Is something wrong with my lens?

[coreno]

I have a Nikon 55-300mm lens that I got with my first DSLR (Nikon D5500) about 3 months ago. I like doing wildlife photography, so long reach is very important to me. I was a bit frustrated with some of the results I was getting from the lens, but figured I wasn't using it correctly, and was trying to get more from it than it was designed for. So last week I sprung for the Sigma 150-600mm lens and the difference is staggering.

Now I'm relatively confident it's not me, it's the lens. But the difference between the lenses is so dramatic I wonder if something is wrong with my Nikon 55-300.

I know lenses tend to do worse at maximum reach and wide-open aperture, which is why I included two shots with the Sigma one at comparable focal length, and one at max focal length wide-open).

Comparison at 100% crop (Nikon 55-300 f4.5-5.6 vs Sigma 150-600 f5-6.3)

Is the difference just the quality of the lens, or is there something wrong?

 

[robbins.photo]

Just out of curiosity, what shutter speed were you using for these?

 

[coreno]

Just out of curiosity, what shutter speed were you using for these?

Watermarked on the image itself if you zoom in, but for quick ref:
Nikon @300mm = 1/400
Sigma @300mm = 1/320
Sigma @600mm = 1/400

"Handheld", but leaned my elbows and shoulder on my windowsill, and had the lens's respective Image Stabilization on. I can take more test shots with higher shutter speeds, but I'm not sure that's my problem here, since I tend to get soft shots even with 1/1000+ with the Nikon.

 

[robbins.photo]

I have to be honest in saying that none of these shots look good as far as sharpness is concerned. Looks like all may have been oversharpened in post and the crops look like they are more than 100%. Might just be me, my glasses are in dire need of replacement but they do look "off". If these were shot through a window that might have some effect on the final results as well.

Part of the issue here might be what the camera is choosing to focus on - try changing your cameras AF system and setting it to use a single focus point. For shutter speed you want at a minimum the focal length of the lens, shut image stabilization off. If you can manage it without pushing the ISO too high, go to 2x the focal length of the lens for shutter speed.

If you can't manage to get at least the focal length of the lens in shutter speed without forcing your ISO too high, that's when you want to turn IS on - but other than that leave it off.

 

[KmH]

I know lenses tend to do worse at maximum reach and wide-open aperture,

The - tend to do worse at wide open aperture thing - applies to 'fast' lenses.
Stopping a f/1.8 down to f/3.5 gets that lens to where it's sharpest focus starts.
Fat lenses open wide enough they use more of the lens out towards the edge of the lens where it's harder to get all colors to focus to the same focal point.

Your 55-300's widest aperture is f/4.5 and is not a 'fast' lens.

 

[coreno]

I have to be honest in saying that none of these shots look good as far as sharpness is concerned. Looks like all may have been oversharpened in post and the crops look like they are more than 100%. Might just be me, my glasses are in dire need of replacement but they do look "off". If these were shot through a window that might have some effect on the final results as well.

Part of the issue here might be what the camera is choosing to focus on - try changing your cameras AF system and setting it to use a single focus point. For shutter speed you want at a minimum the focal length of the lens, shut image stabilization off. If you can manage it without pushing the ISO too high, go to 2x the focal length of the lens for shutter speed.

If you can't manage to get at least the focal length of the lens in shutter speed without forcing your ISO too high, that's when you want to turn IS on - but other than that leave it off.

The ISO is already pretty high in those shots, so maybe that's why you're seeing poor quality. I'll wait for the sun to come around and get a shot of the flowers in the sun. But it's more about relative softness to each other rather than the specific image quality of these shots.

I know lenses tend to do worse at maximum reach and wide-open aperture,

The - tend to do worse at wide open aperture thing - applies to 'fast' lenses.
Stopping a f/1.8 down to f/3.5 gets that lens to where it's sharpest focus starts.
Fat lenses open wide enough they use more of the lens out towards the edge of the lens where it's harder to get all colors to focus to the same focal point.

Your 55-300's widest aperture is f/4.5 and is not a 'fast' lens.

I get neither of these lenses are considered fast, but in lens reviews I've read, even for lenses not considered fast, they seem to perform better when stopped down a little bit.

But regardless, this is about the relative comparison between the lenses and the apparent large difference in overall quality. I'll try to get better comparison shots later since we seem to be getting off the rails rather early in this thread haha.

 

[robbins.photo]

The ISO is already pretty high in those shots, so maybe that's why you're seeing poor quality. I'll wait for the sun to come around and get a shot of the flowers in the sun. But it's more about relative softness to each other rather than the specific image quality of these shots.

Sharpness is based on a lot of factors other than just the lens itself, lighting being one of many among them. Hard to judge if a particular lens isn't "sharp" enough unless you account for the other variables.

The 55-300mm isn't usually regarded as a extremely sharp lens, it is a less expensive consumer grade lens that is designed more with cost in mind as opposed to final image quality. If your looking for something lighter in weight in that category that's sharper I'd recommend you look at a Tamron 70-300 mm VC 4.5/5.6. Depending on what you shoot a 70-200 mm F/2.8 might be a better investment, they are more expensive and heavier but much faster glass which can really give you a lot of benefits in certain shooting situations.

 

[coreno]

The ISO is already pretty high in those shots, so maybe that's why you're seeing poor quality. I'll wait for the sun to come around and get a shot of the flowers in the sun. But it's more about relative softness to each other rather than the specific image quality of these shots.

Sharpness is based on a lot of factors other than just the lens itself, lighting being one of many among them. Hard to judge if a particular lens isn't "sharp" enough unless you account for the other variables.

