I Need Clarity...

[TJ K]

Are you sure you want a zoom? The Nikon 85 1.8 is an awesome lens. The 85 1.4 is ridiculously amazing but pretty expensive and going by the lens you want i'm guessing your range is around 500-600 dollars. Also because it's a prime it is much sharper because the optics are made specifically for 85mm not an entire zoom range. GL!

TJ

 

[eric-holmes]

I have considered primes, but I fear I will really miss the zoom length.

 

[Christie Photo]

I have considered primes, but I fear I will really miss the zoom length.

But....

While a fixed focal length (FFL) lens of a given focal length is less versatile than a zoom whose range includes that focal length, it is often of superior optical quality, lighter weight, smaller bulk and lower cost. In comparison with a zoom lens, a FFL lens has fewer moving parts and optimization for one particular focal length. With a less complicated lens formula they suffer from fewer problems related to chromatic aberration.

Because their optics are simpler, FFL lenses usually have a larger maximum aperture (smaller f-number) than zoom lenses.

Just some food for thought.

-Pete

 

[Early]

I have considered primes, but I fear I will really miss the zoom length.

Before I'd invest in anything, I'd take camera shake out of the equation. I'm notorious for it, and those pics on your web site are similar to mine.

 

[pgriz]

...and I think my lens is holding me back. But first let me ask, how much does PP actually contribute to the clarity of the final image? It seems like my images never come out the way I want them to and I am not sure whether to blame the lens or my lack of post-processing. I shoot with a D90 and I feel confident in that camera. I have began to look more seriously at some faster glass, probably a 2.8 zoom in a Sigma brand. I have been torn between a wide telephoto (24-70ish) or a zoom telephoto (70-300ish). Now with my D90, it has an internal focusing motor. I know I can save a lot of money by buying a lens without an internal focus motor. But how well do those really focus. I've never used a lens without an internal focus motor.

With modern cameras, there are lots of features to help the photographer, but if they don’t work (well), then you’re fighting the camera and the lens.
When it comes to sharpness, it helps to eliminate as many variables as possible. So start with your camera on a sturdy tripod, focused on a detailed target in the middle distance (say 10 ft. away), with plenty of light. Select the focal length you use most often. Use manual focusing (magnified live-view is really good for this), with your lens set at f/8 or f/11, the autofocus off, the VR or IS off, and with the mirror locked up. Ideally you should also trigger the shutter remotely, so as to eliminate any possible camera shake issue. Now, this image will probably be the sharpest you can get out of your kit.

A word regarding the target- it should be as contrasty as possible, but with a combination of lines and letters that are of different sizes. Ideally, some would be easily resolved, and the finest detail will be blurred/unresolved.

Next, open the lens to wide open (whatever your wide-open is), refocus manually on exactly the same point, and shoot again. Ideally, the point of focus will remain sharp, but foreground and backgrounds will be blurred, due to the depth-of-field.

Next, without changing the position of your camera, let the camera autofocus on the same point, and examine the resulting image. If the focusing point is no longer as sharp, then you may have front-focusing or back-focusing issues with your autofocus. This can usually be fixed by sending the camera to the manufacturer’s service center for adjustment.

Assuming that the last test was good, take your camera off the tripod, set it to a high speed (say, 1/1000 sec), and from exactly the same position as before, shoot the target handheld. Next, reduce the shutter speed by 1 stop (to 1/500 sec, and increase your f/stop by one to compensate) and shoot again. The target point should continue to be sharp. Continue doing this down to say, ½ sec. As you examine this sequence, you will find a shutter speed at which hand-held blur becomes an issue. You can repeat this test with your widest focal setting, and your longest focal setting. Now you know your minimum handheld shutter speed at each focal length.

To determine whether the VR or IS functions are helping you, turn them off and go through the same sequence again. If the VR/IS function is helping you, then the speed at which you will get blur should be several stops slower than without that function.

