounced when shooting a page from a book! Hmm...

So, does any kindly soul in and around the Leeds/S.E Leeds area have a lens and preferably a D90 to boot, and an hour or two spare?

Think a trip to Dale Photographic may indeed be on the cards otherwise - just hope they have time to look at things for me, as it can get a bit hectic in there.

Will also have a further play later today, to see if I can find the sweet spot on it.
 
braddersmd said:
Agree, the vignetting is very odd, and all the more pronounced when shooting a page from a book! Hmm...
Click to expand...

It appears "they all do that Sir" over 100mm and small f-numbers



braddersmd said:
Will also have a further play later today, to see if I can find the sweet spot on it.
Click to expand...
50mm and f11 should be about the best compromise between center/edge sharpness.

Worst point is probably 135mm, so you were not too far off this with your earlier tests at 105mm. You rotter, comparing it to a lens in the prime of its life!
 
Have been trying to find the sweet spot, as called. Set the camera up, with the lens pointing back at the page of the book, and took 8 shots, ranging from f8 to f18.

Then did a 100% crop of all shots at the point of focus, and combined them to create a single image to upload.

Shots taken 18-200mm @ 70mm, f"as shown", ISO200. Not sure, but I assume we can ignore WB as these are straight from RAW under the room light.

Sweet_Spot.jpg


So, in conclusion, the sweet spot (or most in focus), before any sharpening etc appears to be at f9.

Now, my next question - should a commercial lens, aimed at "one for all" use, have such a limited sweet point?
 
braddersmd said:
Now, my next question - should a commercial lens, aimed at "one for all" use, have such a limited sweet point?
Click to expand...

Well... it is called a sweet spot...

Nice set of pictures though, clearly show diffraction setting in at higher f numbers.
 
singlespeed said:
It appears "they all do that Sir" over 100mm and small f-numbers

50mm and f11 should be about the best compromise between center/edge sharpness.

Worst point is probably 135mm, so you were not too far off this with your earlier tests at 105mm. You rotter, comparing it to a lens in the prime of its life!
Click to expand...

Neil, for completeness, did the same thing at 50mm.
This time I would say it's a tie between f8 and f9 for the sharpest untouched image.

Sweet_Spot_50mm.jpg
 
Nawty said:
Well... it is called a sweet spot...

Nice set of pictures though, clearly show diffraction setting in at higher f numbers.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess this sums up Caveat Emptor quite well - I was not expecting a general multi-use walkabout lens to have such a narrow use. When you read reviews it is described as sharp throughout, with distortion being the major criticism. Hmm...

Have been told about a club meeting in Wakefield tomorrow night, so if I get chance I will pop along to see if anyone else has the same kit and do some more testing.

Ho-hum!
 
Finally, for completeness, I grabbed the Sigma 24-70 from the office this afternoon. Have just done the same 100%crop grab at 50mm for the same rage of apertures.

Guess this explains why I'm not so pleased with the 18-200. If Neil is correct, and 50mm is it's sweetest length, then it does not compare favourably to the images below - even the worst of the 24-70 shots is comparable to the best of the 18-200.

Have only one other lens to compare - a Nikon 24-120 f4.

24-70 @ 50mm, f"various", ISO 200...
Sweet_Spot_24-70_50mm.jpg
 
What does the 24-70mm look like when set to 200mm or 18mm?
Or the 105Micro, when it is left at home because it isn't versatile enough.

Hmmmm now theres a problem!

Super zooms are a big compromise, due to the huge variation in field of view that they cover. For the 18-200mm, thats approx 77deg to 9deg, so a variation of 68deg. Whereas the 24-70mm covers 62deg to 23deg, so a variation of 39deg.

:thinking: Surely the 24-70 must be nearly twice as good, or half the size or weight. Or maybe the image stabilisation is better. Or even half the price.... Thought not :LOL:
 
Last edited:
Hmm, so I can only expect to compare the performance against another 18-200 then - precisely why I started the thread to see how others felt.

Judging by other shots in the thread, this copy looks soft - or do you not agree?

Hopefully I will be able to check it against other equal lenses shortly. I was however asked to try other lenses on the camera, which I've done - and goes some way to showing that the body appears to be OK.

Granted, I was expecting better based on past experience with a different body and lenses - which may have been naive. Then again, without seeing one first hand before buying, I could only go on reviews. So, based on those reviews, and other examples here, would I be wrong to still think it softer than it should be?

Interestingly, although not pertinent to this discussion, many find the Sigma 24-70 too soft to be tolerable.
 
Last edited:
have you tried your focus tests with liveview to see if that makes a difference?

That might show up if you're having body focus issues.

Nick
 
braddersmd said:
100% Crop...
Test_4_100_Crop.jpg
Click to expand...

This looks to me like camera shake. I can't really nail why I think it looks like that but that'd be what I said was up with it.

Think you said these shots were at 170mm, is that 35mm equiv or where the lens actually was, because if the lens was at 170mm then on a crop sensor you'd want a shutter speed of at least 1/272 ie 1/300 to maintain a sharp image, think you said you shot at 1/200th.
 
andephotographic said:
This looks to me like camera shake. I can't really nail why I think it looks like that but that'd be what I said was up with it.

Think you said these shots were at 170mm, is that 35mm equiv or where the lens actually was, because if the lens was at 170mm then on a crop sensor you'd want a shutter speed of at least 1/272 ie 1/300 to maintain a sharp image, think you said you shot at 1/200th.
Click to expand...

The lens has VR, which was switched on. Nikon claim 4 stops advantage for the VRII system, which this lens has. Real world everyone says 2 to 3 stops advantage. Shot with the VR system switched on all day as we were out for a walk, and all shots were hand held. Could be that the VR is faulty? I could hear and feel it working though.

That's why this is so puzzling to me. It really shouldn't have been down to camera shake, even though I agree that it looks like it.

What do you think of the benched tripod shots (VR off)? Aside from the pointless comparisons I took - do you think these look overly soft with too narrow a sweet spot?

(EDIT to add) : What are your thoughts on the shot in post 3? This was at 1/1000th. Is this simply down to the wide aperture, and being so far away from the sweet spot discovered on the indoor tests?
 
Last edited:
Grumpy_Git said:
have you tried your focus tests with liveview to see if that makes a difference?

That might show up if you're having body focus issues.

Nick
Click to expand...

Thanks Nick. Will have a look into this - have found a few sites describing it, so will do a bit of research first, then have a go.

Cheers, Mark
 
Looks to me like a bit of camera shake combined with a do it all lens that isn't the sharpest of the bunch.

Know how annoying this can be, had it myself a while back and just called it a day in the end before I spent all my time analysing everything.

BIt of praise too for the young lady who is having her face examined in every detail,reckon you owe her a box of choccies for all that modelling work :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top