The 55-300mm isn't usually regarded as a extremely sharp lens, it is a less expensive consumer grade lens that is designed more with cost in mind as opposed to final image quality. If your looking for something lighter in weight in that category that's sharper I'd recommend you look at a Tamron 70-300 mm VC 4.5/5.6. Depending on what you shoot a 70-200 mm F/2.8 might be a better investment, they are more expensive and heavier but much faster glass which can really give you a lot of benefits in certain shooting situations.

Fair enough. So I guess I'm trying to find if my expectations are too high for the 55-300 or not, so maybe the better question is "am I expecting too much from this lens?".

 

[robbins.photo]

Fair enough. So I guess I'm trying to find if my expectations are too high for the 55-300 or not, so maybe the better question is "am I expecting too much from this lens?".

If it were me I'd setup a test - shoot in JPG mode, that way you know both images are being processed exactly the same way and sharpening is being applied to both. Shoot a stationary target in good lighting with an appropriate shutter speed using both the 55-300 and the 150-600 and compare the results.

Believe it or not my preferred target is actually a street sign of some sort, the block lettering makes for a great sharpness test. While the 55-300mm isn't considered a fantastic lens by most really only you can decide if its "sharp enough" to suit your needs.

Personally I use a 70-300mm Tamron VC, and I love the results. I've always found it to be very sharp even at 300 mm and the color rendition is fantastic.

This was shot at 300 mm with the Tamron 70-300 mm VC, F 8.0, 1/500 shutter speed, ISO 450 using a Nikon D600.

223 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

 

[goodguy]

Nikon D5500 is a great camera which can produce extremely sharp pictures, the lack of AA filter just makes it even sharper.
I never shot the Nikon 55-300mm, I always used the 70-300mm and when used correctly the 70-300mm can be very sharp, I assume the 55-300mm should be almost as sharp.
I have no doubt you can get much better results once you learn how to work better with your camera and lenses.
First I would lower the shutter speed, too fast for shooting a flower and thus lowering your ISO.
Using ISO as high as you shot 2500iso and 4000iso will mean drop in image quality.
So first get a tripod and shoot this picture again but this time slower shutter and lower ISO.
Set aperture between f5.6 to f8, don't go above it.
Also remember every lens has a minimum focusing distance, this means if you are too close to subject you shooting it will never be focused and will look soft.

So to sum it up, use a tripod, keep enough distance, keep aperture around the f8 and try to get ISO as close to 100 as you can. assuming the flower is not moving you should get tack sharp results.
To make it even more safe you can put camera on manual focus, put camera on live view and zoom into the screen with the + button, then focus manually the lens and you will get very good results.

 

[goodguy]

This was shot at 300 mm with the Tamron 70-300 mm VC, F 8.0, 1/500 shutter speed, ISO 450 using a Nikon D600.

223 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

Wow brother, this eagle shot is nice, almost like its modeling for you, love the teasing look on its face, nice work bro!

 

[robbins.photo]

This was shot at 300 mm with the Tamron 70-300 mm VC, F 8.0, 1/500 shutter speed, ISO 450 using a Nikon D600.

223 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

Wow brother, this eagle shot is nice, almost like its modeling for you, love the teasing look on its face, nice work bro!

Thanks GG. Really need to get a faster lens again, missing the 70-200 2.8, but have to admit the 70-300mm really does an outstanding job

 

[fmw]

The ISO is already pretty high in those shots, so maybe that's why you're seeing poor quality. I'll wait for the sun to come around and get a shot of the flowers in the sun. But it's more about relative softness to each other rather than the specific image quality of these shots.

Sharpness is based on a lot of factors other than just the lens itself, lighting being one of many among them. Hard to judge if a particular lens isn't "sharp" enough unless you account for the other variables.

The 55-300mm isn't usually regarded as a extremely sharp lens, it is a less expensive consumer grade lens that is designed more with cost in mind as opposed to final image quality. If your looking for something lighter in weight in that category that's sharper I'd recommend you look at a Tamron 70-300 mm VC 4.5/5.6. Depending on what you shoot a 70-200 mm F/2.8 might be a better investment, they are more expensive and heavier but much faster glass which can really give you a lot of benefits in certain shooting situations.

Fair enough. So I guess I'm trying to find if my expectations are too high for the 55-300 or not, so maybe the better question is "am I expecting too much from this lens?".

Hard to say but if you are testing lenses, you need to do it on a tripod. Hand holding the camera, particularly with long lenses, is too iffy to get results you can trust.

 

[jcdeboever]

I own both the Nikon 55-300mm and the Sigma 150-600mm C.
1. Both lens like a lot of light. With the 55-300, it can go soft a little after 2oomm so pay attention to your f-stop, f/8 - f11 seems to be the best after that range.
2. The Sigma sweet spot is f/8. with a minim focus distance of around 20 feet.
3. Not sure low light performance of your D5500 but I do not like anything over 1600 ISO on mine, that's me. Optimal sharpness with both lens is usually at f/8 100-400 ISO. You can get away with larger f-stops but I am talking nice real sharp.
4. I use OS-2 for panning and OS1 for normal handheld shooting on the Sigma.
5. If you have a USB doc for the sigma, you can calibrate it to your liking (takes a good part of the day) and also update to the latest firmware.

 

[Designer]

Hard to say but if you are testing lenses, you need to do it on a tripod. Hand holding the camera, particularly with long lenses, is too iffy to get results you can trust.

I agree with Fred on his suggestion of using a tripod. Also, if you are doing a lens comparison, you should make all settings the same or as close to being the same in each lens as you can. Meaning the same focal length, same aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and of course, the same subject in the same light.