|
chunky
Dec 15, 2006, 10:42 PM
Post #1 of 36
(3456 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2005
Posts: 13
|
I picked up this lens a few weeks ago for it's versitility as a one lens solution for most shooting situations and have been very disapointed with the auto focus. I'm wondering if anyone else out there has had simular issues or if I just got a bum lens. It seems that ever time you need that critical shot, the thing has trouble focusing. Sometimes turning the camera off and back on again solves the problem but not always.
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Dec 16, 2006, 1:44 AM
Post #2 of 36
(3436 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
Chunky,
I just got one and I love it. The focus is spot-on every time. What body are you using? Lot's of good tips on how to use the lens and all the Nikon bodies at www.kenrockwell.com. There are some internal setting that can screw up focus. Be sure your focus area is set to what you think it is set to. Make sure that your Focus lock is off. Be sure that the focus mode is set to S.
Good luck.
Mal
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Dec 18, 2006, 9:33 PM
Post #3 of 36
(3398 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
i'm a sharpness freak, this lens has too much range and not sharp enough for me
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Dec 19, 2006, 3:47 AM
Post #4 of 36
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
There's sharpmess and then there's sharpness. piton, the sharpness I believe you're talking can be found looking at test pattern shots with a magnifying glass, and there's no doubt that there are sharper lenses than the 18-200 Zoom. But then there's real world sharpness. The kind that's important when you grab your camera off the table to shoot something that pops up unexpectedly. You don't have time to switch lenses, set up a tripod or ask the subject to re-pose. Here's a grab shot I made late in the evening in the open air pavilion at the end of the Triple Crown comp in Chatanooga. To my eye, the sky was almost dark. This shot was handheld at 200mm, 1/10 sec @f 5.6 off the meta-data on the file. That's right, I handheld this (no propped elbows) at 200mm (That's 300mm to you film guys) at 1/10 sec! It was shot in Program exposure mode, no sharpening was added either at the camera level or later in Photoshop. The quality setting on my D70s were set at Normal, Medium. I resized in Photoshop to make it web compatible.
I love this lens and it has changed all the crap I have to carry when I shoot. Are there down-sides? Sure. The VR doesn not stop action--you can see the blurred head in the bottom of my photo. Also, it's expensive and it suffers from annoying lens creep. Don't bother setting it on a tripod and shooting down at the ground.
Mal
(This post was edited by maldaly on Dec 19, 2006, 4:47 AM)
|
|
Attachments:
|
TestImage.jpg
(50.6 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Dec 19, 2006, 2:03 PM
Post #5 of 36
(3372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
imo not my choice so so sharpness on that pic.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Dec 19, 2006, 3:10 PM
Post #6 of 36
(3367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
Is that a 100% crop? If so, I'm impressed. If not, well... can't tell much from a 50kb full frame image. 18-200 is a big range... nice. But f/5.6 is pretty dang slow!
I'm a big fan of primes, but I did get to shoot a 70-200 f/2.8 on my canon over the weekend. Simply AMAZING. Attached is one shot nearly wide open.
|
|
Attachments:
|
IMG_3886.jpg
(120 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Dec 19, 2006, 3:43 PM
Post #7 of 36
(3361 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
What lens/es would you say are good "sharp" lenses? (For Nikon)
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Dec 19, 2006, 4:48 PM
Post #8 of 36
(3352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
what range? personally and photography 101 most of my shots are done on a tripod. rarely do i see something and just pick up the camera and shoot. it's more planed to the lighting time of day and subject.
camera d200 until i have $30,000 for the Hasselblad 39 megapixels
climbing photography: 17-55 & 17-80
landsscapes: 10.5 fish for funky stuff, which real photographers aren't crazy about
70-210 p&p don't make anymore
now the 70-200 vr $$$$
but if you like point and shoot images get the the 18-200
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Dec 19, 2006, 5:58 PM
Post #9 of 36
(3342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
I have a 35 f2, 50F1.4, the 18-70 F3.5-5.6, the 10.5mm fisheye and am buying the Tokina 12-24mm F4. I canont really tell the difference in "sharpness" in my climbing photos.
You mentioned that you like "sharp" lenses, but it seems that you're a canon guy, just curious to see if you were like...oh yah the 1x-YY FXX is a super sharp lens for Nikon etc.
Thanks though.
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Dec 19, 2006, 6:12 PM
Post #10 of 36
(3338 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
nope not a canon guy. if i was to choose it would be a hasselblad. ever hear of that camera co. dan? i mentioned as being sharpness freak. hand holding a camera is not the way for tell sharpness in a lens.
i think the fall off is too much on 18-200.
are you still shooting in automatic mode?
you're welcome though
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Dec 19, 2006, 6:16 PM
Post #11 of 36
(3335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
laf...no I don't shoot automatic 
I assume, then, that its not something that I should worry about then? "The Sharpness"
I've never heard of Hasselblad, but will check it out (Though I doubt I'll be upgrading bodies until like the D4x comes out.)
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Dec 19, 2006, 6:54 PM
Post #12 of 36
(3328 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
how do you like your 50 1.4? that seems to be a nice lens.
dude hasselblad are the shizzle ask pico. nikon, canon etc.. don't even come close in quality compared to a hasselblad.
check out this guys website www.hardietruesdale.com
he shoots with hassleblad film imo he's the best photographer i've seen.
merry christmas
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Dec 19, 2006, 7:03 PM
Post #13 of 36
(3323 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
I was checking out their site, definitely looks quite good! I was afraid to check prices though.
