300mm test shots (Is this what I should expect?)

[ToddnTN]

Could you please look at these 4 test shots I took with my "new to me" lens and let me know if you think it is a keeper or not.
It is difficult to know what to expect when you are a newb.

Test Shots

The lens is a Nikon 300mm AF IF ED f/4.

Thanks for the help

 

[Braineack]

look better than what I get out of my 55-300 4-5.6, expectantly.

 

[Derrel]

Looks like marginal "shots taken after work in the shade" type lighting conditions. Slightly blueish white balance, and shutter speeds just on the verge of sharpness, limited depth of field too. Not sure what camera, but this looks more or less like what one gets in that kind of dull, low-contrast lighting. The subjects all have shallow depth of field on three-dimensional scenes, with all corners basically out of focus, so it's hard to tell if there are any optical decentering issues or problems with any corners or anything like that. These also look like no unsharp masking has been applied, so the results would, I would say look about what would be expected from a few quickie test shots.

The last shot, the hammock??? or whatever shows the typical uncorrected longitudinal chromatic aberration of many longer focal length lenses, esp. when shot wide-open. See on the chain links how the FOREGROUND chain links have an OOF purple-ish fringing around them, and the ones IN-focus have no fringing, and then the rear depth of field defocus zone chain links have the green fringing around their edges??? This is pretty normal.

A 300mm lens used on these types of subjects at wider f/stops has very little that is actually in TOTAL focus at these kinds of distances, so on "3-D" scenes (ie, NOT flat walls, or building fronts, etc) pictures of this type often will look "not all that sharp" except on EXACTLY what is focused upon. To somebody used to shooting with shorter lenses, the shallow DOF of a 300 shot at this close range can look a bit "soft", simply due to the very shallow depth of field band.

 

[ToddnTN]

Thanks Derrell. The lighting situation was exactly as you described it. Your explainations are very helpful.
Do you have any suggestions on what I should try to take some test shots of to better see the performance of the lens. I still have 30ish days to return it if I don't like it.
It is fairly well used and a little beat up, but for the price I paid, if it takes good pictures I will be happy with it.

 

[Derrel]

For test subjects, try and shoot some things that are flat, and the same distance from the camera. Stuff like a neighborhood fence for example, or the side of a brick building. Make sure the camera is well "squared up" with the fence or building. For example, don't shoot "upwards" at say, the fourth floor of a brick building...you want the camera back "squared up" with the subject. Wooden board fences are easy. Make sure the lighting is good, and the shutter speed is fast enough to freeze movement, or use a tripod. What you're looking for is good optical performance in all four corners of the picture. At f/4 the center of the image will be the sharpest, and the corners might be a little bit less-crisp; that's fairly normal. What you do NOT want to see is one side, or one corner, all wonky and out of focus.If the lens has a UV filter or other filter on it, remove that before testing. A 300mm prime lens can reveal subject movement or camera shake pretty clearly, so it's good to have a tripod at slower speeds. It's also nice to shoot some images at FAST speeds, like 1/640 or 1/800 or 1/1000 second in good, bright light, to see just exactly how crisp and amazing a 300mm lens can render things. With its length and magnification of things, a 300mm lens can look "soft" if the shutter speeds are marginal. For example, 1/320 second....NOT fast enough many times...if you look very closely, you can see that at 1/320 second, people, leaves, trees, etc. can have a tiny amount of blurring at 1/320, even 1/400 second.

 

[ToddnTN]

Ok, Derrel, and anyone else who wants to look and comment. I uploaded more test shots of a brick wall. Please let me know what you think as far as lens performance goes.
BTW, the camera is a Nikon D7100.

Test shots

Thanks

 

[Derrel]

I think the entire right side looks a bit "off" on the new brick wall stuff...

 

[bryan_h]

Thank you ToddnTN for posting these, and Derrel for your commentary. If this was me I don't know that I would have noticed the chromatic aberrations or the softness on the right side of the images. Since it was pointed out I do see the right side of the brick walls being "off." Seeing posts like this certainly helps me to know what to look for. Thanks again to you both!