Nikon 55~200 AFS

[fmw]

The Nikon AF-S 55-200 mm lens is a consumer grade lens ($350).
It is not designed like, nor is made using the better glass, as Nikon's professional grade lenses.
Which is why Nikon's AF-S 70-200 mm lens is $2100.

I agree that you are using to small a lens aperture and at anything smaller than f/11, like f/22, you are losing focus sharpness because of diffraction.

You need a much better understanding of how to control depth-of-field - DoF:
Understanding Depth of Field in Photography

Lens focal length, point of focus distance, and lens aperture all have to be managed to control DoF.

Lastly. If you are using a tripod VR needs to be turned off.
Nikon VR explained

I shoot all of my tabletop product images at f22. I use f18 occasionally to deal with subjects that are dark and not reflective. My images are and have always been tack sharp. Diffraction is one of those rare phenomena that exist in theory and rarely affect normal photography in practice. Shooting at f22 allows me to insure that everything is sharp front to back without thinking about it or worrying about it. Even f32 doesn't cause me problems with diffraction. I hand hold the camera and allow the strobes to handle the exposure time which is normally 1/several thousandths of a second. I use a 60mm macro lens on a DX camera body and auto focus. In rare cases I use a wide angle zoom when the subject requires it.

If nothing is sharp in your images, then there is an equipment problem because you should get at least one plane in focus if you use your auto focus. Since you use a tripod, the problem is not likely to be motion blur. I tend to think that the issue is depth of field. That means that the plane of focus is sharp but portions of the image further from or nearer than the plane of focus are soft. You fix that by stopping down, using a shorter lens or increasing the distance from the lens to the subject. Your issue may be as simple as focusing a little deeper into the subject. Hard for me to guess without watching what you do.

I don't know which lens you are using but, if it is long zoom, I would consider investing in a macro lens.

Good for you.

As noted in the link regarding diffraction provided in a post before mine, how much diffraction a lens aperture/camera image sensor (pixel size) combination used varies the amount of diffraction.

No doubt. But after half a century of photography using every format from 4X5 on down and using apertures from f64 on down I have never encountered diffraction as a problem. I don't doubt that I could set up an experiment to point it out but, for the most part, it can be ignored.

 

[Quovadis]

Maybe something like this?
NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4 from Nikon.

No,
bags look more natural at 6~9 feet away. You can't shoot with a 35mm I need a macro

 

[Designer]

Focusing with AFS is difficult on bags, sometimes they are all black. Oh you are possibly thinking that my eyes are not finding the correct focus through the viewfinder? Or what i see as being in focus is not reality?

If your camera cannot focus due to low light or no edge, place a focus target where the focus area is showing in the viewfinder, lock focus, remove the target, and finish the exposure.

If you run some simple tests on the lens to verify that it is focusing correctly, that will eliminate one of the variables. Don't use the handbags as your test subject.

 

[Quovadis]

Here is a pic i just shot, and as you will see at 100% magnification it's not sharp. ISO 100 f/13 1/3s 55-200@92mm.
Actually this is one of the better focused shots at F13. To get it tack sharp I have to apply a few unsharp masks.

First off, you're not putting enough light on the bag. Use more light.

Also some parts (the parts that are in focus) look in focus to me. Look at the grain and stitching lower right corner.

Also; your shutter speed at 1/3 second might not be optimum. Go faster.

Bit of a problem to use more light, I have two box lights with 100 watt bulbs,

 

[Designer]

You can't shoot with a 35mm I need a macro

Yet another confusing statement. What do you mean "I need a macro"?

If your camera is 6 to 9 feet from your subject, why do you think you need a macro?

 

[Designer]

Bit of a problem to use more light, I have two box lights with 100 watt bulbs,

Well, no offense, but there's a huge part of your problem right there. Get a couple of strobes. Cheap ones will do quite nicely.

 

[Quovadis]

because

You can't shoot with a 35mm I need a macro

Yet another confusing statement. What do you mean "I need a macro"?

If your camera is 6 to 9 feet from your subject, why do you think you need a macro?

because with the 18-55mm if I am 9 feet away the bag looks really small, let me try and take a pic

 

[jcdeboever]

For something like that bag, I would use a prime or macro lens. With that 55-200, you need a ton of light. Maybe a macro lens too because I used one 60mm for copy work on a stamp collection and the detail was stunning. A 60mm micro af-d is only $300 or or less, ,250 for bargain grade. It was the sharpest lens I have ever used on my D3300.

 

[Quovadis]

Focusing with AFS is difficult on bags, sometimes they are all black. Oh you are possibly thinking that my eyes are not finding the correct focus through the viewfinder? Or what i see as being in focus is not reality?

If your camera cannot focus due to low light or no edge, place a focus target where the focus area is showing in the viewfinder, lock focus, remove the target, and finish the exposure.

If you run some simple tests on the lens to verify that it is focusing correctly, that will eliminate one of the variables. Don't use the handbags as your test subject.

Thats why I have that friskies thing...so I can focus, then remove it to take the shot

 

[Quovadis]

Bit of a problem to use more light, I have two box lights with 100 watt bulbs,

Well, no offense, but there's a huge part of your problem right there. Get a couple of strobes. Cheap ones will do quite nicely.

Thanks for the tip, First intelligent answer

 

[Quovadis]

For something like that bag, I would use a prime or macro lens. With that 55-200, you need a ton of light. Maybe a macro lens too because I used one 60mm for copy work on a stamp collection and the detail was stunning. A 60mm micro af-d is only $300 or or less, ,250 for bargain grade. It was the sharpest lens I have ever used on my D3300.

How about the Tokina 100mm ?? Or AFD you say? Which one?

 

[Quovadis]

This is what the bag looks like at 55mm at 9 feet away. It's so small i can hardly see it

 

[SCraig]

This is what the bag looks like at 55mm at 9 feet away. It's so small i can hardly see it

Then, as said, why do you need a macro lens? Macro lenses are for focusing at distances of about a foot or less at a ratio of 1:1 (subject: sensor). If you wanted to take a photo of the stitching from 2" away I could see needing a macro lens but the whole bag at 9' makes no sense.

 

[Quovadis]

This is what the bag looks like at 55mm at 9 feet away. It's so small i can hardly see it

Then, as said, why do you need a macro lens? Macro lenses are for focusing at distances of about a foot or less at a ratio of 1:1 (subject: sensor). If you wanted to take a photo of the stitching from 2" away I could see needing a macro lens but the whole bag at 9' makes no sense.

The 55-200 i am using now is a macro? Maybe i'm confused? What do you call it?

 

[Designer]

First intelligent answer

No, actually, there were many others.

Sometimes it seems as if we're on the wrong track, but we're trying to gather enough information to correctly analyze the problem.

To reiterate;

Use more light
Use a faster shutter
Figure the DOF (and don't use only the back half of it)
Let the camera focus