Next, you want to know if a different lens will be better. So take your target to a store, ask to try out a lens (as suggested in an earlier post), and shoot it at the 10-ft. distance, using a speed above your blur speed (which you’ve learned two paragraphs ago). Shoot it wide open, and at the middle of the f/stop range. Ask for your lens back, and do the same test (because you want the light conditions to be consistent). Compare the two series by magnifiying the images. If the new lens now shows you more detail (ie, resolves stuff you were previously not able to resolve), then you can make the decision whether the additional resolution is worth the money. If you didn’t get a easily seen improvement, then you may not need to upgrade. But at least, you will know.

 

[eric-holmes]

If I was to get a prime, I would want to look at the Sigma 105mm 2.8 micro or the Nikon 85mm 1.8. If I were looking at zoom at would be looking at the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 HSM or the Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM.

 

[Vinny]

I have the same kit lens and I don't seem to have a problem with sharpness. Are you sure you're using the correct aperture for what you're trying to capture?

Here's one where I used a too large an aperture for the area I was trying to capture but it's relatively sharp IMO.

And here's another and it seems sharp to me.

 

[eric-holmes]

The leaf picture looks pretty sharp but I don't think the picture of that tree looks very sharp at all. And I have taken sharp picture with the lens but it is mostly hit or miss.

 

[pgriz]

The leaf picture looks pretty sharp but I don't think the picture of that tree looks very sharp at all. And I have taken sharp picture with the lens but it is mostly hit or miss.

Okaaay... You write in asking for the forum's advice because you are not happy with the sharpness you're getting, and a number of posters tell you that they have had similar issues and found that they had to improve their technique... I gave you a step-by-step process of figuring out where the problem is and how to decide IF buying a new lens will help solve the problem... your response seems to be basically that you are still looking at buying one of the two lenses.

Vinny shares two images with you, telling you that his aperture was too wide (in the first shot), but to him still acceptable sharpness, and you tell him that no, it doesn't look "very sharp at all".

So it looks to me that you are really hoping to find an excuse to buy another lens, rather than try and figure out why you're getting "hit and miss" results. It is clear that the kit lens will not be as sharp as the more expensive glass (and I don't think anyone is arguing the point), but the usual reason things don't work is "operator error". Buying new glass won't change that.

I've had a look at some of the other pictures you posted, and noted that in one of them you have said you didn't have a tripod. In that picture, your wife was slightly soft, but then you WERE using a 1/8sec exposure. In other pictures, as in the one you posted of the seats in the ball-park, the near focus appeared to be good. However I also noticed that in one shot of your wife her skirt appeared to be in sharper detail than her face/body, and several posters commented on the lack of sharpness. You obviously do have an eye for photography (and an attractive wife), but you may need to work on your basic technique.

So my advice to you is... get yourself a good tripod and head, use it to steady the camera, use live-view (with magnification) to focus your shots with the existing lens, and see what results you get. If, after those tests you still get unacceptable sharpness issues, then by all means invest in new glass. But if the contributing factor is your technique, then you won't be much further ahead.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Here is one i took with 24-70mm f/2.8 sigma. Sharp or not?

 

[Vinny]

The first photo was taken when I first got the camera and was experimenting with it. Funny thing is that this photo looks less sharp on the web than it does on my screen in it's original file - and all I did was transfer the file.

I do know lenses have their limitations at certain apertures and focal lengths - are you shooting at these limitations?

No doubt a prime lens will be sharper but if you're experiencing intermittant problems then you may want to look elsewhere. It has been mentioned here that the new AF lenses don't lend themselves too good on manual focusing, that may be the problem. I am trying to get used to not having the split prism/microprism in the viewfinder and I have times where I didn't get the focus 100% correct; I've been thinking about possibly getting split prism but I've read mixed reviews. One of the techniques they used to say to use is zoom in on your subject and focus then zoom back for a sharper focus. Nikon recommends using the live view to get the focus sharp - that is a PITA.

You may want to review where you had sharp and unsharp photos and see if anything points to a certain setting that is giving great or poor results.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Also, on LR3 it will sharpen the photo automatically for web view. So it will automatically resize it for faster web viewing (or you can put high res. if you wish) and sharpen it (or not).