Tack Sharp Help With AF VR-Nikkor 80-400mm 4.5-5.6D

[One Sister]

This question may belong in the Beginners Forum...don't know...but I'm trying it here:

I have owned this lens for a few months, but it has not received much use because I guess I don't know how to use it. I have yet to make a tack sharp capture.

Please review the images below. Right out of a D200. The only pp I did was reduce the image size and save as jpg. I know they are not cropped or composed well, I was just concentrating on getting a tack sharp image and obviously I failed...again. Where is the sweet spot on this lens? Has anyone else ever owned/used one? Is it the lens or me or some combination thereof? I've already tried to use this lens a or near 400mm with horrible results.

The first three images of a Mocking Bird about 8-10 feet from me and quietly posing. I know it is not cropped or composed well...I just shot it quickly. I would think these images should have been sharp.
EXIF:
1/125, f/5.6, 2/3 EV, ISO 250, 340mm
#1

#2

#3

The next image is of a dog about 6 or 7 feet from me. I had to shoot it quickly before she moved (She's a Katrina rescue and we don't know what happened to her before we got her, but she hates cameras. As soon as she hears a shutter she runs. Perhaps she was originally owned by a veeerrrry mean photographer) so it is not cropped or composed well either. Hmmm, I'm sensing a trend here.) I post it because it's acceptably sharp. By that I mean pp will make it sharp. Is it sharper than the Mocking Bird because of the shutter speed? I really expected more noise with the ISO 400. Is this normal? If I shot the bird at ISO 400 or higher would the faster shutter speed have yielded a better image? (I was shooting in Aperture Priority mode.)
EXIF:
1/1500, f/7.1, 0 EV, ISO 400, 230mm
#4

 

[JimmyO]

Its the shutter speed. Its a general rule of thumb that your shutter speed should be faster than the length of your lens. So when shooting at 400mm you should be using a 1/400th shutter speed or faster.

 

[Socrates]

Its the shutter speed. Its a general rule of thumb that your shutter speed should be faster than the length of your lens. So when shooting at 400mm you should be using a 1/400th shutter speed or faster.

Actually, even faster. The guideline came about with the 24X36 frame. Figure 50% faster with DX-sized sensors.

 

[Mav]

It's VR so the rule doesn't apply.

 

[Socrates]

It's VR so the rule doesn't apply.

Oops...
Missed that.

Now I'm thinking perhaps that the DoF was too shallow. Perhaps a lower shutter speed (or higher ISO) with a smaller aperture would help?

 

[One Sister]

Thanks for the advice but, at least for me today, I'm not getting much better results. The next two images of a Mocking Bird have so much noise I can hardly tell if it's sharp or not. Disappointingly, it was pretty bright and I still needed to bump the ISO to 1000 to get a faster shutter speed. No pp. This is what they look like horribly cropped and composed. Please make note that they still are not tack sharp.

Oh, and there wasn't any breeze, but that shouldn't matter at 1/1250!

EXIF:
1/1250, f/5.6, 1 EV, ISO 1000, 330mm

#5

#6

Have any of you ever used this lens? I'm wondering if there's a setting on the lens that I haven't set right. Could there be? I really expected much more from this lens. Unrealistic expectations or still user error?? Any more assistance would be much appreciated.

 

[One Sister]

Really? No one has had experience with this lens?

 

[goodoneian]

personally i think those last two look pretty good haha, and i don't really see that much noise. sure i have seen sharper pictures, but it still looks pretty good to me

 

[One Sister]

^^^Well, they are quite noisy and definitely not tack sharp, and if this is the best this lens can perform then I am quite unhappy with it. I'm hoping someone who owns/uses the lens can assist me or commiserate with me.

 

[Mav]

What happens if you stop down to f/8 or even f/11? Looks like all of these are shot wide-open. I've never used this lens so I can't tell from first hand experience, but I know from the Nikon specific forums that a lot of people do seem to have difficulty getting satisfactory results with this lens, and that the older VR system might only give you 1 stop at best at the long end. So you wouldn't be alone in having difficulty getting sharp shots with this lens - apparently it's one of the trickier ones to use well.

For the best results out at 400, a lot end up going with a 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x TC, or getting a super-telephoto (ie 300/2.8, 400, etc)

 

[One Sister]

What happens if you stop down to f/8 or even f/11? Looks like all of these are shot wide-open.

Thanks for trying, Mav. I tried a few shots at f/8, which is where the lens supposedly functions best, but the shutter speed was too slow to produce a sharp image of a slightly swaying bird. And certainly the ISO up to 1000 was a complete failure. The noise is disturbing. It seems to be a lens that can only be used in bright conditions. I can't see how there could be any low light successes here.

What's confusing me about this lens is that I've seen some images that others have taken and they look very good compared to mine. I must be doing something wrong.

I need to keep experimenting, but if anyone has any suggestions I'm open!

 

[Mav]

Ok, then back to basics. Forget about birds for a moment.