I really enjoy the 50, its great for a super narrow depth of field, though I find its a tight squeeze on digital. (thats why I got the 35mm).
Thanks for the info man, I love learning about new things on the market...Good ole internet.
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Dec 19, 2006, 7:18 PM
Post #14 of 36
(3319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
dbrayack, it's all about what you value and how you shoot. If you're into razor sharpness, tripods nad micro-examination of photos, by all means follow piton's advice. it's good. If you're more about having the camera to get the shot, hitting the light at the moment then check out the 18-200 VR. There are ton of pros using it and the response is good. Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com) has tons of info on different Nikon lenses, including the 18-200 and everything that piton has recommended as well. He also lets fly with a lot of great real-world advice that, personally, I find very useful for the way I shoot.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Dec 19, 2006, 7:29 PM
Post #15 of 36
(3317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Thanks for the info man. I've had the 18-200 on my list for quite a while; I got teh 18-70 that came with my camera and have been trying to justify the 1000 to upgrade.
It seemed like people were complaining about lack of sharpness, I was hoping that I wouldn't be sacrificing anything for the step up.
That's a pretty sweet site aye?
-Danno
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Dec 19, 2006, 7:36 PM
Post #16 of 36
(3314 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
Here's the link the Rockwells sharpness comparison page. Topher has been shooting with with one of these for the last 6 months and is pretty psyched by it.
Mal
http://www.kenrockwell.com/.../18200-sharpness.htm
(This post was edited by maldaly on Dec 19, 2006, 7:38 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Dec 19, 2006, 9:20 PM
Post #17 of 36
(3301 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Finally, a topic worth reading that stayed on topic for so long.
I bought a used Nikon ED 80-200 1:28 It's an older lense that I bought used for 300.00 bucks. A nice lense for my needs.
I also have the same 50mm you do. I have to say, it a great lense, but it is a little tight on a digital cmaera. Of course, as a photographer I just had to adjust some.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Dec 19, 2006, 9:39 PM
Post #18 of 36
(3296 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
The best zooms will always be less sharp than the best primes.
You have to weigh the pros and cons of range over sharpness and make your own call.
Ken Rockwell's work speaks for itself.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Dec 19, 2006, 10:10 PM
Post #19 of 36
(3291 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Ken has a lot of information on his site, but I don't really agree with most of what he says.
It's a nice site for people starting out, but people who have the basis down, would do better to look elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Dec 20, 2006, 9:07 PM
Post #20 of 36
(3271 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
hey have any of you all used the 85mm f1.4 nikkor
i heard good things about this lens for climbing shots. i would think it would be good for depth of field
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Dec 20, 2006, 9:31 PM
Post #21 of 36
(3266 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
piton wrote: hey have any of you all used the 85mm f1.4 nikkor
i think the_alpine is using one in this one.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Dec 21, 2006, 2:34 AM
Post #22 of 36
(3244 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
No offense but 3.5 max aperture is pitifully slow. Yeah, VR and all but that does nothing for isolating DOF or allowing more light to the meter and focusing system (or your eyes). And the lens isn't even a constant 3.5 is it?
VR is great, put it in some constant 2.8, 2.0 and 1.4 lenses and I'd be sold.
Otherwise. put the damn VR/SR/IS in the camera body and let me use it with my superfast primes, and much faster zooms.
As far as your AF. The AF of a superzoom is usually slower because it has a longer range of possible focus. Also, the 3.5 aperture doesn't let in tons of light, and if it's not a constant 3.5 it's even worse.
Lens based IS has advantages but for the consumer, semipro they are outweighed by prohibitive cost for quality glass.
And to add to what Piton said, a 10X zoom is impossible to make without compromises. I agree with Malcom there are definitely people who only care about MTF test and such and not what the lens can do that others can't but a 10X is too much compromise. 3-4X is still a pretty good bet for very good optical at a reasonable cost.
But then, I still shoot and prefer primes which only have to be optimized at one focal length so cost per quality is much more effecient.
(This post was edited by pico23 on Dec 21, 2006, 2:40 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
coreydacat
Dec 21, 2006, 11:57 AM
Post #23 of 36
(3223 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2004
Posts: 79
|
i've got the lens you are speking of, and for the range i get, overall i think it's great. sometimes it is slow to focus, but you could always override in manual to get what you want. i don't know about other cameras but with the D200 when you're shooting a series of rapid succession shots, you can change from focus priority to release priority, which would allow you to achieve your desired fps. yes, some of them will be out of focus, but if you realign often it shouldn't be too much of a problem. i have to admit, though, the lens creep is annoying.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Dec 21, 2006, 12:51 PM
Post #24 of 36
(3220 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
Man, I have enough trouble with the 50, the 85 would be reallllly tough!
Though its on the "if I win the lottery, buy, list"
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Dec 21, 2006, 1:23 PM
Post #25 of 36
(3217 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
yeah Dan i hear you. too bad we take part in one of the most expensive hobbies.
i noticed your signature tisk tisk on you
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