Have you done a focusing check? Can you confirm that the lens isn't front or back focusing? You'll need a good tripod to test this, and switch VR OFF. At 300-400mm and the short distances you're working at you'll have very little depth of field, so accurate focus is critical. Also from a tripod, shoot a static subject at f/8 to f/11 at low ISO (and with VR OFF), how does it look? Any better? Also, are you adding any sharpening in post-processing? Sounds like not. What are the shaprening settings at on your D200? A lot of other people posting images online also add sharpening somewhere along the way but don't always mention it. I'm not familiar enough with this lens to really judge, but they do look reasonably sharp to me. If you have DxO software, they have a calibrated D200/80-400VR module that will auto-sharpen the image. Take one of these test shots that absolutely should be as sharp as it'll get and run it through DxO (even a demo version is fine). If it still looks soft, it could just be a soft copy of the lens. I know I have a hot copy of one of my other lenses, because the module actually over-sharpens in a particular range and I have to turn their sharpening down a notch to prevent it going overboard. Can do the same test with a lens you think might be a bit soft. And also (operator check :mrgreen: ) you usually need to wait a second or two for the VR system to stabilize before firing. You're doing that, right?

Is this a new or used lens? If used, where'd you get it from?


Focus test chart: http://www.focustestchart.com/chart.html <-- I use that and it was good enough handheld with short lenses, but you'll definitely need a tripod to test out a 300-400mm and closer distances. If you don't have a printer handy (I don't even have one at home anymore, lol) staggered cereal boxes with sharpied X's on them for test targets along with the text on the side of boxes to check the focus seems to work pretty well too. That was good enough to show that I had a badly mis-focusing 35-70 f/2.8 once (that was also lousy wide open) so I sent it back.

 

[One Sister]

Wow, Mav, thanks for sticking with me here. No, I've never done a focusing check, but I will try that today as I'm off to do some shooting in the city. One of the places we were going to go was the park...lots of birds. I'll do the focus check first with an inanimate object first. I had intended to do some more extensive testing.

I'm not familiar with DxO or any sharpening software, and I have not added any sharpening settings in the D200. Yesterday's shots were out of the camera with no pp at all, but "waiting for the VR system to stabilize"...hmmm, it feels like it's all done, but I don't know if I've waited long enough. I use the Auto Focus feature. I'm going to test some manually focused objects today as well.

I've been reading a lot about this lens and some people do have a hard time with it, but I'm not ready to give up here. I was hoping to meet someone who could hand hold me through the meet your lens process, but if someone else can get the lens to do what was promised then I think I can too, I just need to explore the strengths and weaknesses of it. I hope the weaknesses do not outweigh the strengths.

I'll post the results of my shoot tonight or tomorrow and thanks again.

 

[passerby]

I've been reading a lot about this lens and some people do have a hard time with it, but I'm not ready to give up here.

The dog picture is sharp, but she was under direct sunlight while the bird was not. Really I don't know the definition of sharp that is used by many different people. On the last 2 shots the wooden fence where the bird was standing is sharp but it is not close enough. But is the real wooden fence you shot look like exactly like in the picture or not?

How about do some test with stationary objects, eg table, chairs etc?

 

[One Sister]

The dog picture is sharp, but she was under direct sunlight while the bird was not. Really I don't know the definition of sharp that is used by many different people. On the last 2 shots the wooden fence where the bird was standing is sharp but it is not close enough. But is the real wooden fence you shot look like exactly like in the picture or not?

How about do some test with stationary objects, eg table, chairs etc?

You're right that "sharp" is subjective but every editor knows what tack sharp is and none of my images thus far are tack sharp out of the camera and most of them couldn't be pp'd into tack sharp either.

My plans changed and I did not shoot in the park but decided to dedicate the day to figuring out this lens. I have been more successful with sharper images, but now the noise level is so high and I don't know how to pp that noise out. PS's noise filter doesn't seem to do it adequately, so that's my first question today: How do I work on the noise?

I did some tests. All the following images were shot at 400mm with a crazy but necessary ISO of 1250. Also, I changed my camera settings to High ISO NR and in the Optimize Image menu I changed from Normal to More Vivid. Please remember that none have been pp'd in any way except image reduction.

This was my first test, stationary object:
EXIF: 1/1250, f/7.1, 0 EV
#1

This shot let me know that I was on the right track.

The next group of 4 were shot at f/7.1, 0 EV

#2
Low contrast example
1/320

#3
Low contrast example
1/320

#4
Higher contrast example. This is where I began to think that this lens will only work in high contrast situations.
1/250

Although there is some color contrast this is a low light situation.
#5
1/400

The next 4 were shot at f/8, 1/3 EV

#6
1/125

#7
Low contrast, but decent sharpness.
1/1250

#8
Low contrast, but decent sharpness.
1/2000

#9
1/500

#10
This image was shot at ISO 800 and 1/320 for an ISO comparison.

I am fairly satisfied with the raw images EXCEPT for the noise. However, I've seen some wonderful images created by a photographer and this lens...mine certainly aren't there yet. I posted these images because I thought someone be able to look and tell me what I'm doing wrong and what am I doing right. I know I haven't gotten it yet, but I'm getting closer. What about all the noise that the ISO 1250 causes. I was advised to use it and worry about noise later...okay it's later.